/ / GIFT OF Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.0rg/details/architectureasbrOOsnidric.h THE NEW SYSTEM OF THOUGHT. Which Dr. Snider has been engaged upon for some years, embraces the following works: I. THE PSYCHOLOGY. 1. Intellect — Psychology and Psychosis . . $1.50 2. The Will and its Wobld $1.50 3. Feeling, with Prolegomena (to appear Au- tumn, 1905) , $1.50 II. HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. 1. Ancient European Philosophy $1.50 2. MODERN European Philosophy $1.50 III. INSTITUTIONS. 1. Social Institutions $1.50 2. The State $1.50 IV. >ESTHETIC. 1. Architecture $1.50 2. Music (in preparation) $1.50 8. World's Fair Studies (Chicago and St. Louis) $1.50 The plan has also in view a psychological treatment of History and of Nature. ARCHITECTURE As a Branch of Aesthetic Psychologically Treated BY DENTON J. SNIDER li ST. LOUIS, MO. SIGMA PUBLISHING CO 210 PINE ST. 2 L> Copyright by D. J. SNIDER, 1905. !/f- ^Y iLu., iXj*/^ NIXON-JONES PTG. CO., 215 PINE ST., ST. LOUIS. Table of Contents. PAGE. Introduction. The High Building . 5 Architecture. Types . 34 Chapter First. — The Oriental Type. Egypt 44 I. The Pyramid . 60 II. The Column . 98 III. The Temple . 120 Chapter Second. — The European Type 142 Sec. First. — The Classic Style . 153 I. The Hellenic Period . . . 160 A. The Hellenic Norm . . . . 185 (I.) Peristyle . 191 (II.) Cella .... . 207 (III.) Entablature . . . . 214 B. The Hellenic Orders . . 222 (I.) The Doric . . . . . 231 (II.) The Ionic . . . . . 235 (III.) The Corinthian . . 240 C. The Hellenic City — Athene J . 248 ( 3) CONTENTS. II. The Hellenistic Period . . 1. The Oriental Movement 2. The Italic Movement . 3. End of Period . . . . 274 . 288 . 290 . 303 III. The KoMAN Imperial Period . . 304 1. The Centripetal Movement . 379 2. The Centrifugal Movement . 382 3. End OF THE Classic World . 386 Sec. Second. — The Romanic Style . . 392 1. The Early Romanic Period . 416 2 . The East Romanic ( Byzantine ) Period . 430 3. The West Romanic (Roman- esque) Period 464 Sec Third. — The Renascence . . . 515 1. First Period . . . . . . 535 2. Rococo 536 3. The Nineteenth Century . . 539 Chapter Third. — The Occidental Type 51 Hrcbitecture* INTKOPUCTION. The High Building. At the beginning of Architecture stands a high building — the Pyramid; at the end of Architecture in our own day has risen another high building, which we may designate for the present simply as the High Building. The archi- tectural movement of the ages lies between these two high buildings, the Oriental and the Occi- dental, or more specially the Egyptian and the American. The latter arose through a new con- structive principle brought to light toward the end of the Nineteenth Century. The edifice built of ordinary material reached its limit pre- viously somewhere about one hundred feet above the ground ; at once we see it shooting up to four hundi'ed feet and more in height. Formerly eight (5) 6 ARCHITECTUBE — INTROD UCTION, or nine storys were enough; now we hear of thirty, doubtless with more to come. Very remarkable is this almost instantaneous upspring in Architecture ; we are led to query, Is there anything to correspond with it in the man of to-day , in history, in the present age? Whatever meaning, good or bad, may be ascribed to the American High Building, it rouses on the spot the impression that the Architecture of the world has at last gotten to its feet after lying prostrate thousands of years, and proposes to stand erect hereafter in its supremacy over all former edifices. The general character of the Architecture of the Nineteenth Century makes us feel that it is seeking something which it has never found. It goes back to the past and reproduces every im- portant style of building, and still is not happy. Classic revivals, Gothic imitations, Romanesque rehabilitations we have had in abundance, show- ing both study and skill ; but what ought to be is not, somehow. We are not quite satisfied with a railroad station patterned after an ecclesiastical edifice, and we confess a certain incongruity when we enter a banking institution doing busi- ness in a Greek temple, and a still deeper dis- sonance is felt when we see a beer-house with its clinking glasses in a Gothic cathedral. The demand for Architecture has been enormous dur- ing the Century, but the outcome has been .^^%^' \ /''■■ ^ THE HIGH BUILDING, 7 largely a vast number of learned and often very successful studies in the History of the Art. Thus the time has been one of imitation with many new turns and appliances, as well as skill- ful combinations of forms. But this we can hardly call creative Architecture, the construc- tive Art which makes itself in its way the adequate expression of an epoch. Still we have to grant that just this repro- duction of past architectural forms has its side of agreement with the total movement of the Cen- tury, whose spirit has been historical, evolution- ary, going back to its origin and investigating its antecedent stages. Darwinism is the typical fact of the period, digging up and bringing to light all the shapes through which man has passed in his Evolution. In a similar manner Architecture during the Nineteenth Century has returned to its beginnings and studied all the styles and forms through which it has unfolded into the present. But it has been limited in the main to reproducing these styles and forms with certain variations, being impotent to generate a new style in spite of certain well-meant efforts, like that of King Maximilian of Bavaria in his new street at Munich. Thus Architecture would seem to have had its creative day and to belong really in its deepest power to the past, being classified in this respect as an historic Art, along with Sculpture and / i^ 8 AMCHITECTUBE — INTBODUCTIOm Painting. It has produced no great original / master during the Nineteenth Century, as we see in other departments of Art and Science ; there is no Architect corresponding to Goethe in poetry, to Beethoven in music, to Hegel in phi- losophy, to Darwin in science. Thousands upon thousands of costly, spacious structures has the Century built, but no epoch-making edifice like the Parthenon, like St. Peter's, or yet like the Great Pyramid — constructions which concen- trate in themselves the originative architectonic soul of entire peoples for ages. This would be a sorry record, were it not for the fact which must now be mentioned. Toward the close of the Centurj^^the modern High Build- ing, usually called the American after the place • of its origin, began to raise itself from the Earth, in which act we may conceive Architecture her- self leaping up from her previous outstretched condition. Out of this new appearance came a fresh creative breath which at once swept through and began to rejuvenate the whole Art. Here indeed is something hitherto unknown; no such construction was ever before possible . Not sim- ply another style is this, not merely another variation of the old tune ; far deeper is the sig- nificance of the phenomenon, since a new prin- ciple of building has come to light, along with new materials and new constructive methods. Distinctly does the American High Building pro- THE Hian BUILDING, 9 claim itself to be not European, not Oriental, though it is evolved out of both and shows affin- ities to both as its ancestors. It is Occidental, representing a new world not merely of Space but of Spirit, not only of men but also of insti- tutions, being not simply a new Style of Archi- tecture but a new Type of the Art. This is not saying that all people or even a majority are enraptured with the High Building. The connoisseurs of Art are in the main against it, the architects as a body have not been friendly to it, the very builders of these structures seem unable to defend their work in any adequate manner. Still such buildings continue to in- crease in number and have been also growing in height. From their two starting-points, Chicago and New York, they are rapidly passing to all the lesser American cities. They are crossing the Atlantic back to Europe, through a tempest of scorn and protest; they have gone forward over the Pacific to the most enterprismg nation of the Orient, Japan. The High Building begins already to span the globe, and gives a promise of becoming the universal Building, the world- edifice. All other Architectures have been epochal or national, limited in time and in place; Egyptian, Greek, Eoman, Gothic they are named even when they overflowed into other peoples besides their originators. The High Building is to-day the architectural loadstone of the globe, 10 ABGHITEGTUBE — INTBODUGTION. attracting architects from abroad to study its principles and their significance. It is the only object of Art that draws students and observers to America from Europe. In all the rest of the Fine Arts the stream is the other way, running to the East, not to the West. What is it that gives to this edifice such a power of overriding all opposition, even the strongest? Some secret energy it possesses which laughs at criticism, even that of the prof ession ; something it has within it mightier than any antecedent form of Architecture or possibly mightier than all of these forms put together. The Spirit of the Age has taken up its abode in the High Building and renders it impregnable against any attack. The critic is indeed weak compared with such an antagonist ; the whole army of opponents cannot possibly prevail over a power of that kind. So the High Building goes its own triumphant way through the very hisses of the multitude of its foes. The majority may and do vote against it, still it has that mighty hand with it which puts down the majority till they learn its sig- nificance and are whipped into voting aright. Hence the first and fundamental task of a thinker on Architecture to-day is to interrogate the High Building and to make it tell if possible the secret of its being — tell why it has risen up before us so mightily and so surprisingly just now and not hitherto, just here and not elsewhere, with such THE HIGH BUILDING. 11 a triumphant, gigantic defiance of the well- established and long-transmitted canons of Art. I. The basic fact of the High Building is that it has a skeleton within itself which supports the outer enclosing members of the architectural body. This skeleton is usually made of steel, sometimes of iron, being carefully jointed to- gether into a lofty framework which is separate from what it supports. It holds itself up first, and then it upholds the outer material of stone or brick, in which are wrought the old archi- tectural forms handed down by time. These are still a part of the wall, but they and the whole wall with them are now borne aloft into the air by this new inner power which has suddenly developed in the structure. If we note carefully the fact just presented, we see what may be called the architectural separa- tion of the ages, the separation in the Enclosure between the supporting and the supported, be- tween the upholding and the upheld, between the burden-bearer and the burden borne. In all pre- vious Architecture, in so far as it was of a per- manent material, the encompassing wall had to do double duty: to enclose the space of the building, and to support the weight of the roof and its own pressure upon itself. But now the wall divides within, it cracks in its own growth wide open lengthwise, we may say ; it frees itself almost whoUy of its oppressive, burden-bearing 12 ABGHITEGTUBE - INTRODUCTION, task, and devotes itself exclusively to its space- enclosing duty, which is its primal architectural function. This epoch-making liberation of the Enclosure is the work of the steel skeleton, and means a vast new freedom of development for Architecture, which has been moving from its commencement far back in Egypt just toward the enfranchisement seen in the High Building. Thus Architecture reflects the unfolding of man himself toward a completer freedom, and be- comes truly an Art mirroring in its advance the *^ advance of humanity. Nor should we here for- get to add that the nation with the freest spirit and the freest institutions will produce the freest Architecture. Not without good reason did the High Building originate in America, and it would seem in the freest, most enterprising portion thereof, the West. The liberation of the Enclosure, hitherto en- slaved to its burden-bearing task, is, then, the supreme work of the High Building. Within it lies ensconced the steel skeleton hidden to the vision of men, yet always performing its function, upholding the encompassing wall which is visible, and hence presents or may present to sight all the architectural ornamentation descended from the past. These two elements, the space-enclos- ing and the burden-bearing, thus become the outer and the inner, the seen and the unseen; previously in the wall of stone or brick they were THE Bms B uiLDma . 1 S united immediately, the flesh and the skeleton of the architectural organism were one, grown to- gether as it were, till the distinction between them evolved itself, somewhat as the same differ- entiation took place in the evolution of the animal body. Stone and brick (with glass and other materials) are now reduced to a casing or cover- ing, which is simply supported by the secreted giant standing upright ; their former additional labor of support has been taken away and handed over to a far mightier power. This division, then, is also a division of labor ; the enclosing wall has only to enclose and not to bear the weight of the building ; in which fact Architec- ture is seen developing like the society of which it is the home. Still there is a time when all may observe this hidden skeleton in the very process of formation. It is that part of the structure which is first set up by the architect ; not now is stone laid upon stone, brick upon brick, one after the other in monotonous succession. The steel framework rears itself with its posts, girders, rods, stretch- ing skyward in lofty outline; it looks as if Architecture herself were getting to her feet and preparing to put on her clothes, really erect for the first time in all her long existence. The old wall of temple or cathedral has no such skele- ton except what lies within it sleeping the sleep of stone itself. But now we may see that ideal 14 ARCHITECTURE — mTBODUCTIOir, framework of the ancient edifice separate itself from its heavy incumbrance and rise up to a gigantic height, almost in a day, for the whole thing is carefully calculated and made ready for adjustment beforehand. A very striking and suggestive object is the High Building while in the course of erection, manifesting the separa- tion and birth of a new Architecture in the World's History, the very process of its parturi- tion. The slender lines of network against the blue Heaven are the thews of our new infant Hercules, made of the most tenacious and elas- tic material known on our earth. True it is that every High Building in its construction must re-create the architectural movement of the ages, * and take up into itself essentially all the struc- tural forms of the past. Thus we begin to penetrate to the meaning of the High Building in its primal constructive principle. We find in it an architectural libera- tion which has a counterpart in the liberated man who reared it, mirroring what had trans- pired in his own soul. This is not a liberation from work or duty, but from an outside subjec- tion to a task not its own. Behold the Enclosure of the High Building; with ease, with an airy lightness and a new joy does it rise or perchance fly upward on many a line to the eaves, being relieved of its alien service of stru2:g:lino: under external burdens laid upon it, such as roof and THE Hian BVILDINQ. 15 ceiling, yea relieved of even holding up its own weight as a whole. It can now confine itself to its native task, that of enclosing and of expressing the same in various forms, new and transmitted. All architecture is Enclosure, making the same an institutional abode of some kind ; but when Architecture becomes a liberated Enclosure hitherto subjected or enslaved to tasks other than its own, surely a new architectural epoch v/ has dawned. We are not to rest till we see and express for ! ourselves that Architecture and all Art and even Machinery are profoundly connected with the social Institutions of a country, from which indeed they take their origin and character. To some people it may seem forced to join] together the new liberation of Architecture with I "^ the new liberation of Man through a new insti- y tutional world. The great end of the race is >A freedom, and that end with its striving can be. / read in Architecture as well as in Literature. Economic science tells us that slave labor is the most expensive, the least effective, the least adapted to the purpose of labor. There is a similar law of economy in construction. It is doubtless too harsh an expression to call European Architecture enslaved ; still we have to say that it is not yet liberated in comparison with the High Building. Politically Europe is [ not enslaved, but the American holds and has to 16 AnCmTECTVBB — INTBODVCTIOn. hold that it is not yet liberated. This is not saying that we have not much to learn from our ancestral home across the water or that America has reached the grand finality in the matter of political freedom. Structurally we have the right to call the High Building of the present time a free building, though it may and must be outstripped in the future. We must again and again repeat in our thought that a truly liberated institutional world must have a liberated Home in its very construction. In such fashion we s^ek to emphasize the fact which runs through and controls this entire book of ours: the inherent necessary connection be- tween Architecture and Institutions, both of which reach back to Man himself, to his Ego or Selfhood, for their genetic source and develop- ment. And, as already said, not only Architecture and all Art, but even Machinery may claim this tie of kinship with Institutions. Relatively the locomotive is the free machine, self-moving, de- termined from within, running along of itself like a living thing. It required a free people, the freest in Europe, to create such a free im- plement, which can be handled best (other things being equal) by the free man, who knows it best and regards it with a kind of inner sympathy, feeling in it some far-off suggestion and stimu- lation of the deepest and strongest aspiration in his heart. THE HIGH BUILDma. 17 II. It has been already observed that the ma- terial of the skeleton is for the most part steel — which fact is also worthy of our thought. Steel is not found in nature, several processes are re- quired to trana/orm it from the natural ore or earth. Thus it is emphatically man-made, not nature-made, the product of human intelligence, which puts into it a unique character. Its three main qualities are, formability, tenacity, elas- ticity, along with enormous strength, which are, moreover, compressed into the smallest space. Granite, the most durable material of nature, has indeed great strength, but it is brittle, it will not bend like steel and regain its position. Wood is somewhat elastic, but has little tenacity, little power of resistance to an assailing body, and is besides combustible. Thus man has selected the properties which he wanted and which were scattered separately through various ob- jects of nature, and he has combined them into a new material of his own makingr. Behold this loose red earth, it is nature's iron (though this is found in other forms); man takes it and smelts it and produces a new character in it, calling it pig-iron, which, how- ever, is brittle; then by another process he can make it malleable, ductile, tenacious; finally by still another process he converts it into steel, in which he may well behold an image of himself. For steel has an intense 2 18 ARCHITECTURE — INTRODUCTION. individuality, probably beyond that of any natural object; if assailed from without it asserts itself through its hardness and strength ; if it yields to stronger pressure it recov- ers itself when that pressure , is removed. Steel has within it the modern man with his intelligence, yea, with his self-assertion. It is a kind of universal material equal to any emergency, made up of traits culled from the cosmos and compounded into a new character. Before the High Building appeared stone was the main material of permanent Architecture. It was the material given directly by the bounty of Nature, upon which man, therefore, depended. To Athens the neighboring Pentelicus furnished the marble for her Parthenon; Rome quarried travertine for her structures from the hills not far away ; Egypt floated her huge granite blocks from Syene down the Nile to their destination. Very limited was the power of transportation in the old ages to what it is at present. Man was determined by nature and Architecture depended upon the material which she furnished at hand. It is quite the reverse in the case of steel, as we have just seen. Moreover, stone produces its\ architectural effect chiefly through massiveness ; the wall is built of blocks both large and heavy ; they cannot be easily moved from their place, but persist in staying just there and so withstand every assault. Thus they give the idea of pro- THE HIGH BUILDING. 19 tection through sheer gravity ; inside of them is the divine citadel, where dwells the God whose encompassing strength is suggested in these im- movable walls. Hence it comes that the Archi- tecture of stone is so decidedly down-bearing, from the Pyramid to the Capitol at Washington, though the architect seeks by numerous devices to counteract this impression. The heavy Doric column of early Greece (and even of Egypt) was fluted in order to give the eye a line for running upward against the crushing downwardness of the short thick shaft. Herein again the High Building has the opposite tendency, for its native sweep is upward, having mastered the down-bear- ing oppressiveness of mere gravity, which, though it has to be present, is overborne into the soaring lines of the Enclosure skyward. Here we may mention the third material for permanent buildings, that is, relatively perma- nent — brick. This is not directly found in nature but has to be made 'by man who performs in one way or other the petrifying process, first prepar- ing the material which is a kind of earth, then moulding it into the desired shape, and finally baking it in the fire or sun. Thus out of the earth under his feet man makes the needed stone when he cannot obtain it otherwise, re-enacting nature's process. Indeed the stone-maker has recently been supplanting the stone-cutter, or rather supplanting mother Nature herself as the 20 ABCHITEGTUBE — INTBODUGTION, original producer of stone. Moreover this baked earth (terra cotta) is found to be the best fire- proof casing for iron and steel, and hence is ex- tensively used in the High Building, which has in addition a large area of ghiss, also a man-made product from ingredients given by nature. Thus we see that the High Building has far more of man in it than any other structure ever reared by him; not simply does he put it to- gether out of materials furnished to him ready- made, but he makes these materials anew, trans- forming various physical constituents into a wholly different object with its own special char- ^\l acter. This character of the material he has to build before he builds his house. In a manner he has to reconstruct Nature herself before he can construct the High Building. Herein lies a capital difference from all preceding Archi- tecture, which is ultimately determined by Na- ture, even if man shapes and trims and employs its products for his own ends.* Another image of the new world's freedom we find now before us : man must make the material which consti- tutes his outer dwelling-phice, as he must make the law which constitutes his institutional home, even it be the Constitution of the United States. HI. In this respect we may again observe that the High Building mirrors that institutional world in which it first came to light and which really produced it. European Architecture in TEE EIQH BUILDINa, 21 its materials goes back to a nalftral origin, as we have seen. European society likewise has its foundation in classes based upon birth, that is, upon distinctions springing from nature. Roy- alty and nobility are born into their social con- dition and not directly produced by it; that is, they are nature-made not man-made. America has no such distinction of rank given by birth ; man has to win his own distinction if he be dis- tinguished. Not only must he be born again, but he must bear himself again, must recreate himself in order to be anything distinctive. The Architecture of stone is European and essentially aristocratic, the Architecture of steel is demo- cratic from the foundation upward. Undoubtedly we find in Europe many prepara- tions for the High Building, indeed distinct prophecies of its coming. The iron construction which was put together lengthwise, and of which a noted instance was the Tubular Bridge over the straits to the Isle of Wight, hints the possibility of an analogous erect structure of the same material. Then there is the Eads Brido^e thrown across the Mississippi at St. Louis in wide spans — can it not be made to stand on end? Already it holds itself up from pier to pier through its intricate network of interlinking steel, and also supports the vast weight of human beings with their traffic passing over the river. The Titan is lying across the stream and lets a line of 22 ABCBITEGTUBE — INTBODUCTION. wagons and railroad trains run along his extended body from shore to shore with perfect security. Do you suppose he is going to lie there forever? This is prostrate construction still, European we may call it, designating a stage of its evolu- tion. Moreover the bridge is without Enclosure, is purely supporting ; but the next step is easily taken, namely, to make this framework support alight covering, such as terra c®tta and glass, of which the Crystal Palace furnishes a very sugges- tive instance. But the final colossal act is when the Titan begins to raise himself up and to stand erect towering skyward in all his sublimity. Greek imagination has fabled of giants of superhuman strength who had to be put down by the higher Gods of intelligence through hurling the yet mightier forces of nature against these prodigious monsters of primeval ages. One of these hoary giants was Enceladus, who was thrust under Mount Etna, and buried beneath masses of rocks piled up cloud ward to keep him in subjection. Still he turns and rolls under his burden, causing the earth to roll with him far and wide in vast undulations upsetting lands and cities. Struggling, turning from this side to that, breathing heavily, which breath becomes at times a consuming flame scattering volcanic lava' and ashes, the giant cannot get up. He is like the Pyramid, like the whole line of structures of the old world, which with all its mighty striving THE HIGH BUILDING, 23 yet lies prostrate . But hark ! another voice you can hear ; it is the new world calling eut from the top of its tower, the High Building, across the Atlantic to the, ancient Architecture lying under mountains of stone piled up toward heaven : *' Enceladus arise." IV. A favorite way of accounting for the High Building is to find the causes of its origi- nation. Of these many have been assigned for the new appearance. Particularly the lack of land for business purposes on Manhattan Island is said to have forced construction upwards in- stead of allowing it to spread out freely over the surface of the earth. Very doubtful is the ulti- mate validity of such an argument. Why did not the commercial center of London put up the High Building first? For there land is worth more than anywhere else probably on the globe. Moreover the erection of the Hiorh Building started independently on the Western prairie at Chicago where there is room enough for expan- sion. Utterly inadequate is such an explanation, which would require the High Building to have appeared nineteen centuries ago ia the Roman Forum, where were concentrated the commerce and the government of the world. A good reason for a style of construction must indicate its architectural evolution, must show it as a manifestation of the spirit of the age. Some saj that the High Building is a product of the com- 24 ABOHITEOTUBE — INTRODUCTION. mercialism of our country. But commercialism has certainly existed a long time in Europe, where we find many buildings devoted to gain. The question then comes up, why sho'xld American commercialism rear a structure of this peculiar kind? The answer would have to indicate that America has something underneath her commer- cialism which expresses itself constructively in the High Building. The source of it has been traced by one writer to the need of fire-proof buildings revealed by the Chicago and Boston confiagrations. And so the reasoning runs — the need of this and the need of that was the cause, while the deepest need is never mentioned. It is perhaps not an easy task to express adequately in Literature what the High Building expresses in Architecture. We see it to be useful for many purposes, but what is its supreme use? In fact no predicate of mere Utility can sound the depth of its real meaning ; there is something in it beyond any demand of utility, something which employs utility as its means. Just here lies the inner character of Art which in its supremacy has the power of using utility itself for its end. The High Building has a hundred uses, meets a hundred requirements for business, but these alone would never have called just it into existence, unless it had seized upon them and utilized them for its purpose. What is this purpose? That THE HIGH BUILDING. 25 is indeed the fundamental question, which re- quires us to see the High Building subserving not merely the uses of commerce (though this it does), but also the uses of commerce subserving it, for it too has its own use, its own ground of existence. Man ought to be the master, not the slave of utility. There is a new building impulse abroad in the land — an impulse which drives the nation to express itself in Architecture. The institutions of America will not permanently house them- selves in structures which the wholly different institutions of other peoples in other ages have erected for their abode. If a nation has any con- structive genius, such as had the old Egyptians, the old Greeks, and the medieval Christians, it will build its character into the Architecture which it employs. The ultimate use of the High Building is to give architectural expression, or formulation if you will, of the American institu- tional world. It is a great business society under one roof; it facilitates intercommunication between man and man ; it minimizes Space and Time, the primordial obstacles of Nature which human association has more and more to over- come. Commerce uses the Hio^h Buildings for its end, but the point to see is that the High Building uses Commerce for its end. Man, the individual having really gotten on his feet for the first time in the History of the World, Ar- 26 ABCHITECTUBE — INTBOD V C TION. chitecture will tell him the fact if it performs its true function. It too must stand up, for hither- to it has been recumbent, quite submissive to gravity, to outer circumstances, or at most struggling to rise like the Gothic, without much success. Indeed the Gothic Cathedral seems a human being lying on the earth with face look- ing eagerly and even anxiously upwards to Heaven, in fervent supplication, with one arm or both (in the two spires), stretching out as far as they can reach toward the Invisible and pointing sometimes with a hundred fingers (as in the turrets of the Milan Cathedral) to the Beyond. One feels like shouting to it, ** Get up, man; " but it answers, ** Gladly would I, but I cannot, the burden is too heavy." Mean- while another voice deeper in tone, yet in a com- forting whisper comes through the air saying, '* Wait, the time is not yet ripe, but soon will be. That Gothic aspiration, crushing its sides painfully together for inner elevation, and out- wardly tapering heavenward into pointed nothing- ness with agonizing struggles, is not to end in empty striving, but is to be realized. I say the time is coming when those heavy manacled walls with their ponderous buttresses of stone are to be liberated of their intolerable, down-bearing burden, and when the whole building will soar bodily upward, overtopping in its flight even the tip of the highest spire of Europe." THE HIGH BUILDING. . 27 V. When we come to look inside the High Building, the elevator is what first demands our thought. Primarily it utilizes the upper parts of the building, it hoists the people, saving their time and strength. The old stairway is substan- tially abolished, having become a mere appendage or ornament which winds caressingly around the elevator to the top, ivy-like. Man no longer lifts himself painfully step by step to the upper storys but is lifted ; the mechanical labor of his muscles is done by a flying machine. The purgatorial climbing has been transformed into a paradisiacal flight. It is the elevator which emphasizes the motive for the strong mounting lines on the front of the building; the eye is carried up to the top outside ere the body is borne upward inside. Verticalism is necessarily the principle of the High Building, the upbear- ing sweep of the spirit. Architecture has a tendency to become more and more organic in its evolution, as if it were approaching man's own framework as its ideal end. In this respect the High Building is the most organic of all structures, being literally most nearly human. We have already noted its erect position, its standing up like a man. Then that differentiation of the skeleton is a prodigious advance in organic development, since former structures of stone and brick are flesh and bone in one mass somewhat like certain lower orders 28 ABCHITECTUBE — IKTBODVCTION. of animate creation. The evolution of Archi- tecture has a certain parallelism with the evolu- tion of an organism. Perhaps the least organic of all great structures is the first High Building, the Pyramid, as the last one is most organic. It is true that the frame house of wood also erects a kind of skeleton composed of beams large and small, upon which the outer covering of boards is fastened. Thus the construction of the High Building has its primal suggestion in that made by the ordinary carpenter. The log- cabin, however, superposes its material like blocks of stone. Thus both the Temple of marble and the High Building can find their prototypes in timber construction. Keeping up the analogy of an organism we may regard the elevator as the nervous function of the High Building concentrated into a spinal cord along the back of the structure. The moving crowds of people form the circulation, each individual being a globule as it were, of whom 20,000 pass in and out of one such build- ing daily in Chicago, according to aTkept record. Nor must we fail to note this central cavity around which the whole is built as in the human body, while into this cavity come light and air as if it too had lungs as well as the people moving throuo^h it. The offices massed around these inner parts may be deemed the muscles of the colossal organism, and are the seat of its activity. Such THE HIGH B UILDINQ . 29 are some of the homologies, as the comparative anatomist calls them, between man's own inner structure and that which he has put into the High Building, the idea being that he instinct- ively builds after the pattern of his own organ- ism, which is indeed his primordial house. The abode of his institutional life develops out of his natural life, as institutions themselves have their starting-point in nature, and unfold out of it into their own world. Certainly it is a suggestive thought that the High Building is the most organic of all archi- tectural shapes, if we consider it biologically, in comparison with the human organism. This last artificial home of man seems to be approaching in semblance his primal natural home; or his second colossal body he appears instinctively to fashion after his first little body. Architecture is to construct the abode of associated Man, his institutional dwelling-place. Not for one indi- vidual does this Art truly exert its power, but it will enclose and cover over the Community, the State, the Church, or the spirit which makes them. The High Building in its way houses a social Whole, or at least a laro^e fragment of organized Man, whose latest edifice begins to have such a striking resemblance to the physical body, which thus seems to be the ideal protofype for the Architecture of human association. VI. If we turn to the outside of the High so AECHITECTUBE — INTBODUCTION. Building, we fiud it covered with a skin, that thin covering of glass and terra cotta already inentioned. But at this point a more important problem comes up, the problem of the facade or the proper expression to be put into the surface of the wall, which is exacting and also extensive. Here we touch the spot where the Architect of the Hio^h Buildino^ has been least successful. Often the external appearance is meaningless, putting us to flight with its blank monotony. The openings in the Enclosure, such as doors and windows, are the very mouths of the structure, which with their mouldings and ornaments ought to speak (but usually do not) to the out- side world and tell their own character as well as reveal something of what is inside the building. If I were asked. Which is the finest High Building yet erected, I would be puzzled to give an answer. Some have one merit and some an- other, a concentration of excellence has hardly yet taken place. Accordingly I would be in- clined to say that the typical High Building, the one which embodies all its good points as well as reveals its limitations, has probably not yet been built. In fact it is still too young to have reached even a full youthful development, not to speak of ripe manhood. It is hardly yet twenty -five years old; in the growth of an architectural form or style that is a very brief period. More than two hundred years THE HIGH BVILDINQ. 31 elapsed between the first ancestral Doric tem- ple of Sicily and its perfect flowering in the Parthenon. Evolution is not in a hurry but takes all the time it wants. We may well think that the High Building has not yet had a chance to unfold all that there is in itself, being still largely in the bud, though vigorously blossom- ing. A style or type of Architecture has a tend- ency to concentrate itself into one complete and often colossal expression of itself, as we see in St. Sophia's and St. Peter's cathedrals, in the temples Pantheon and Parthenon. In like man- ner an epoch epitomizes itself in a great man, as statesman, conqueror, philosopher — Pericles, Alexander, Aristotle. The High Building has not yet developed its complete typical example, with all its possibilities fully evolved and visible in its members. In Europe there is no High Building in the Oriental or in the American sense — which fact many will regard as a mark of good taste and even of civilization. Europe has indeed very high steeples to its churches, some of them higher than the highest Pyramid. St. Peter's probably might have the best claim to be a High Building. But it is a rather low though large edifice, surmounted by a lofty dome. These two portions show its dualistic character, the one is more down-bearing and the other more up-bearing. Two different structures, the one 82 ABCHITECTUHE — INTBODUCTION. on top of the other, constitute the largest and probablj the most typical building in Europe. Biit such is neither the Egyptian Pyramid nor the American Hio^li Buildino^. Thus we see a new distinction arising in Archi- tecture as well as in Art and in Universal History. The High Building brings emphatically into con- sciousness the fact that the world with its move- ment of civilization is no longer divided into Asia and Europe or Orient and Occident, but the division has become threefold — Orient, Europe and Occident. Moreover the three form one great process of man's development which shows itself in far clearer and completer outline than ever before. In other departments the same distinction has begun to appear. In the Constitution of the United States we are forced to distinguish the Occidental State in decided contrast with both the European and the Ori- ental. Herein our Architecture has begun to follow and to mirror our institutional world, and the other Fine Arts are destined to advance on the same path to the same goal. The liberation of man, then, we are beginning to build into brick and stone. This very edifice, the High Building, shows such a liberation in its constructive principle, constituting a new Type jy of Architecture, the Occidental. Enceladus, the suppressed and oppressed giant of the aforetime, has here gotten on his feet, but transfigured from THE HIGH BUILDma. 33 the destructive revolutionist into the peaceful evolutionist. Still not everywhere is he arisen from his massive prison of rock, and enabled to stand up in his freedom. Hence often ominous tones reach our ears from afar with a threatening stress which can only mean that Enceladus will and must arise. But here before us stands the risen Titan, the High Building, to whom we shall for the present bid farewell with the certainty of meeting him again. We may well imagine him endowed with a voice, yea with the gift of song, a shred of which floats around the globe hymning sym- pathetically of his unrisen brother still crushed beneath the tyrannous mountain of stone, yet rolling and struggling and sighing for the com- ing liberation. " Under Mount Etna he lies, It i;^ slumber, it is not death ; For he struggles at times to arise, And above him the lurid skies Are hot with his fiery breath. See, see, the red light shines! 'Tis the glare of his eyes I And the storm wind shouts through the pines Of Alps and Apennines : ^ Enceladus arise ' ". ^ 3 Hrcbitecture IN ITS HISTORIC EVOLUTION. Beginning with the germinal starting-point in the evolution of Architecture we must grasp it as an Enclosure, which is separate from yet determined by what is enclosed. Such are the two elements of the architectural nucleus : The enclosing and the enclosed, which are to pass through a long and complicated transformation in their descent down the ages. Now, this Enclosure, when it becomes properly Architecture, is built by associated Man primarily for the creative Spirit of his Universe and there- fore of himself as endowed with this power of association. If Architecture is rightly the home of associated Man, the earliest Architecture will be the home of that principle or being which (34) OBIENTAL, EUROPEAN', OCCIDENTAL. 35 creates Man associative, or unites him in tribe, city, nation. Thus the people erect their first architectural house to the God who makes them a people. Man, possessing Institutions through associa- tion, builds an abode for them as for his supreme Self, and it is this building of an institutional home which calls forth Architecture. A church, a court-house, also a school-house is the home of an Institution in which not the individual, but the associated Man has his abode, and which will be truly architectural if the structure expresses the indwelling purpose which causes it to be reared. As God, the supreme Architect, makes the cosmos as the created manifestation of Himself, so Man as Architect after Him re-creates this divine manifestation in a temple or dwelling- place, which thus becomes the Enclosure of the divinely creative Spirit. The God-consciousness in Man is the source of all great Architecture, which begins with a mighty emphasis in Egypt. So Architecture has a lofty origin; it is essen- tially Man re-enacting the work of God creating the Cosmos as the outer abode or manifestation of His Will or creative power. Or we may say that Man making a sacred Enclosure which re- veals God creating the world is truly architec- tural. With some such thought working in their souls, the old Egyptians conceive their primal 36 ABCHITECTUBE — ITS E VOL VTION. deity to be a builder, thus expressing their own deepest spirit to be architectonic. It is evident that Architecture is fundamentally twofold : the Outer distinct from yet determined by the Inner, the Enclosure without and the Enclosure's God within, the built manifestation as external and the essence as internal. It is this separation which gives to it its place in the total movement of the Fine Arts or the so-called Presentative Arts, of which Architecture is prop- erly the second stage or division. So much is general, but Architecture must be specialized by each people and each age. The Architecture of the Greeks is the Enclosure of that which creates Greece, of the creative spirit of the Greek institutional world. The Greek temple is a structure manifesting and mirroring the originative Idea of Hellas and of its view of the Divine Order, the latter being really the Olympian counterpart of Greek Institutions. The same must be said of every great typical edifice, the Pyramid, the Gothic Cathedral, the High Building : it represents its nation, its pe- riod, possibly its city. Thus Architecture with all its universality has to specialize the Divine Home and become many Architectures, of dif- ferent types, styles, systems, each of which is in the grand process of Evolution, and unfolds in an historic line from the beginninor. A vast metamorphosis of architectural shapes unrolls OBIENTAL, EUBOPEAN, OCCIDENTAL. 37 before us with subtle transmutations of one into the other, making a kind of panoramic spectacle of ever-shifting forms externally yet having a profound inner connection with the movement of civilization itself. The right study and ap- preciation of Architecture is the getting inside this movement, and the going with it in thought and imagination through all its Protean trans- formations. There is a time when Architecture is pre-his- toric, corresponding to the development of man himself. Such a period belongs to Archaeology rather than to Art, and will have to be omitted from the present exposition. Moreover there are some historic peoples who build monumen- tally and some who do not. There are nations who literally build their history ; these are the architectonic nations, which reveal the line of the development of Architecture from its begin- ning down to the present. Now this line of historic development shows, as already stated, three supreme divisions — Orient, Europe, Occident. History is no longer repre- sented by the dualism, Orient and Occident, the latter standing for Europe. The world-historical movement has now become triune, having quite girdled the globe, and is returning to the Orient in a spiritual circumnavigation. Europe is not the end of the process of Universal History, but a stage, very important unquestionably. What 38 ABCHITEOTUBE — ITS E VOL UTION. European civilization means we are to see in the stage which is beyond it, and is its outcome. It is the supreme interest of the study of Archi- tecture that it has evolved distinctly three com- prehensive forms or types of itself corresponding to Orient, Europe and Occident. No other Art has in such a pronounced way shown the three world-historical stages, which, however, are sure to reveal themselves in every Art and Science with time, in every kind of spiritual activity practical and theoretical. As the Occident be- comes more deeply conscious of itself and of its own evolution, it must see with greater clearness this triple division of its spirit which is stamped upon the globe itself. Accordingly the architectural movement of the world is primarily divided into Oriental, Euro- pean, Occidental. We are not to forget, how- ever, that these divisions are really stages of one process, ultimately that of the All or the Universe (Pampsychosis), which seizes upon Architecture also, for its expression. Moreover, every stage or part of this supreme Totality must suggest the great architectural Whole of which it is a member. Thus we see one underlying process in each detail as well as in the entire sweep of the Art. And now rises the problem. How shall we give in advance some idea of these three grand Types of the world's Architecture? If not an exact OBIENTAL, EUROPEAN, OCCIDENTAL. 39 definition, at least some general conception ought to be furnished at the start. We have already noted that in all Architecture the primal fact is that it must be an Enclosure or space-surround- ing, whereby there is room inside. The wall goes along with building through its whole de- velopment. Now the wall has to upbear the roof and also itself. Hence it has in itself and must show the principle of support. On the other hand the wall has to be made of strong heavy material ; thus through its own gravity and of that which it supports, it has a down-bearing principle which is the opposite of the preceding tendency. We see that the Enclosure has in its very nature a divided duty, a conflict We may call it, between two opposing forces, the up-bearing and the down-bearing ; and this conflict runs through all Architecture from Orient to Occident. Every stone wall of a structure we may conceive to be in a struggle between flying heavenward and sinking earthward — between elevation and de- pression, exaltation and abasement, between Mind and Nature, those two eternally fighting genii, yet twins of the same All-Mother. Such is the double character of the Enclosure, really the ger- minal point of future constructive development. All Architecture, we hold, is the Home of associated Man in some form, of Man in Society, being the Enclosure of Spirit not as individual but as universal or seeking to be so. Such an 40 ABGHITEGTURE — ITS E VOL UTION. Enclosure must rise, surround, cover over, must have in it elevation. And yet it must also weigh down, be massive and mighty in stone, thus showing a descending tendency under its superincumbent burden. The first may be called its suggestion of Spirit, the second its suggestion of Matter; the first points inward to the Enclosure's God, the second is simply the Enclosure taken by itself as wall. Thus in Archi- tecture there is an up-bearing principle conso- nant with our Ego, but it is laden with a down- bearing principle corresponding with our body. Now the movement of Architecture will be to transfigure more and more the material down- bearing principle into the spiritual, up-bearing principle. The massive Enclosure weighed down by its own and alien burdens is slowly to be enfranchised by time; in that grand battle of the two spirits which lies within its very soul, the up-bearing will slowly conquer the down- bearing, and assimilate even Matter to its flight upward. The thickest heaviest wall on this earth was architecturally the first one made by Man, that of the Pyramids; while the lightest, most soaring wall, being liberated from sustaining all weight, even its own, is the last one made by man, that of the High Building. Between these two kinds of wall lies the world's Architectural development, embracing some 5000 or possibly OBIENTAL, EUROPE AIT, OCCIDENTAL. 41 6000 years. This development in its complete sweep we may state as follows. I. The Oriental Type, which in its early and original form is represented by Egyptian con- struction; the rise is present, but overcome, overwhelmed, suppressed; hence the tendency is down-bearing, and carries along the Ego, struggling upward but overborne. Or we may say, the up-bearing germ starts but is not yet developed, breaking out into multitudinous in- cipient shapes, which make Egypt the fertile mother of all later developed forms of Architec- ture, make it the potential stage of the future architectural reality. II. The European Type^ which shows the double movement, the rise and the fall, the struggle from below and the pressure from above in their most intense dualism and opposition, with victory sometimes on this side and some- times on that, but never lasting for either. This is the second grand stage of the world's archi- tectural process, as yet the most fully developed within itself, the most diversified and the most fruitful. III. The Occidental Type — which, though just begun, expresses the rise triumphant in and through a new constructive principle ; the down- bearing Enclosure is itself now upborne to the altitude of the loftiest structure of the Orient, 42 ABOniTEGTUBE — IT8 EVOL UTION. to which in this regard the modern High Build- ing is a return. Such is the architectural movement of the world in its largest outline, forming in itself a vast process which includes yet determines all other processes, styles, systems, forms. Yet it is itself but an expression, and but one expres- sion of the Absolute Self, of the psychical movement of the Universe, of what we have elsewhere called the Pampsychosis. In fact Architecture^ ultimately has as its function to erect a worthy abode of this Absolute Self which it mirrors more and more adequately through its advancing construction. Thus it becomes truly an Art, imparting to the people who look upon it and enter into it a consciousness of their self- hood as a people or a nation, as well as of their own divine Ideal or Ruler of the Universe. Architecture does not become an Art till it is educative, till the people behold in it the creative spirit of their institutional world, religious, political, domestic. In Architecture we are finally to see that the building is an Enclosure for that which built it, to see the spirit erecting for itself a dwelling-place harmonious with itself. Then for us such a structure is profoundly edu- cative, and fulfills the basic purpose of all Art. Nature, the primal, immediate manifestation of the creative principle of the Universe, is made over by Architecture into a new Nature or Cosmos ORIENTAL, EUROPEAN,- OCCIDENTAL, 43 which reveals the special character of the nation constructino: it. Hence it comes that each nation will have its own way of building its spiritual home and of expressing itself in Architecture. And yet all these national or even continental dif- ferences are penetrated with a common principle, are in fact manifestations of one fundamental process, which creates them and becomes the process in each of them. Architecture (as well as other Arts) will show in its evolution man living in, conflicting with, and then re-creating his institutional world. This exists at the start, yet is to be perpetually transformed by the members of it who are born into it and have to reproduce it anew, in a line of changing shapes which reflect the changing con- sciousness of man as he unfolds into a higher freedom. Such a row of architectural shapes, arranged in the long gallery of time, will give the historic Evolution of Architecture as it keeps step with the movement of civilization itself. CHAPTER FIRST. The Oriental Type. When we speak of the Orient we have to im- agine a huge cauldron in which are fermenting and germinating all the possibilities of the whole human race for all coming time. Asia seems to be the All-Mother of what has been, is, and will be. Europe has by no means exhausted the potentiali- ties of the Orient, it has unfolded but a small part of them in the past few thousand years of its development. We may suppose that the des- tiny of our globe is to unfold the germs of the many unrealized civilizations which first budded in the great River- Valleys of the East, and which are apparently still awaiting their turn in the cycle of the total evolution of our planet. For this reason Asia is called mysterious by the (44) THE ORIENTAL TYPE. 45 European; it is largely undeveloped, unspoken and unspeakable for our consciousness ; very old it is, and yet the baby of this earth in spite of its ancient wisdom and hoary monuments. Especially is Asia the birth-place of Eeligion and of Religions, of quite all of them in fact, in so far as they rise above savagery. Europe has had for a long time substantially one Religion, and that came from Asia; also it has one fundamental language, which likewise goes back to the same source. Similarly Architecture, which is so profoundly connected with Religion in its origin, springs from the Orient. Associ- ated Man there made the earliest worthy dwell- ing-place of the God who made him and endowed him with the power of association, and hence of building a temple. The religious Insti- tution first called forth Architecture to erect its institutional home through human co-opera- tion. The united nation builds a worthy abode for the God who has made it a united nation. This united nation is one form of associated Man, though not the only one; as the race unfolds these forms of Association, or Institu- tions, Architecture will be invoked to erect their dwelling-places. I. Throughout the Orient we find the Gave- Temple y which is as good a starting-point as any. In it the Enclosure is wholly given by Nature, and is one with Earth itself. The Cave has the wall, 46 ABGHITEGTUBE — CHAPTER FIBST. the roof, and often the pillar or column, but not as separate, existing in their distinct character. Thus the God is conceived to have built his own first temple, which man enters with the feeling of worship. Still in Greece grot and cavern were the abodes of the Nymphs and other lesser divini- ties, while the Great Gods of Olympus properly dwelt in structures made by man, like the Olym- pieion and the Parthenon. But Nature's temple still remained even at Athens, and had its place, not on, but in the Acropolis. Still to-day the image of the Virgin may be found in sacred recesses where of old dwelt some heathen deity. In the German North the groves may have been God's first temples; hardly was this the case in Egypt. There is no doubt that man soon oegan to transform the Cave-Temple, till finally he made what is known as the Rock-Temple, of which colossal examples are found in India (Ellora), and also in Egypt (Ipsamboul). Some of these Rock-Temples belong to the later stages of Architecture, showing how men cling to the early forms of their religion. They likewise stand in relation to the Rock-Tombs of which so many line the stream of the Nile, so that it flows through a vast necropolis during its Egyptian passage. Indeed one long city of the dead is the Valley of the Nile for 700 miles, from Elephantine to the sea. fB^ oniENTAL TYPS, 47 Finally the basic elements of the Enclosure are to be separated from their immediate oneness with the earth and are to be set up in their own peculiar shapes. The wall, the roof, and the pillar become distinct and individualized, being built up by the human hand. Thus a great transition is accomplished : the .movement from the nature-made to the man-made temple for the divine dwelling-place. Architecture is now truly born, coming forth into the light of the sun out of its dark womb of earth. II. In the present • connection we are to con- sider only that Architecture which primarily and originally belongs to the Orient, and thence passes to Europe. But Europe in its turn influ- enced the Architecture of the Orient both in ancient and in modern times. For instance the Greek Temple and Byzantine Church went to the East and united with the native spirit in produc- ing new forms of construction. These we shall speak of later : at present we wish to consider the old Oriental Architecture. In a general way it is manifest that the Orient represents the implicit, germinal stage of Archi- tecture and of all Art. It has suggestions of most of the forms, which afterwards unfolded in Europe. We shall note again and again how some new European style will go back to the Orient and apply motives already found in its Architecture. The Greek column was born in 48 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIRST, the East, being seen there in its three basic divisions, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, though these are by no means fully developed. The arch was employed in the Orient long before the building of Rome, vrhose invention it is some- times declared to be. Also vaulting is found in the ruins along the Euphrates and the Nile. It has even been supposed that what we call Roman Architecture arose in the Orient under the suc- cessors of Alexander, whose Greek architects combined the column and other structural forms of Greece with the arch and vault of Eastern countries. Even the Gothic pointed arch is a later Oriental fancy. Of the architectonic nations of the Orient, the chief is pre-eminently the Egyptian. In fact the ancient people of the Nile valley were the greatest builders the world has yet seen. From them properly proceeds the architectural evolution which has already so nearly encircled the globe. From them starts the line of Archi- tecture which moves across the North-Temperate Zone, through Asia (of which Egypt is spirit- ually apart), Europe and America. Moreover the material of Egyptian construc- tion was stone, which lay along the banks of the Nile. Egypt had no wood for this purpose. It knew how to made brick, but refused to employ them for its great works. Egypt was trained to its constructive power by working in stone, THE ORIENTAL TYPE. 49 especially in granite. It had to overcome and bend to its plan the hardest, most refrac- tory material in nature. It became a gran- itic people, the spirit took the character of what it wrought in so long and so labori- ously. If the Valley of the Nile is a stone builder, the valley of the Euphrates on the other hand is a brick-builder, using a small, easily made and manipulated material, with no lasting power. Hence it has largely returned to earth whence it came, without any defiance of Time, such as we may see in the Pyramid, Obe- lisk and Temple of Karnak. If the material be so enduring, what must be the mind that over- comes it? The hand that shapes granite has something in it more eternal than granite. The Egyptian soul was daily trained in its doctrine of immortality by working in granite. III. Egypt must be deemed the fountain of all the great Architecture of the Ages. Its people were builders, lived to build and this was the ultimate object of their existence. The State was chiefly a building State, it ruled in order to construct great works. We read of Egyptian conquerors, but they were the exception. The world-historical function of Egypt was Archi- tecture, and it has remained and will probably forever remain the single architectural nation of History, creative in this Art, creating the forms, methods, and many of the implements of vast 4 50 ARCHITEGTUBE — CHAPTER FIRST. construction. Egypt was architect to the race, which after such instruction could build its ade- quate Enclosure for spirit and then turn to some other task. A very peculiar situation gave the opportunity. In all other lands, even the most favored, man has to labor for his bread. But in Egypt Father Nile replenished the larder, while the mild climate required little in the way of shelter or clothing. Thus the economic problem of man was solved almost without work for his suste- nance. Still he must do something or run wild. There is no doubt that the State seized the pro- ductive principle of the land, the bounty of the Kiver, and compelled the inhabitants, ever multi- plying on this free food, to labor for their liveli- hood in the erection of the colossal works which we still see. Thus the whole people devoted themselves all the time to Art or chiefly to Architecture; they really had nothing else to do, being fed by the hand of the God. In this way the millions of Egypt were trained to toil, and through it to Art. Day in, day out we bring before us a whole people toiling who are artistic workers, and whose Art is not to get their bread, which is sent from above by the unseen pro- vider. At this point rises the question : What does this Egyptian Art, occupying an entire nation thousands of years, represent? Tell us the con- THE OBIENTAL TYPE. 51 tent, purpose, scope of it, if any such explanation be possible. Hardly other can it be than the fact just stated : the Egyptian was given food by the God in order to represent the divine Giver. Here we must take a glance at the physical situ- ation of Egypt with its River in order to under- stand its Art. IV. The old historian, Herodotus, said that Egypt was *« the gift of the Nile." Physically this is the simple fact, the soil of the country has been brought down and deposited by the great River, But it may also be affirmed that spiritual Egypt has been moulded by the Nile into its peculiar character. The sources of the stream were unknown in antiquity, the vast waters came flowing down from the unseen into the seen world, and bringing their gratuitous blessings. Moreover the very form of the Nile was like an arm with its hand stretching out from the Invis- ible. At the Delta the River divided into five natural branches and poured through them into the sea. Was not this the God's arm with hand and five fingers reaching forth from the Beyond with this divine bounty for His people? Such is the unique fact in regard to the Egyptian River, moulding a nation, and therewith moulding all civilization at its fountain-head — truly the most influential River on our globe. It IS no wonder, then, 'that the ancient ob- server pronounced the Egyptians to be the most 52 ABCIIITECTUBE — OHAPTEB FIRST. religious of men. Dependence, Faith in the Unseen, Gratitude to the Gods with a never-end- ing ritual of a sacerdotal caste ramifying every- where, spring from the situation. The Giver (as Nile) is invisible, yet here are his gifts, specially our daily bread handed to us almost outright. Now the great object of the Egyptian Keligion is to make the Unseen seen, to bring the deity out of the unknown realm into the known, at least in part. At this point we may begin to grasp the enormous significance of Art to Egj^pt, the function of this Art being primordially to make the invisible Giver visible to His people. Sculpture will seek to present His actual form, putting into limits the unlimited, yet seeking always to suggest that which is without bounds by colossal shapes, whereof the Sphinx is a notable example. But chiefly the Egyptians sought to house their God, to put into a sacred Enclosure their transcendent Benefactor. Can we bring Him down from the beyond and give Him an adequate home among ourselves? Thus the Valley of the Nile becomes architectural, builds for dear life and dearer immortality, does little else but build. Still the Unlimited transcends the limit, and moves beyond; the Egyptian, however, keeps on building in pursuit of Him, the God, but seems unable to get Him fully enclosed, though adding Temple to Temple and even piling Pyramid on THE ORIENTAL TYPE. 53 Pyramid. Such is the mighty striving of Egypt in its attempt to overtake and enclose the ever- escaping unknown Divine Giver, which fact con- stitutes the fundamental element of its character. Through Art and particularly through Architec- ture the old people of the Nile endeavor to con- fine the Infinite in the Finite and thus to know it and to commune with it as their own. V. Very decidedly is the history of Egypt reflected in its Architecture. When the nation was occupied in building, it was united, great, happy. But there are epochs when it ceases to build; these are times of separation, discord, inner conflict. Egypt is an isolated land, devel- oping largely within itself ; yet its civilization is in general that of the Asiatic River Valley such as sprang up along the Euphrates, the Ganges, the Indus, the Yang-tsi-Kiang. On the other hand European civilization is first Mediterranean (Southern) and then Oceanic (Northern), or Greco-Latin and Teutonic, and finally Catholic and Protestant, being all the while in desperate struggle. America is mainly the product of this Oceanic civilization of Europe, which, however, is moving again into a River Valley, the Missis- sippi, embracing almost a continent by itself. Thus we behold an Occidental River Valley with its civilization which has likewise begun to express itself in Architecture vieing in colossality with the Orient. 64 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIRST. In considering the History of Egypt we are compelled to npke a distinction between the pre-hisioric and the proto-historic, Pre-historic Egypt has also been explored, but it possesses no written record, no language proper, though it has implements, tombs, caves, and even signs, un- doubtedly the products of associated Man. But when we reach proto-historic Egypt, we find writ- ing, the early hieroglyphic, which is by its very nature monumental. But this stage of the nation has no definitely ordered Time, no chronol- ogy in the historic sense. Not till the Greek got into Egypt and wheeled it into line with the World's History, was the Valley of the Nile strictly timed, and its events put into the regu- lar sequence of the passing years. Thus Egypt becomes historic, but then it is no longer old Egypt lying and floating along in unlimited Time. We have to think that the Egyptians stood in a closer intimacy with pure Time than any other known people, being determined by Time, being swept on in its stream without much sepa- ration from it or mastery over it. The colossal presence of Time in the Egyptian monuments is thatwhich impresses us so strongly and strangely. Time seems incorporate in them, without much division. We on the contrary divide Time into small portions, and thus order it and control it to our purpose, so that it hardly seems present; THE OniEITTAL TYPE. 66 but in Egypt it lies about in huge boulders of hundreds and of thousands of years, quite im- possible for us to handle after our fashion. In this hazy atmosphere of undefined, unmeasured, and unmeasurable Time old Egypt swims en- compassed with her monumental Art which has also the ever- transcending character of Time, striving to get beyond itself by addition to addi- tion, accretion upon accretion, till it attains a colossality not yet equaled. The Egyptian strives to overtake Time itself, and thus to reach immortality. VI. Egyptian History, then, is proto-historic, as we term it ; this applies to the real Egypt as independent, self-unfolding from within and creative . Historic Egypt is later and shows us the nation lapsing from its greatness and becom- ing the prey of foreigners, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman, who struggle over the in- heritance. The Persian was an Oriental con- queror; the Greek was a European conqueror who • became Oriental in the Ptolomies ; the Roman reduced Egypt and the Orient to Euro- pean sway. Then came the Mohamedan; but to-day the Englishman seems to be in possession and is erecting a new sort of works, also of vast magnitude ; but the chief task is now to elevate the people subjugated for some 2500 years, and to endow them with a new spirit of nationality. If this can be done, the Valley of the Nile, 86 ABGHITECTUBE — CHAPTER FIRST, physically as fertile as ever, may again become spiritually creative. Our interest must chiefly lie in original, proto- historic Egypt, which had a long existence, more than 3000 years, or possibly more than 4000. It also had its periods, its oscillations, in its development. These periods we may consider to be three in common with most writers on Egypt, the old, the middle, and the new, each of which had its rise, bloom, and decline, em- bracing centuries and several dynasties. But the main fact for us in our present work is that each of these periods developed its own special phase of Architecture, which we shall designate as follows : — A. The Pyramid^ which belongs to the Old Period and whose highest development was reached in the Fourth Dynasty, and is still to be seen at Gizeh. B. The Column, which belongs to the Middle Period, and whose bloom was attained in the Twelfth Dynasty, the locality of it being now called Beni-Hassan. The Column shows the separation of the supporting principle from the wall, and its independent form and development. Two leading kinds of Columns are found at Beni- Hassan, one of which will be developed by Egypt, the other by Greece. C. The Temple, which belongs to the New Pe- riod in its complete Egyptian shape, having the THE OBIENTAL TYPE. 57 enclosing wall, the supporting column inside, as well as the roof overhead, all differentiated yet united into one structure. This Temple culmi- nates in the Eighteenth Dynasty (best exempli- fied in Karnak, which may be regarded as a Pyramid with its structural elements developed though prostrate). Such is, in general outline, the architectural process of Egypt, the generic one for all time as far as we can now see. Yet each of these Periods forming together the one total process, has within itself also a process of rise, culmina- tion, decline. Three grand oscillations we note in the history of Egypt as independent or proto- historic ; in deep correspondence with this politi- cal or rather institutional movement is the move- ment of its Architecture whose chief function is to be the Home of Institutions. There has always been some question about the order of Egypt's monuments. This nation has been supposed to be the absolutely stable, unchanging and unchangeable; its works were held to share in this character. All alike they were thrown out along the Nile for thou- sands of years, unalterable as the Sphinx which never moves a feature. Such a view would exclude evolution from Egypt, which, however, has shown itself to be a land of inner develop- ment, even if this be slow, and not visible in yearly cycles. So we are to see in our evolu- 58 ABGEITEQTUBE — CHAPTEB FIRST. tionary time the land of the Nile slowly keeping step with the movement of the ages, being no longer regarded as stationary by any means. Especially we shall observe in Egypt an evolu- tion of Architecture, which, if we look simply at the difference between the shapes evolved (for instance between the Pyramid and Column) was of vaster sweep than the architectural evolution of Europe. Moreover, the duration of Egyptian Architec- ture is much longer than that of European archi- tecture. From the Pyramid-builders to the Ptolomies, stretches a period of nearly 4000 years — certain Egyptologists say 5000. But if we start in Europe with the first Doric temple of Sicily (a little before 600 B. C), we have a period of some 2500 years extending down to our own time. Thus Egypt's architectural de- velopment may have lasted twice as long as that of Europe. We say mai/, recollecting the un- certainty of Egyptian chronology which refuses to be measured by the little European measuring- rod of an annual cycle. At any rate we must break to pieces our notion of a crystallized Egypt, and see in that old world a very decided evolutionary movement. We are all Egyptians still and cannot help ourselves ; the Nile is flowing through us to-day and will continue to flow forever. By many channels, or rather through many mouths does THE OBIENTAL TYPE, 69 it empty itself into the sea of the Future, far vaster than the Mediterranean. It pours into us primarily through its Hebrew outlet — the Bible, Moses and the Law. Then it reaches us by means of Greek literature which works old Egypt over and over for many' hundred years, from Homer to Photius. Through Christianity it winds into the secret recesses of our souls, for Christian theology was thought out and formu- lated at Egyptian Alexandria. But in our Nine- teenth Century, truly the evolutionary Century, we have rushed back to ancient Egypt itself, dug it up, plundered remorsely even its tombs in order to find out its secret which is also ours. Not for money or for idle curiosity is this thing done, but really for our salvation. We must know ourselves in order to be saved, but to know ourselves we have to know Egypt. Accordingly we shall begin our study of the architectural evolution of the ages with the first and greatest Egyptian monument — the Pyramid which in our view stands at the beginning of Architecture and starts it going. We at least are deeply impressed with the constructive importance of the Pyramid as the primal foun- tain of all great building, as the mighty archi- tectonic mother whose progeny will be the structural forms of the future. A. The Pyramid. Architecture begins with the largest building erected by associated Man. There is no fact in the history of construction more suggestive and indeed more startling than the one just stated. Out of the Pyramid we may conceive the stream of Architecture to be flowing, as the Nile from its sources. And this stream flows not only westward but eastward, through the Orient as well as through Europe. Over and over again in the course of our studies we shall have to come back to the thought : Architecture begins with the largest building erected by associated Man. This building is, then, the oldest, truly the first in more senses than one, being the edifice placed at the starting-point of civilization in time, place, and development. Looked at in regard to architectural evolution, the Egyptian Pyramid is the most important, the most significant struc- ture that was ever reared. With all its bareness, its utter abstractness, it has a fascination peculiar in kind, and greater than any other building, when it has once taken possession of us, and we begin to unfold what lies implicitly in it for the future. What is the ground of its charm? It is the potential building of our earth, containing and remotely suggesting all the coming realiza- (60) TEE PTBAMID. 61 tion of Architecture, when we fleetingly glimpse its incipient possibilities. Hence we may understand that every age will have and ought to have its own interpretation of the Pyramid, which must be looked back at and seen in the light of the latest developed construc- tion. Just now the American High Building is the most recent commentary upon that ancient Egyptian prophecy in stone, its most recent and probably its most striking fulfillment. More than any intervening edifice of Europe, does this newest edifice of the ages reach back and join hands with the oldest, in a marvelofls recognition- of kinship. We shall therefore try to get what we can out of the Pyramid, well knowing that it is a hieroglyphic, the most colossal Egyptian hieroglyphic, which no Champollion is going to unriddle at a breath, but whose full meaning can only be unrolled in the lapse of Time itself. Such is the primordial germ out of which the succeeding forms of Architecture are to flower forth in the lasting lines of granite and marble. The meaning of the word Pyramid is some- what uncertain. There have been attempts to find an Egyptian word for it, but without suc- cess, say most of the Egyptologists. It is prob- ably a Greek word meaning fire or rather the funeral pyre (pyra) which, built in the form of a square at the base, would become something like a blazing pyramid, when aflame. Certainly in 62 ABCHITEGTUBE — CHAPTEB FIRST. the Greek mind pyramid was connected with pyre, which was also a receptacle for the dead body, though the one consumed it and the other preserved it. Indeed we may see a difference between the Greek and Egyptian conceptions in the fact that the one took a pyramid of stone and the other a pyramid of fire for the lifeless man. I. The Pyramids have their district, which is confined to the western side of the Nile, several miles from its banks, along the border of the Libyan desert, whose sands often encroach upon these monuments. They lie in an irregular line from the village Medum in the South to Abu Koasch in the North opposite to Cairo. This line is somewhat over forty miles long and runs through the necropolis of the old capital of Egypt, Memphis, which lay on the left bank of the river a few miles above Cairo, and was flanked on both sides by Pyramids rising up along the sands of the desert. As the inhabitants of Memphis looked to the West with its setting-sun, they beheld that sky-line of Pyramids, which seemed a sort of barrier against the lifelessness, the bare negation and nothingness of Sahara. In the other direction was the life given by the River with its fresh annual deposit of fertile soil brought down from unknown sources. An in- cessant conflict seemed to be waged between the Nile and the Desert in the middle of which the THE PTBAMW. 63 old Egyptian was placed, the Destroyer on one side and the Preserver on the other. Well may he have become the most religious of mortals, as so many ancient observers have declared, be- holding at his very door the two Gods of the Universe, the positive and the negative, in a con- tinuous battle for his possession. The number of the Pyramids is put at about one hundred since the discoveries of Lepsius and others. They are of many sizes and shapes, and also in different states of preservation. The largest, the Great Pyramid of Cheops, is now estimated by good authority to be 484 feet high, though its height seems to have somewhat varied in the past and is differently reported. At its base are some small Pyramids rising to fifty and seventy feet. Not far off is the Sphinx which has become the type of the Egyptian riddle, though named by the hieroglyphics '* the watch- man," or the sentinel standing guard over the dead. II. We must conceive the Pyramid to be an Enclosure made by man and not by nature, otherwise we can hardly call it architectural. When the temple or tomb is hewn out of the solid rock, the wall is not yet born, not yet sep- arated from its primeval mother earth. The birth of the man-made wall as an Enclosure or home of the God is properly the birth of Archi- tecture. As long as this Enclosure is a grot or 64 ARCHITECTURE — CHAPTER FIRST. cave, or an excavation, nature furnishes the jnain element of the building. Not till she is released of her task by man, is there any com- plete construction. When the Enclosure defi- nitely separates from mother earth, and is built for itself and in its own right, having severed the umbilical cord and standing forth in the world fully individualized, then Architecture has ap- peared and can start on its career. Before this event the structural forms belong to Archaeology. Now the Pyramid of Egypt is the Enclosure freeing itself of its oneness with the earth and asserting its own distinctive shape and individu- ality. When this transition took place cannot of course be told with any definiteness; but the scene of it was the Valley of the Nile far back in time. Its banks are lined with rock-tombs ; we may conceive one of them slowly emerging from the earth and bringing its wall along through the instrumentality of man, and finally placing itself upon its own chosen foundation. With such an act man also begins to separate himself from the trammels of nature and to start toward his goal, freedom. The self-conscious Ego dawned in Egypt, and began to build the Pyra- mid. Not till man had separated himself frona nature, could he separate anything else from it, and begin to build a real edifice for the habita- tion of his new-born Self. The Enclosure of the Pyramid is the primal THE PYRAMID. 65 reproduction of nature's wall by man, hence its solidity, its massiveness, its truly terrestrial thick- ness. The space enclosed in the Pyramid is indeed small, seemingly the smallest possible. The mountain is taken apart by human hands and put together again into a new mountain which, however, is the wall of Architecture, wholly separate from nature though sharing her colossal proportions. The Pyramid, accord- ingly, shows the winning of the wall as the Enclosure of space, in rivalry with the mighty agencies of the physical world. Architecture makes now its own environing element, which is indeed its first condition. Man too reveals him- self, his will coping with the powers of nature and turning them to his purpose. The Pyramid, therefore, is the primal architectural wall, it is all wall, or the wall as universal, creative, out of which we are to see other forms of Architecture evolving themselves. III. The greatness of the Pyramids impresses us with another fact : they are the product of associated Man. We see at once that it has re- quired a gigantic act of co-operation to build such a work, which thus becomes a most strik- ing image of socialized humanity. The Egyptian saw his whole people in the Pyramid, saw them at work. The weakness of the man taken singly, the mightiness of associated Man we to-day feel in these monuments as in none other. The in- 5 66 ABGHITECTUBE — GHAPTEB FIESt. dividual in their presence is simply overwhelmed, yet they were built by individuals in association. An abasement on the one hand and an exaltation on the other creep into the soul of the beholder, perchance in spite of himself. They humiliate into the dust the individual man, but they raise aloft the institutional Man. Such is the very character of Egypt petrified in these works of hers ; for in the Pyramid the Egyptian primarily builds himself building the Pyramid by vast combination, by a consolidation of the whole people into one long persistent deed of construc- tion. We cannot avoid the conclusion that it was the national will which built the Pyramid and thus expressed itself architecturally. Here, was indeed the tomb of the king, of the one will in which all others were concentrated, and which controlled these associated wills whose first duty was to construct an image or a symbol of their united nation. The Egyptian people looking on the Pyramid beheld their common Self, and through it became self-conscious as a nation; many wills manifest themselves as one will in a single gigantic work, which pictures to all coming generations the fact of national unity. The Pyramid is indeed a tomb, but why such a tomb? There is something in this tomb beyond the tomb, something which impelled a whole people to build it for their ruler so that it would be eternal. The very simplicity of the Pyramid, The pyramid. 67 the nakedness of it brings out the vastness of the associated strength by which it was con- structed. It is the total Egyptian nation as a nude athlete rising up in the valley of the Nile and facing the destructive might of the Libyan sands or indeed of Death itself in a kind of battle array. From this point of view as well as from others, the Pyramid may be considered to be the opening school of Architectdre as the truly architectonic Art. For this Art has as its fundamental func- tion to build the home of associated Man, the dwelling place of Will not as individual but as universal. The Pyramid shows Man imitating the cosmical Architect, rivaling the Maker of Nature in employing Nature's colossality. But it also shows the Egyptian people expressing in stone their deepest conviction, and building their whole social and institutional world in enduring monu- ments, thereby revealing themselves supremely as a nation of builders, on the whole greatest that our globe has yet seen. The fact is they could not keep from building. The God gave them food, and then set them to work to earn his bounty. This free food of the Nile was not so free after all. The immeasurable ruins in Egypt to-day speak of labor, labor, pure labor of a whole people for thousands of years. And it is largely labor for constructing the dwelling-place 68 ABOniTECTUnE — CHAPTER FIBST. of the God, of putting Him into an Enclosure, of making the Infinite finite, the Unknown known. In this connection we may regard the Pyramids as the great trainers of man to work. We can- not help thinking that those early Egyptian kings understood their problem. The primitive man on the whole does not like to work, the savage is notoriously proud and lazy, he is the original gentleman who regards work as unbe- coming to his dignity. Then with that free food furnished by Father Nile, what a good time the early man would have for luxuriating in idleness and savagery I But those hoary rulers of Egypt, evidently men of iron will, took hold of the idler with no gentle hand and set him to work. The supposition is hot improbable that the human race became trained to industry in the Nile Valley, and has kept at w^ork ever since. For these vast structures often have no conceiv- able purpose, they seem to mean industry for industry's sake, and to show man laboring terribly to learn to labor. A great educator of primitive civilization to its task one may well behold in the Pyramid. Again let us emphasize that the Pyramid is a great trainer to associated effort. To build it requires calculation, forethought, incredible patience; it is a monument to the long-enduring toil of many men co-operating. Not a herd of animals or a colony of beavers do the workers THE PYBAMID. 69 here show themselves; they are a society of self- conscious human beings who build a mighty image of their association and thus behold them- selves as a social unit, as a people. The early Egyptians build their consciousness of nationality into a Pyramid, without which they never would have known themselves. Long indeed is the pro- cess, more than a thousand years probably. And to-day we seek to throw ourselves back into that old consciousness which still lurks in us, but is covered up with the civilization of the many intervening centuries. We strive to become again an ancient Egyptian for the nonce and to build a Pyramid ourselves. It is a part of the appreciation of the Pyramid to study the various impressions which they have made upon foreigners who have visited them. Especially the architects of the different succeed- ing nations are to be heard when they speak. But their speech is properly their Art, and we shall find many a connecting link between the Pyramid and later architectural forms. It is our opinion that the early Greek architects visited Egypt to see its monuments, as the early Greek philosophers went thither to study its lore. Observers state that the Pyramids at a dis- tance seem to be mountains, and give an impres- sion similar to these lofty objects of nature. But when they are approached and are seen near at hand, the effect changes. The mind becomes 70 ABC HITEC TUBE — CHAPTEB FIB ST. aware that they are the works of man, that is of associated Man. There follows a feeling of be- ing overwhelmed, of stupefaction. A single immense block is inspected, and then the whole; both have the tendency to strain the vision, and also the imagination toward the invisible and the unimaginable; the mind sinks unable to grasp the labor, the means, the mass inside, the lapse of time since their construction. Thus individ- uality seems at first crushed, ground to very dust by the oppressive edifice. Then the thought rises : all this is the work of individuals associ- ated. Whereat comes relief, and the observer begins to see the positive element in the Pyra- paid, to go back and build it over in his own soul. We mistake if we think the Pyramid was merely a tomb in our sense of the word. The whole people built it as a manifestation and also as a means of their unity ; it showed to them their one concentrated Will as a nation. We may well believe that the Pyramid revealed Egypt to the Egyptians. It was not connected with the future state merely, but with the pres- ent; it was not simply a monument of death but also of life and activity. The king, un- doubtedly in accord with the consciousness of his people, spent his life in building it; his suc- cessor would then erect another ; thus there was a living reproduction of the national unity and THE PYBAMID. 71 perchance development in these monuments from reign to reign and from dynasty to dynasty. The one Will of the Nation represented by the monarch, also one Will, kept itself active in con- structing the Pyramid, which was doubtless in that age the means of unifying Egypt. ly. So we emphasize as strongly as we can that the Pyramid was not the work of a capricious tyrant commanding a vast mass of slaves to labor for the gratification of his ambition or vanity. On the contrary the Pyramid was a great national act, and also profoundly religious, its construc- tion being demanded and participated in by the whole people. No mere tyrant could have built it without the strong concurrence of the popular will backing him and urging him forward. No slaves could have done this work, though slaves undoubtedly were employed in the purely me- chanical labor. As a whole it is not a servile product, it speaks as a performance of the spirit overflowing with its own self-expression. Pictured on some walls we may see slaves lifting and pulling the stone into position under the direction of the taskmaster, and then polishing the surface of the monument. But the real work- men were the people who for their own salvation were building this edifice, in the fulfillment of their national destiny. To build was to worship in the age of the Pyramids. The service of the God required 72 ABGHITEGTUBE — GHAFTEli FIRST. construction, and that too construction for eter- nity. There was a ritual indeed, with prayer and sacrifice ; but the true prayer, the heartfelt sacrifice was the laying of one of these enormous masses of stone. Without such an act of wor- ship they never could have been laid, at least not so many of them and for so long a time. Here before us is the actual prayer-book of the Egyptian which he read at a glance doubtless often during the day and felt the response in his soul. If we would understand him, we too must decipher this prodigious hieroglyphic, and read it after him in his sense, and as far as possible with his feeling. As he looked up at the Pyra- mids he heard their prayers of stone, petrified petitions to the Gods during thousands of years. That was his way and so he built and kept building these pyramidal supplications for untold ages. One such structure, even the largest, was, not enough, for the act of praying cannot end but repeats itself again and again in many Pyra- mids great and small streaming down Time. Thus it comes that they are of many sizes and of many periods. Each generation with its ruler must do its own praying, that is, must build its own special Pyramid, for in Egyptian this is the true speech of supplication. It cannot therefore surprise us that the archi- tect was held in such high esteem by the people of the Nile. A saying of theirs has come down THE PYBAMID. 73 that the builder was more than the king. He was the leader in prayer, the national leader whom the king followed. To build is not simply to make a tomb or even a temple ; it is the imme- diate communion with the God on the part of all who were placing a single stone into the wall. King and people united in building the Pyramid through the architect as in the grand act of wor- ship. We cannot help thinking that the humble workman patiently chiseling in the granite quar- ries of Syene many hundreds of miles distant the slabs for these monuments had also his divine satisfaction in the task. He was also a builder, and in his small way he was re-enacting the part of the God (Ptah, the builder), whose grand divine act was the building of the cosmos. It is well known that the cathedrals of the Middle Ages were constructed with a similar de- votion on the part of the people who saw in them a great work of their associated commu- nity. Many years the task of building them lasted, even centuries; some of them are not finished yet, as there are also unfinished Pyramids. In both the Pyramid and the Ca- thedral we see associated Man erectingr the home or dwelling-place of what makes him associated Man — of the God who must also have his house, which is the house of all houses in that community. The great universal Self who indwells and unites all the 74 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTER FIBST. small individual Selves, is to have His Home in the center of these atomic individuals, asso- ciating them primordially and making them cre- ative of all association and its architecture. Hence it conies that the primal structure which the people build architecturally is the abode of their God, or of their reli odious In- stitution. Associated Man erects his first great Home for that Will which associates him, unifies him into a nation, making him an Egyptian, a Greek, a Koman. From this original Home of the God or of the religious Institution, he will proceed to build the home of other Institutions, the secular. Thus the abode of the God or of the religious Institution is the creative source, the genetic archetype of all other institutional abodes, that is, of all Architecture. Associated Man in his Egyptian stage builds the Pyramid as the eternal Home of that Will, Spirit, Ego which makes him associated Man, a social Whole. King Cheops, the Pyramid-builder, was such a Will, socializing and unifying the people of the Nile Valley in a great enterprise, and so was for them divine, was one with the God who makes man associative and a builder of institutions and their edifices. The Great Pyra- mid was indeed the tomb of King Cheops, but that peculiar kind of tomb which was to preserve undying the Spirit or Ego which united all the people in making it, so that every Egyptian THE PYRAMID. 75 would feel, as he looked up at it in passing, his oneness with his nation, would thrill at the con- sciousness of his Egyptian selfhood, which has revealed itself in such overpowering grandeur. V. Almost universally the opinion has been held that the Pyramids were built by tyrants with autocratic power grinding the people to the last degree of endurance. How did such a view start? We can trace it back to the old Greeks looking at these monuments and trying to dis- cover their purpose. Herodotus about 450 B.C., visited Egypt and has handed down the first account. He declares that Cheops who built the great Pyramid closed the temples, prohibited sacrifices, and oppressed the whole nation by his exaction of compulsory labor. On the other hand inscriptions in hieroglyphics on the monu- ments have been deciphered which indicate that Cheops was a pious man, performing all his duties to the Gods, of which this construction of the Great Pyramid was an instance. The latter is not only the more correct and rational view, but is now the established fact. The former was really a Greek interpretation of these mighty structures, and that too an in- terpretation belonging to a certain age of Greece. Herodotus, for instance, had in mind the Ori- ental despot of whom he has given such a strik- ing picture in Xerxes. And the Greek of the middle of the fifth century B. C. had just wit- 76 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIRST. nessed the struggle of his race vindicating the idea of freedom against Persia and the whole Orient with its absolutism. Accordingly he reads into the Pyramid his own immediate ex- perience; such a vast work could not be con- structed except by an enslaved people like the Orientals scourged to their toil by a master, as Xerxes whipped his slaves to their work in build- ing his bridge of boats over the Hellespont. The second great Pyramid was built by Che- phren, the successor and brother of Cheops. The two reigns lasted for 106 years, during which the Egyptians *' suffered all kinds of oppression and the temples remained constantly closed." Here is hinted in a far-off manner the difference between the Pyramid-builder and the Temple- builder, which we shall find to be an important fact in the history of Egyptian Architecture, and doubtless in the development of the Egyptian Eeligion. The old Greek historian continues: " Through hate of these two kings, the people would not even mention their names, and so they called the Pyramids after a shepherd, Philitis, who then pastured his flocks in that region." Here again lies a remote historical kernel ; the Pyramid-builder evidently had become identified with the abhorred shepherd-kings in the popular mind, though the former lived probably a thou- sand years before the time of the latter. The third Pyramid of the present locality THIS PYRAMID. 77 (Gizeh) was much smaller ^han the other two and was built by Mycerinus, son of Cheops, who was wholly unlike his father and uncle, for he took no pleasure in cruelty, and sought to become the benefactor of his subjects. " He opened the temples, and allowed the distressed people to return to their occupations and to the worship of the Gods." Evidently here the in- terpretation runs : the greater the Pyramid the greater the tyrant; the modest Pyramid indi- cates the good character. The criterion is Greek moderation ; the colossal is oppressive and means the oppressor. Another Greek reporter long after Herodotus makes the following addition: " The two kings who built these large Pyramids are not buried in them. For they were so hated on account of this laborious work, as well as by their cruelties and oppressions that the people threatened to drag their bodies from their tombs and to tear them to pieces" (Diodorus Siculus). Such is the Greek with his idea of freedom construing the Pyramids as monuments of Oriental despot- ism. Not altogether wrong, nor wholly right is the view, say we to-day, giving our interpreta- tion to these same phenomena. It seems a good while to us since Herodotus wrote, more than two thousand years ago. But between Herodotus and the Pyramid-builders lay a longer period, fully three thousand years ac- 78 AUCHITE CTURE — CHAP TEE FIRST. cording to Egyptologists of authority. Between the Father of History and our own age the recorded development of civilization has taken place ; in fact he may be deemed the first ade- quate recorder of it himself. Very surprising seems the fact that from Herodotus back to the Pyramids lie a thousand years more than from him down to the present age. In Egypt Time seems not under control, somewhat chaotic and gigantic. It was the Greek mind that first ordered Time and gave to the world chronology (the science of Time). Herodotus has this ordering of Time when he deals with Greek affairs, but in Egypt he is quite at sea. He was dazed, as we still are, at the mass of Time pre- cipitated into the annals of that country, a mass vast as the Pyramids, centuries piled upon cen- turies, so that the mind is overwhelmed with Egypt's Time. How the Egyptologists have struggled to put it into order and are still struggling ! Abdellatif , an Arabian poet of Bagdad (born in 1161) has famously exclaimed : '* Everything fears Time, but Time fears the Pyramids." Thus he represents a kind of elemental war as existing between Time and the Pyramids, with an outlook of victory for the latter. It is true that the Pyramids seem to be endowed with the power of meeting and overcoming the destructive power of Time ; that is a part of their mighty impres- THE PYRAMID. 79 sion. The Destroyer beats his wings against their slanting sides in vain, he glides off into the burning sands of the Libyan desert, thrust back as it were into his own Inferno. Such we may call the imaginative Arabian or Semitic inter- pretation in contrast with the Greek, who saw these monuments from his political point of view, which has indeed been adopted by the European. Abdellatif as Oriental did not think of the government which lies behind such works, but that is what the mind of Europe is sure to select and to condemn, by way of contrast to itself. Egypt's Time comes floating down to us in enormous boulders of ages, of centuries, of thousands of years . It is not nicely divided up into neat little annual blocks easy to handle, and all joined together in succession. We indeed see a certain stratification of events as in Geol- ogy ; we can mark a cycle of rise, culmination and decline, in fact several such cycles. The Pyramids appear to show such a cycle, lasting a thousand years more or less. Not till the period of Psammetichus, and still more, that of Amasis, does Egypt begin to be chronologized through the Greek, and brought into line with the World's History. But those antique masses of Time in old Egypt must be taken as they are in themselves, hardly can they be forced into an alien chronological order (which is the habit of 80 ABCHITECTURE — CHAPTER FIRST. the European) ; thus in fact they lose part of their meaning. yi. The Western mind, particularly the Anglo-Saxon, seeks to apply its great category, utility, to the Pyramid. The result is a very considerable number of theories which try to answer that ever-pressing question: cui bono? But just such a question is an evidence of the vast difference between then and now, them and us, or between the Egyptian consciousness and our own. The Pyramid is the naked support of itself; it has nothing to uphold except its own enormous mass. It is roof, column, wall in one, these being not yet differentiated. It is almost pure wall, very little is the room inside, though there is a little. A royal tomb, yes; but why such a tomb, when in Egypt there are many other kinds, and seemingly far better adapted to their purpose? So our minds are driven to look behind this use for some deeper or more ade- quate use. It has been suggested that they had an astro- nomical purpose, specially for the observation of the stars. Why then two such large observa- tories in one locality? They have also been regarded as bulwarks, to keep back the sands of the Libyan desert. But here again their useful- ness utterly goes to pieces, they do not perform their task at all. The outcome of all such theo- THE PYRAMID. 81 ries may be summed up in this statement: the utility of the Pyramids is altogether useless. The fact is they are ideal purely, they stand there representing an idea in the strongest con- trast with any notion of utility. Even if this, idea be so naked, so abstract, so devoid of all content that it can hardly be uttered, still it is present in form, just in this bare form of the Pyramid. Here lies the chief difficulty, the grand riddle. The mind (and this is our own) which asks these monuments : Of what use are ye? can hear no answer because it is incapable, having not the organ. Any purpose ascribed or ascribable to them dissolves into thin air on the spot, as trivial or indeed contradictory. They rise up in their own right, not a means to any conceivable end, except just themselves. The Pyramid is built for its own sake by Egypt, the end is the building of it. Man beholds himself in it as the builder and nothing else, the pure image of constructive power which begins Archi- tecture in the great sense. The idealism of the Pyramid, though so abstract that it contains nothing else, we may well deem the distinct starting-point of Art itself, which will never lose this ideal trait. Undoubtedly it is the Egyptian mind, the Nile mind which is building its own spiritual sem- blance in the Pyramid. From Beyond to the Here flows the Nile, from the Unknown to the 6 82 ARCEITEOTUBE — CHAPTEE FIBST. Known, bringing the other world into this world. The point of the Pyramid seems to pierce the In- finite and to let it down into the Finite, which thus becomes a colossal work mirroring Egyptian origin. The Pyramid is a kind of erect Nile descending from Heaven into the land of Egypt and spreading oat over it broadly, somewhat like an inundation. We are not to forget that Egypt along with everything in it, even the Pyramid, is *' the gift of the Nile." VII. The geometry of the Pyramid is a phase not to be neorlected. The straio^ht line now appears and adjusts the huge masses to its authority. The Pyramid is not a pile of stones like the cairn or an irregular mound, but is built everywhere on straight lines, each block being hewn and harmonized to an order which is mathematical. Nature is transformed and re- adapted with a purpose, controlled by this funda- mental rectilineal principle, which the builder must know and apply, thus becoming aware how he has to construct along certain geometric lines in order to make his Enclosure. But we must note here the peculiar Egyptian avoidance of the rectangular when possible. The lines of the Pyramid though straight Are slanting. Particularly that which is most manifest in the Pyramid is the slanting triangle, which is prop- erly the only form visible. Four such triangles constitute its sides and nothing else can be seen ; TEE PYBAMID. 83 that seems to be just the revelation of this early Egyptian mind. Hence comes probably the idea of the sacred triangle which captivated the* fancy of some famous Greeks versed in Egypt's lore, notably Plato and Plutarch. But there is in the Pyramid an unseen geomet- ric shape, the ground-plan, and this is rectangu- lar. It lies prostrate on the earth out of sight, yet is the base of the whole structure, as this rises upon slanting lines to a point, thus mani- festing to vision the four triangular sides. Take a thought of this implicit hidden rectangle in the Pyramid, for it is what the Greek will seize upon and bring forth to the light; his temple will be quadrangular almost throughout, the chief ex- ception being the triangular pediment produced by the sloping roof. Note here that the Pyra- mid is all roof, and all wall and all column as support, being not yet differentiated into these constructive elements, though containing them in its massive Enclosure. It is a suggestive fact that Egypt has no three- cornered Pyramids with a triangular base ; not one has been discovered there, it is said. But when the Pyramid moves up the Nile into Nubia, it is found with a triangular base, which, how- ever, destroys its character. For its secret de- terminant must be the quadrangle, the Egyptian Pyramid is itself by being four-sided in its slant. Thus a kind of bi-lateral symmetry is retained in 84 ARCHITECTUEE — CHAPTEB FIRST. it, and controls its four triangles, giving also variety instead of monotony. It is interesting to note' the two contrary trends of development out of the Pyramid : the Greek and European to the North on one side, the Nubian and African to the South on the other side. The Pyramid may be called the most abstract of all great structures; it had to be so in order to be the first. But the Hiojh Building is the most concrete, embracing, when rightly finished, quite all the forms of Architecture. The sim- plest elements of Geometry the Pyramid empha- sizes to the eye, namely Point, Line and Surface, out of which all geometric figures unfold. No ornament, no moulding, no cornice do we see, the Pyramid is naked Form reduced to its pri- mary genetic elements, the aforesaid Point, Line, and Surface. Yet these are what control the transformation of Nature in all the complicated products of industry. The Pyramid thus holds up in the most impressive, yea smiting manner the lesson which man has to learn in order to subdue the physical world to his ends. It is, in this aspect, a colossal lesson in Geometry, show- ing that Nature, however vast she may be, is controlled by Mathematics. Egypt of the Pyramids geometrizes in stone, she has to materialize geometric forms in order to understand them ; she is not yet able to seize them apart, as they are in themselves. It is the THE PYBAMID. S5 Greek (particularly Pythagoras and Plato) who abstracts Point, Line and Surface, and, combin- ing them into many forms, organizes out of them the science of Geometry, the ideal prototype of all building. It required the idealist with his view of the world to make this grand abstraction from matter, and to build his Pure Forms or Ideas separated from the realm of sense, into the geometric edifice. The service of Plato and of Platonism informing the mathematical conscious- ness of the European race can hardly be over- estimated. But it began far back in Egypt, and is instinctively at work building the Pyramids which so strikingly show their own constructive principle in its primal, most simple expression. Pyramidal Egypt is still sunk in sense-perception and has to take its instruction in that way ; hence it erects a colossal object-lesson in the Pyramid, whereby the coming Egyptian and indeed the whole future race can sense the rudiments of Geometry unseparated as yet from their material body. Through its four slanting triangles coming to a point at the top, the Pyramid is a roof, is in- deed all roof, as if made to shed something con- tinuously and everlastingly, but not rain in Egypt which seldom has a shower. Time was the great destructive assailant whom the Egyptian every- where sought to ward off and overcome. The sloping Pyramid sheds Time, whose ever-drip- 86 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIBST. ping moments seem to glance off from its sides and fall back vanishing into the sands of the Libyan desert at its base. Thus the Pyramid suggests indestructibility, immortality, immortal itself against the Destroyer, and preserving im- mortal even the human body intrusted to its care. That pyramidal slant we may regard as a Time- shedder, and thus identify its form with its purpose. Moreover the outer coating of polished granite slabs which we may still see partly cover- ing the third great Pyramid — that of Myce- rinus — suggests the gliding-off of some attacking power; it seems as if the ray of light shot out of our own eye glances from the smooth surface into vacancy. Some have seen in the four tri- angles of the Pyramid the four faces of the great God of Egypt looking in the four directions and showing the same imperturbable, divinely change- less look at all the changes of Time and at all the blows of Fate, the defiant stoic of the ages. VIII. The eye follows the masses struggling upward in the Pyramid and gradually coming to a point or cessation, as it were slowly lessening its prodigious effort to mount to the empyrean and vanish into nothingness. In its ascent the Pyra- mid gives up. But in its descent it grows enor- mously in the sense of power, as the whole sweeps widening on every side to the earth. The downward movement of the Pyramid is simply overwhelming, crushing in its triumph THE PYBAMID, , 87 over the counter tendency or the upward move- ment. The fall is here celebrated, intensified and made eternal in stone. The view of the Pyramid calls up the principle of falling bodies, increasing in momentum and hence in power through a succession of squares in the descent earthward. We may regard it as showing a kind of petrified law of gravitation, an eternal fall of a vast material body whose accelerating velocity downward is suddenly crystallized all the way to the bottom, and becomes literally visible as the Pyramid. As already said the down-bearing movement of^ the Pyramid is supremely victorious over the up-bearing, though the latter is always present and struggling. This gives it a peculiar Oriental cast, corresponding with the institutions of the East, political and religious. The pressure of what is above upon what is below speaks out of the monuments of the Orient and weighs down the feelings of the Occidental observer. Between these two principles, the fighting genii of Archi- tecture, the down-bearing and the up-bearing, lies the grand inner struggle of Architecture in its endeavor to express more and more completely the advance of man toward a higher freedom. According to the gradation of the triumph of the one or the other of these twin foes, we divide the architectural sweep of the world into Oriental, European, and Occidental. 88 ABCHITECTUBE—GEAPTEB FIB8T. The Pyramid is a tomb for the king, but not in the European sense, not even in the later Egyptian sense. This pyramidal tomb has some- thing in it of the nature of a temple to the God. The king was still the divine vicegerent and rep- resentative, the deity incarnate. The separation between king and God had not yet definitely taken place in the Egyptian consciousness at early Memphis as it will later at Thebes. The Pyramid is a sort of commingled tomb-temple dedicated to the king-god, even if it had usually as adjunct a small temple near by for some ini- tiatory purpose. In the inscriptions we find the king spoken of as the God again and again. The government was directly theocratic, or God- ruled, and therein undoubtedly corresponded to the consciousness of the people, who demanded a present deity as ruler, or the king-god. The builders of the great Pyramids lived at the height of such a national consciousness and expressed it in their vast monuments. Thus we seek to reproduce in ourselves, even if faintly, that remote state of the mind which could erect such massive structures to their kings, or rather king-gods. These they sought to keep with themselves forever in a building fortified against Time. We may suppose that these king-gods were regarded as the bringers of the blessings of the Nile, the seen embodiment of the unseen Giver whose dwelling-place the THE PYBAMID. 89 Egyptian built in the Pyramid. For that is the chief function of Architecture ; the people col- lectively construct their common institutional home in that of their God. The Pyramid is erected by associated Man as the abode and final resting-place of that Spirit or Ego which has brought about such association, which is the very source and center of it, and so is divine and undying. For associated Man is immortal while the individual vanishes. The Pyramid-building king as individual dies, but he lives in his work of association. His sarcophagus is put into his Pyramid, which is to be the eter- nal home of him eternal through uniting and associating his people. Summary. It would seem, then, that the oldest of the great structures of the Valley of the Nile is the Pyramid. There is apparently a line of Pyramid-building kings extending far back toward the beginning of Egyptian History. The three greatest Pyramids, those of Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus, were built by three successive kings belonging to one dynasty, the Fourth, which is usually placed about 4000 B.C. Thus they had been in existence quite two thou- sand years at the period of those Egyptian kings who were the first great conquerors, represented by Sesostris (often supposed to be Osirtasen I. of the Twelfth Dynasty). And before the time of tiiese royal builders of the largest Pyramids were 90 ABCHITFCTUEE— CHAPTER FIBST. builders of the smaller Pyramids, which thus form a kind of line going back to the starting- point of Egypt's construction. Moreover the larger Pyramids grew by addi- tions to the outside, by new layers built over an older and smaller Pyramid. Investigation has shown that several such layers have been added to the original kernel, also pyramidal but far smaller. It must have been the ambition of the new monarch or of the period to enlarge what was already large, to transcend the visible limit which the previous age had reached in construction. We may well behold in this fact the spirit rising to the Beyond, reaching over the limitation of the present ; an aspiration for the Infinite we can hardly help seeing in this dissatisfaction with the given, transmitted work of the aforetime. The Egyptian built the primordial fact of human spirit, its limit-trans- cending nature, into the Pyramid. • Of these Pyramids one hundred, as already stated, have been counted, of various sizes. They lie in a small stretch of country, not far from the site of ancient Memphis. This one large group has several subordinate groups, which are named after the neighboring villages (Gizeh, Daschur, Meidun, Saccara). Most of them are constructed out of huge blocks of quarried stone, some of which are more than thirty feet long; others are made of brick. THE PYRAMID. 91 Usually a narrow entrance leads to the tomb containing the sarcophagus of the royal builder. This entrance however was stopped up. As the Pyramid rises from its broad base resting on the earth, it gradually moves to a point, passing as it were from the material to immaterial, from the extended to the non- extended. What is the suggestion of such a form? As it carries the eye upward, there is a slow vanishing of the sensuous material into nothingness. The contemplation of the Pyra- mid as a work of art brings home to the soul the transitoriness of the visible world, which was made an ever-present object to Egypt. The same lesson is emphasized in the Obelisk. From the Pyramid came the slant which is so noticeable in Egyptian construction. Even a double slant is found in some Pyramids, as also in the Obelisks, appearing in a hurry to come to the end. The huge Pylon in front of the Temple has slanting sides, yet these are not carried out to the point. The Temple, though prostrate, grows less with each additional part. Egypt puts into her building the evanishment of the Present, the Sensuous, the Visible. To be sure, the slant we may look at in two ways : from above downward (like the Nile appearing), and from below upward (the disappearance). The largest Pyramid, that of Cheops, has been estimated to cover more than thirteen acres. It 92 ABCUITECTUBE— GIIAPTEB FIRST, is of a greater size than any other building in the world, and by far more massive, being almost wholly a solid wall, with galleries and chambers, all of which are relatively small. It is, there- fore, an Enclosure, though its passages and chambers are like those tunneled in the rock. It has an entrance, which was carefully closed. The attempt of the Pyramid-builders was to block up all openings in their structure ; nobody in the future was to see the inside. Again man has started, in the Occident, to erect buildings which have begun to reach the height of the Greatest Pyramid. The modern High Building springs or may spring from the same rectangular base, and runs upward not in slanting but in straight lines, carrying the whole material burden to the top. The Pyramid, how- ever, seems more and more to throw off its enormous burden of stone till it comes to the point or to nothing. Thus the feeling of rise, yea of matter rising against gravity is dominant in the High Building, while in the Pyramid the structure refuses to lift its own weight but keeps throwing it oH with prodigious labor. The overcoming of the rise is its suggestion. In the Pyramid the wall is supremely the supporter of the vast superincumbent burden which it has to carry without sinking or settling or being crushed. Those lower blocks of gran- ite in the Great Pyramid thirty feet long and six THE PYBAMID. 93 feet high are the typical gigantesque forms upbearing the colossal pile. But in the High Building the wall has no such burden of support- ing, on the contrary it is the supported, the up- borne from within (by the steel skeleton). The toiling millions of the Nile Valley with their bur- den we can see imaged in the masses of the Pyramid, building their spirit, burden-bearing, into stone. Not wholly silent, yet not very talkative is the colossal shape. Yet this work is their national act. The Cathedrals of Europe have also a mas- siveness in their enclosing walls which hints the downward pressure of the earthly. But the spire, dome, tower separates and points upward ; thus the dualism is explicit in two shapes. The separation of the Obelisk from the Pyramid has something of the same significance. It is re- lieved of excessive downwardness by being of one stone, not stones piled on top of each other, one on the shoulders of the other. This seems to be one reason why Egypt insisted that the Obelisk should be a monolith. Have we the right to consider the Pyramid as the genetic starting point of Architecture? It is still the largest building as space-enclosing; it is the oldest, put at the beginning, out of which all Architecture is to proceed. More than sixty centuries (if the calculation of Lenormant and others is correct) have they 94 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIB8T. stood, and have been viewed by architects down to the present, and are still studied. There is at their source a science, Geometry, which controls them, and orders the matter in them. It was geometric science which pre- pared and fitted into their place these huge blocks of marble. Such a science lies at the basis of all construction, to-day, yesterday, and forever. In the Pyramid we observe the point, line 'and surface drawn forth to the vision, they are the things which are first beheld. They are the primary abstract elements of Geometry. Any other form would obscure these elements. The point is strongly emphasized, so are the four lines (or edges), and then the four surfaces embraced in these lines. Out of these elements all geometric forms are constructed, and they are the ideal constructive principles of matter". The natural world molded into its ele- mentary structural shapes by Geometry, is here made visible in its most colossal manifestation. The Pyramid may then be deemed on the whole the genetic building of all Architecture. Perhaps we have the right to see here even the Pointed Arch in its earliest form, which has two long voussoirs leaning against each other (Pyramid of Mycerinus). The round Arch also was known to the early Egyptians. And the horizontal Architrave resting heavily upon its supports was represented by thousands of huge THE PYBAMID. 95 blocks of stone in the Pyramid, which may in- deed be considered all wall, all roof and all col- umn m one, containing implicitly these forms of construction. The latter are now to be seen un- folding out of it and becoming separate, individ- ualized, set up in their own right, which right of distinct individuality they have maintained down to this day. The first of these forms to be evolved is the Column, that of support, which is an inner evolution in Egyptian Architecture, but which is destined to pass outward in Hellas. It has been repeatedly said in the foregoing account that the period of the Pyramids lasted a thousand years in round numbers. During this long time there must have been some evolution, however slow. Can it be traced? Possibly later, but with our present facts this cannot be done in any degree of completeness. We note a difference of form in the Pyramids ; in this vari- ety of shapes some have seen a gradation of development. At present it will be enough to classify these external shapes by that principle, the slant, which the Pyramids have in common with nearly all the monuments of Egypt. 1. The many-slanted Pyramid. This is best represented by the so-called stepped Pyramid (provided with steps) of Saccarah. Each of its four sides has six huge steps varying from 38 to 29 feet in height, with slanting walls from step to step, the whole being about 190 feet high. 96 ABGEITECTUBE — CHAPTER FIRST. Thus it has its resemblance to the Pyramid with stairs, examples of which are found in Yucatan and elsewhere. This stepped Pyramid of Sac- carah has been regarded (for instance, byMari- ette) as the earliest Pyramid and hence as the oldest building in the world. Another variation of the many-slanted Pyramid is that of Medum, in which the slant of the wall between the steps is very slight. Thus it seems like a series of diminishing storys one on top of the other. It suggests the pagoda of Hindoo and Chinese Architecture, which may well have obtained hints from early Egypt. 2. The double-slanted pyramid. This is not in the form of steps, but each of the four sides has two slants at different angles. The most striking example is the Pyramid of Dashur, which starts at an angle of 54+ degrees, but about the middle it suddenly breaks off into a angle of 42+ degrees, which continues to the top. It is evident that here we have decidedly the suggestion of the Obelisk, which is also a double-slanted Pyramid. An enormous amount of conjecture has played around these two kinds of Pyramids, the many- slanted and the double slanted . They are usually considered to be very ancient ; in fact the con- sensus of opinion seems to lean to considering them as incomplete or even unfinished forms of THE PYRAMID. 97 the one finished typical form which is the fol- lowing : 3. The single-slanted Pyramid. We have had this form before us in making the preceding observations. It is the normal Pyramid, to which the previous forms are exceptions. Nearly all the Pyramids of Egypt are of this kind. But here rises another question, that of size. The pyramidal shape was evidently a favorite of all Egj^ptians, old and young, during their whole history, being employed for small ornaments as well for the largest monuments. Can we in the line of lesser to greater Pyramids see any devel- opment? We naturally think that the highest Pyramids, those of Gizeh, were preceded by smaller ones and succeeded also by smaller ones ; not much more can be said. Hence we may aifirm that there is a culmination of the Pyramid-build- ing epoch, with a growth before and a decline after, this growth being, as it were, pyramidal in outline. So much for the external form and size of the Pyramid with their manifold variations. Now we are to trace its inner development into wholly different forms which indicate a new epoch both in History and in Architecture. 7 98 ABCHITECTUBE — GHAVTEB FIRST. ^ B. The Column. The next important architectural development in Egypt was the columnar, which had a variety of forms. In general the supporting, up-bearing principle now unfolds, separating itself from the Pyramid, yet showing distinctly its evolution out of the same. The Column marks decisively the Second Period of Egyptian History, a time of renewed nationality and unity after centuries of obscuration and dissension coupled with foreign subjugation. Particularly the Twelfth Dynasty is the culmination of this Second Period both in- stitutionally and architecturally, and seems to have been Egypt's most creative epoch. Constructive forms which have lasted down to our own age then began to appear, signifying the strength and richness and originative power of a renewed national life. If we seek to express what this great Egyptian epoch produced, we may define it as bringing to a new and distinct validity the individual. The Column as supporter having separated from the pyramidal mass, now stands forth in its own right, as an individual form of Architecture. Taken by itself the Column speaks of individual- ity, of independence, which nevertheless has its duty. But it is just this duty, the burden- bearing, which calls the Column into existence. THE COLUMN. 99 In the Pyramid the individual was lost amid the mass, was not yet differentiated, not yet truly born. That Column at Beni-Hassan stepping forth out of the rock can only signify a new assertion of the Self, of the Ego. The second Period of Egyptian History means the winning of the individual as a distinct, separate entity which from this point starts on its great career of future development. Never afterwards did Egypt put such stress upon the worth of man. We are inclined to think that the Twelfth Dynasty was the culmi- nation of Egyptian Spirit. Even the Third Period, in spite of its colossal works, was hardly so original as the Second, which evolved for all time the Column, yea the two Columns, as we shall hereafter see. Great conquerors now arose. Egypt broke out of its introverted isolation and asserted itself as an individual nation in the world. All this one will rightly read not only in the recorded events of its history but also in the birth of its Column, the most individualized form in Architecture and holding its supremacy to this day. For the birth of the Column images a new birth of the person, a new step in the movement of self-consciousness. Hence the modern man fraternizes so readily with that old Egyptian shape in which he sees an early picture of his selfhood. 100 ABCHITECTVBE — CHAPTER FIRST In this regard the difference between the Pyramid (product of the First Period) and the Column (product of the Second Period) is strik- ing. The Pyramid completed itself in Egypt, and has never been employed again by any peo- ple. As an architectural form of expression its beginning and end are in the Valley of the Nile. Thus the Egyptian Pyramid is a thing done and seemingly done forever, persisting through Time with a duration like that of Time itself . Europe has indeed made a few small imitations of it such as the Pyramid of Cestius at Eome, but it has never been seriously employed as an archi- tectural expression of European consciousness. On the other hand the Column takes simply its starting-point in Egypt, specially at Beni- Hassan, and has triumphantly marched round the earth, undergoing every sort of outer metamorphosis, yet preserving fundamentally the same form and character, and winning the favor of all peoples. Of architectural forms the Column is the most prolific, the most capable of bringing forth new varieties of itself fitted to every conceivable people. The architectural spirit of all nations has found the Column the most plastic constructive shape, the most adaptable to the ever-shifting diversity of nations. Arising in Egypt, passing out of Egypt into Greece, moving to Eome and thence all over the ancient world, transforming itself with Time THE COLUMN, 101 into classic, medieval and modern, the Column has shown a marvelous power of self -evolution, from the dignified to the grotesque, from the first proto-Doric shape in an Egyptian Tomb to Mullett's pig-tails on an American Government Building. It will be a part of our duty in the present work to trace down the ages the main forms of the Col- umn, and to bring out the grounds for its Protean character. Here we may say that it performs a permanent function in its support of the cover of the Enclosure, while the Pyramid and the Obelisk subserve no such purpose. These standby them- selves in a kind of individual isolation, and do not associate and combine with other elements of structure, being far less sociable than the Col- umn, which serves, supports, and unites the whole building. Hence the Column finds a friendly reception and a home everywhere, when it moves forth from its native land. The development of the Column in Egypt had its source in the Tomb, as did the Pyramid, which, though the house of death, is built to defy Death, to outlast the Destroyer and thus to secure immortality. At the first glance the Egyptians seemed to put supreme stress upon Death, the Negative; but really what they seek is the death of Death, the negation of the Negative, the overcoming of the Destroyer through Architecture, through con- 102 ABC HITEC TUBE — GHAPTEB FIBST. structing a fortress which he cannot take. Man's body is made imperishable by embalm- ment, and is to have an imperishable habitation. It is a strange thought, but through the Tomb Egypt reached its conception of eternal life, which is just the before-mentioned death of Death. Hence it comes that out of the Tomb rise Egypt's architectural forms with their tri- umph over Death. Ascending the Nile beyond the district of the Pyramids, on the way from old Memphis to new Thebes (though both of these cities are for us very old), lies the ceme- tery of Beni-Hassan, where we can at present best see the development of the Column cotem- poraneous with the second grand cycle of what we "have called proto-historic Egypt. The columnar development of Egypt taken as a Whole will show three stages, each of which is represented by an architectural form. First is the Column in general, with its forms support- ing the covered Enclosure and unfolding from square to round, from the pier to the proto- Dorian and proto-Egyptian columnar forms. Second is the Obelisk, a fully separate four- cornered columnar form, disconnected and inde- pendent, upholding only itself. Third is the Mammeisi (or Typhonium) a peristylar form or row of columns encompassing a wall like a Greek temple. Interrelated are all three, being derived TEE COLUMN. 103 from a common parent, the Pyramid, and show- ing the kinship in a number of ways. 1. Columnar Forms, Such we may call the early- variations of the Column. As it unfolds from the Pyramid, it throws out diverse shapes, all of which, however, show a certain common character which we can designate as columnar. Doubtless the most interesting of these early columnar forms is the Column which so closely resembles the Doric, since it almost forces the mind to connect Egyptian and Greek Architec- ture, and to see the latter springing out of the former. This is named the proto-Doric Column, but in the same period and in the same place there developed the second kind which we may call similarly the pro to-Egyptian Column, as we shall find it unfolding later on Egyptian soil, for example at Karnak. These columnar forms are an interior develop- ment and on the whole remain so in Egypt. At the same time they begin to show themselves uniting in a row or colonnade ; in spite of their individuality and separation, they possess an in- herent associative principle which does not allow them properly to stand alone. This social nature the Column will preserve and develop when it passes beyond Egypt. I. As Architecture is fundamentally space- enclosing, and seeks to obtain more and more room inside, which may be called its internal 104 ABGHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIBST, freedom, we have first to consider the relation of the Column to the Enclosure. It has been noted that the Pyramid was almost wholly wall, but now out of the solid mass of stone we are to behold other architectural forms move forth into their independent existence. The roof of the building is that part which requires to be supported ; it is the wall extending over and covering an inner space. The heavy beams of the ceiling call forth their supporter different from the wall which both supports and encloses. Hence the inside supporting principle appears, the pier and then the column. The square pier is evidently derived from the wall, we may call it a wall which simply upholds but does not enclose, leaving an open space within. From this square pier the round column is devel- oped inside the Temple; the sharp edges are beveled off for the sake of a smoother interflow of people in the building and of a higher beauty and harmony. Here then we observe the primal differentiation: the wall which is both supporting and enclosing now throws off within itself its supporting principle into a separate form which is the columnar. This upholds the covering, underneath which there can be a free intercourse of men. n. We have noted the transition from the square pier to the round column, which has proved itself the most enduring architectural THE COLUMN. 106 form. In the Egyptian Temple we begin to find column and tie-beam, or the trabeated colonnade which is destined to have a great history and to pass through many stages of evolution in Orient and Occident. There can be little doubt that it originated in Egypt, as far as we can predicate origin at all of such matters. More decisively we can affirm that it developed in Egypt quite from its germ in the rock-tomb, in which a pil- lar supporting the superincumbent weight above would be left in position. This development is the interesting point in our present study, and we shall endeavor to mark its most important steps. One of the oldest monuments of Egypt is the so-called Temple of the Sphinx, which Mariette brouo^ht to liojht in 1853. Clearing the interior of the accumulated sand of ages, he found a long passage with huge monolithic square piers on each side supporting a ceiling composed of stone tie-beams ten feet long. Here then we have the real original norm of trabeate Architec- ture: two upright beams with a beam laid across. We must note this, for Greek Archi- tecture is often strangely called trabeate, when these two upright square piers have already be- come round columns. But now we behold the germ, as it were, of all entrances, made not of wood but of stone ; also the forms are monolithic, colossal, truly Egyptian in character. The whole is called after Mariette' s designation, a Temple, 106 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTER FIRST. but it has many points in common with a Tomb (Mastaba); to this day archselogists are dis- cussing which it is, Temple or Tomb. It is probably a transitional stage between the two, showing a phase of that basic architectural move- ment of early Egypt from Tomb to Temple. But the fact we wish to emphasize in the pres- ent connection is that the Temple of the Sphinx shows the primordial norm of the architectural entrance or passage: two vertical stone blocks with a horizontal stone block as a cross-beam above, underneath which man enters an Enclos- ure. Also a number of these forms are put too^ether and make a continuous aisle suo^gestinor the colonnaded hall. Thus we have the good luck to see the primitive genetic shape out of which the later Theban Temple will be evolved and which has its suo^o^estion of the Greek Tem- pie, and of thousands upon thousands of edifices reaching in a line down from this ancient Egyp- tian edifice to the colonnaded entrance of yonder Kailroad Station. III. But now comes a new and greater stage in architectural evolution. Passing up the Nile from Memphis, along with the movement of Egyptian civilization, we come to the necropolis of Beni-Hassan, which lies well on the way to- ward Thebes. It is chiefly the work of the Twelfth Djmasty, which ruled all Egypt many hundred years after the Fourth Dynasty, the chief THE COLUMN. 107 Pyramid-builders, and before the irruption of the Hyksos. The supreme architectural f act of Beni-Hassan is the appearance of two Doric Columns nearly complete at the entrance of a Tomb, to which they form a kind of facade with entablature. The whole is so decidedly Hellenic in its sugges- tion that one regards it at first as constructed in the age of the Ptolomies. But the inscriptions mention everywhere the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty as builders. These columns must then have been made more than a thousand years be- fore the earliest known Doric Temple was built in Greece. Champollion first named them proto- Doric, and this name has clung to them in spite of protests. We find here the fluted Column with sixteen flutings . We find also the eight-sided and the sixteen-sided pillars, showing the whole transition from the four-sided (square) piers of the Temple of the Sphinx to the round and even fluted shaft of the Column. Already they have the square abacus, though the echinus is want- ing; they have no distinctly developed base, though they rest upon a thin round plate of stone. The architrave is present and also a projecting cornice, but no frieze, excepting one or two possible hints. Such is the proto- Doric column of Beni-Hassan, a most important pre-Hellenic stage of Hellenic Architecture. But just here springs up a hot controversy. 108 ABCEITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIBST. There are modern writers who hold that the Greek developed every constructive form which he employs out of the timber first and then out of the stone of his own land. He was the origi- nal in everything, he did not get anything from anywhere, or at most only a hint or stimulation. Such a view, however, substantially denies the evolution of Greek civilization out of the Orient, and cuts in twain the inner continuity of history. Nothing further need be said of such a theory. IV. But we are not yet done with Beni-Has- san, which seems to have been a germinal center of many architectural forms. Another kind of column is found there, wholly different from the proto-Doric, the so-called lotus column (proto- Egyptian), derived apparently from the vegeta- ble kingdom. If four stalks of the Egyptian lotus be tied together just under their unopened buds we have the suggestion of this column with its shaft and its capital. Here again is a colum- nar form, out of which developed numerous other similar but more complex forms, particu- larly in later Egyptian Architecture. Eight stalks and more are found tied in this columnar sheaf ; then the stem of papyrus is taken as well as that of the lotus. Still further the closed buds of these earlier capitals seem to blossom out when they reach Thebes and take the shape of the corolla, on which the leaf-like calix is drawn as an ornament. Such was fHE COLUMN. lOd the marvelous flowering of this truly Egyptian column. Nor should we forget its later de- scendants, among which we may reckon the Gothic clustered column, as well as Corinthian and Byzantine capitals, with a possible suggestion of the Ionic volute, which is found decidedly expressed in Egyptian reliefs. It will thus be seen that Beni-Hassan is a genetic spot not only for Egyptian but for all future Architecture. The striking fact is that Egypt will not develop the proto-Doric form of the column but the vegetable form, which will celebrate its grand flowering at Karnak, at the Ramesseum, at Medinet Abu, all of these being products of the Theban renascence during the third or New Period. Ever afterward Egypt will cling to her plant-shaped column, not renouncing it in her Temples erected during the Greek Ptolomies. And just this difference in selecting its basic columnar form reflects the difference between the Egyptian and Hellenic spirit. For the proto- Doric column will develop mathematically on fixed lines, with size and proportion given by the total structure according to a definite modulus. But the Egyptian column is not confined by any such law, but reaches forth toward colossality in and of its own Egyptian nature, aspiring, beyond itself and reaching out for the Infinite. Very significant is it to see this national selection of the different columns at Beni-Hassan. 110^ ABCHITECTUBE — GEAPTEB FinST. 2. The Obelisk. Another architectural form peculiar to Egypt is the Obelisk — a Greek term with various meanings,- as little spear or little spit, or again a spindle or needle (hence Cleopatra's needle). There is no doubt that the Obelisk evolved out of the Pyramid, beginning to appear prominently in the 12th Dynasty, though giv- ing signs of itself in a small way long before. As in case of the Pyramid, we must divide the Obelisk into the little and large ; it commenced to show its colossal, truly Egyptian tendency in the Second Period and unfolded to its full greatness in the Third Period, though stray samples of in- ferior size have been found in the First Period. Thus the Obelisk becomes distinctly national in the genetic epoch of Egypt's architectural forms. For no other people ever produced an Obelisk of the Egyptian sort. It belongs as completely and as exclusively to the land of the Nile as the Pyramid. But other nations, ancient and modern , have coveted Obelisks, which existed in such marvelous profusion at one time that Egypt seemed to turn Obelisk-maker with the same toil and devotion she showed as Pyramid-builder. We have to suppose that the national conscious- ness found expression in this peculiar monument. It is as if the whole people labored year after year to make the Obelisk, quite as they did dur- inof the Middle Ages to erect a CathedTal. Ao^ain we affirm as in case of the Pyramids that such THE column: 111 works cannot spring from the caprice of a despot imposing upon his subjects unwilling tasks. As- sociated Egypt beheld an image of her power and greatness and unity in these mighty shapes, which arose and developed to their full magni- tude through the united will of one nation, after a long time of dissension and separation lying between the Fourth and Twelfth Dynasties. And this primal effect of the Obelisk steals to-day subtly into the heart of the sympathetic spectator. To produce them and especially so many of them through so many centuries is still felt to be a great national act as much as any long-continued war for independence or for con- quest known in history. And herein the evi- dence is plain. Every nation old and new has sought to get at least one Obelisk from Egypt. Ancient Kome is said to have had twelve, yet not one of them of her own make, even thouo^h she held possession of the Egyptian quarries for cen- turies. Paris and London have each taken an Obe- lisk which neither felt inclined to produce by its own honest toil. And of course America was not going to be left behind in this Obelisk-grab- ing; the result is we see one of these hoary Egyptian exiles lonely and ghost-like pointing ominously heavenward in Central Park at New York. Though such spoliation is to be deplored, still we are far from thinking that it sprang merely from greed or whim or curiosity. The 1 12 ARCHITECTURE — CHAPTER FIRST. Egyptian Obelisk tells something to modern nations, for which they have themselves no utter- ance. It stirs an emotion, a far-off presentiment which only the land of the Nile did and could embody. Better than any speech it leads the modern man back to an ancestral consciousness from which his own is derived, to a remote civi- lization of which he is the last descendant. It is one of the significant facts of our 19th Cen- tury that Europe has gone back to Egypt and sought to recover it by digging up its old ruins and interpreting them anew. With determina- tion, yea with a kind of desperation has this act been done as if something very important de- pended upon its doing. This evolutionary Cen- tury — the nineteenth — must indeed know its own origin, which means that man is to know himself more completely than ever before. The Obelisk is usually divided into three parts, the base, the shaft, and pointed cap on the top, called the pyramidion or little pyramid. The base is separate, rectilineal, not very different in outline from the lower part of the Obelisk to which it is joined, and of far less significance than the base of a Greek column. The shaft with its pyramidion is a monolith, it is not built up stone by stone, it has no division within itself, it is a whole given by nature and must be raised up to its vertical position. No part seems to rest on another part; there is the slant, but it THE COLUMN . 113 approaches the perpendicular, till in the pyra- midion the shaft breaks its straight lines and moves to a point. The Obelisk is naturally as naked as the Pyramid though usually covered with hieroglyphics; no mouldings, no ornament, simply the smooth surface is visible; it is no Enclosure, but is solid inside like a column ; nor has it any structural use. Obelisks were usually in Egypt placed before the door of the temple in pairs, one on each side of the passage. Thus they suggest the entrance with its two upright pillars, but there is no cross-piece above. Still they remain separate, not coupled through each other, quite solitary. They indicate, however, an opening in contrast to the closed character of the Pyramid. Europe erects the Obelisk singly, whereby its meaning and impression are some- what changed. Before the church of St. John Lateran, in Rome, stands the highest known Obelisk, torn from its Egyptian mate with which it once kept guard in front of the Pylon at Karnak. It is said to be 105 feet in height, not including the base, though the average altitude of the large Obelisks runs from 50 to 80 feet. They were mostly taken from the granite quarries of Syene near modern Assuan, where one may still see an Obelisk finished partially on three sides while the fourth side is not yet detached from the native rock. Something interrupted its comple- 8 1 14 AB OHITE CTUBE — CHAP TEB FIRS T. tion, some conqueror possibly, for only independ- ent Egypt seems to have made the Great Obelisk as an expression of itself. There it lies ninety- two feet long, stopped forever in the act of taking shape from the granite, and suggesting that the Egyptian chapter of the World's History is con- cluded. There has been a great difference of opinion about the meaning of the Obelisk as well as about its artistic worth. It has been supposed to repre- sent the sun or a sunbeam, and esthetically to produce a sense of overwhelming monotony. Such views need not detain us. The Obelisk has even less utility than a Pyramid which is at least a tomb, and it refuses to give any response to the question: Of what use art thou? The Obelisk had to be in the course of Egypt's architectural evolution ; the nation willed it, and so kept mak- ing these shapes for a thousand years at least, with an incalculable outlay of effort. Can we to-day throw ourselves back into that national , consciousness, live with it and labor with it in making an Obelisk? Very difficult is such an attempt now, though the demand for an inner unfolding is loud on many sides. To know rightly the Obelisk we must evolve into it along with the old Egyptians, construct it sympathetically and then evolve out of it, so that we can look back at it and see its place. Architeetually the Obelisk has the ascending, TEE COLUMN. 115 upbearing movement, in contrast with the Pyramid which so decidedly bears downward. As a monolith, it has the same significance, carry- ing the eye upward without a break. In form it supports a pyramidion above ; its nature is, there- fore, pyramid-supporting, as the column supports the tie-beam. Its slight taper as well as slender shape compared to the Pyramid seems to defy grav- ity and causes it to mount aloft. Though so plainly derived from the Pyramid, it is the counteraction of the latter's oppressive descent earthward; it is a pyramidal protest against the Pyramid, whose overwhelming domination it rises against. Thus is hinted the inner change and development from Pyramid-building Egypt to Obelisk-making Egypt, from the Fourth to the Twelfth Dynasty. From this point of view the Obelisk has had numerous descendants of many different shapes. The spire, the dome, the turret, the minaret show the same up-bearing tendency, while the body of the building is more massive and down- bearing. Thus the student of comparative Architecture will note the incipient stage of the structural dualism which will later become so explicit and pronounced in European construc- tion. 3. The Mammeisi. In this period also we are inclined to place the beginning of the columnar Enclosure in the form of the peristyle. The row of columns engirdling the temple is so distinct- 116 ABCHITECTUBE ~ CHAPTER FTBST. ively Greek that the appearance of such a struc- ture in ancient or proto-historic Egypt is at first received with incredulity, yea with a sort of inner protest, as if the Hellenic race was about to be deprived of all its constructive originality. We allude to those small temples or Enclosures known since the time of Champollion under the name of Mammeisi (Coptic, a birth-place) . The general fact about them is that they have a Peri- style. Hitherto we have seen the Column de- veloping inside the temple, and even getting to the front entrance at Beni-Hassan, but never reaching the outside in supporting a ceiling or roof. The Obelisk is indeed outside but it does not support anything but itself, though standing often in pairs. But now comes the surprising fact. The French savants of the Expedition to Egypt discov- ered at Elephantine, a little island in the Nile toward the edge of Upper Egypt, a small temple which they called Typhonium, from the God Typhon, whose supposed image they found in it. This grotesque image, however, is now recognized to be that of Bes, the deity presiding over woman's toilet. The columns were placed out- side in the form of a rectangular peristyle sur- rounding a walled chamber like the cella of the Greek temple, whose prototype is here not only suggested but distinctly developed. But what was the period of this astonishing TEE COLUMN. 117 monument? It is ascribed to the time of Amen- Hotep III. of the 18th Dynasty who reigned at least 1500 years B.C., hence centuries before the Trojan War or the earliest notices of Greece. Still this Dynasty belonged to the third and last period of independent or proto-historic Egypt, when the land of the Nile put forth its last bloom of origi- nality, developing particularly the forms trans- mitted from the second and most creative period of its history. We see that already the Mam- meisi was quite fully unfolded in the Eighteenth Dynasty, and we may well suppose that the evo- lution of it began already in the Twelfth Dynasty alongside of the proto-Doric column and other germinal forms for which the second period is specially distinguished. The peristylar principle, however, is not yet entirely evolved in the Mammeisi, otherwise it would be wholly Greek. The intercolumnar spaces are not fully open, but are occupied by a low wall or screen which still excludes the out- side world in Egyptian fashion. Then the shape of the columns has to undergo a good deal of development. Still we have here the twofold characteristic which is so prominent in the Greek temple, the inner cella and outer encompassing colonnade. The rectangular base, oblong and on an elevated platform approached by a flight of steps, is also present, but the Egyptian slant does not appear. 118 ABCHITEGTUBE — CHAPTER FIB8T. So we find again in Egypt the germ which -Greece is to unfold. And the question springs up : Why should the Greek take just this form and develop it, omitting others far more promi- nent in Egypt? We can at least say that this little proto-historic Egyptian Temple expresses the Greek spirit bursting out of its Oriental bud, and begins to suggest the coming architecture of Europe. This does not mean that there was necessarily a direct conscious selection of the Mammeisi as the type of a new Architecture on the part of Greek architects, though they in later times must have often visited, seen and studied these Egyptian monuments. At any rate the building spirit of the ages seized upon the form of this little temple in far-off Elephan- tine, though its counterpart must have been found in the Delta also, and made it the means of pre-figuring the new constructive thought of Architecture. It is at such links of transition that we catch a glimpse of the universal archi- tectonic soul realizing itself in a line of epoch- making edifices from old Egypt down to the present. We must not fail to note the difficulties hover- ing about the Mammeisi. The ancient structure at Elephantine, some years after it was described, measured and drawn by the French savants, was torn down at the command of a high Egyp- tian official, who wished to use its materials for THE COLUMN, 119 building his palace. That is a sample of how the monuments of Egypt have been treated by foreign conquerors for thousands of years. Thus the oldest specimen of this sort of temple has disappeared, and cannot be subjected to the test of modern investigation. The result is that its early date has been doubted, and it has been as- signed to the Ptolomies, who are known to have built such temples and to have introduced Greek architectural forms into Egypt. Still the antiq- uity of the Mammeisi is accepted by leading Egyptologists who usually assign it simply to the 18th dynasty without mentioning any earlier form. 1^0 ABCSITECTUBE — GHAPTEB FIBST. C. The Temple. The complete development of the Temple, as distinct from the Pyramid and the Column, be- longs to the Third Period of that Egypt which we have called proto-historic. As the obscuration between the First and Secood Periods indicates a foreign conquest whose proofs have but recently come to light, so the obscuration between the Second and Third Period has long been known as the time of the Hyksos, alien rulers over Egypt, whose expulsion rendered possible the third and last renascence of Egyptian national spirit. Art will again revive and particularly Architecture, which will build at the Capital Thebes the great typical structure of the Period, the Temple. To be sure we have seen temples in Egypt from the beginning, through all the Periods of her history. Belonging to the Pyramid was a small temple so-called which, however, now evolves into the first place in size and importance. But the new edifice could not arise except through the development of the Column, which is to uphold the roof above ground. The hypostylar princi- ple, or the columnar support of the huge blocks forming the ceiling now appears in all its colos- sality. The Columns of Beni-Hassan we may conceive to rise out of their subterranean abode THE TEMPLE. 121 to the surface of the earth, with their own covering over them and inside their own walls. I. Thus after the Pyramid had arisen, culmi- nated and ceased to be, there arises the next great architectural structure of Egypt, which we shall call the Temple. It too had a long time of evolution, but its bloom can still be seen at Thebes, particularly in the ruins of Karnak and' Luxor. The Egyptian Temple at its best fails not to suggest its origin far back in the rock- tomb of which we may deem it the final evolution after the Pyramid. Its interior leads within from an open entrance, through a series of grada- tions becoming narrower and more mysterious, to the sanctuary where the final rite is performed by the living king who is regarded as the divine representative or indeed as quite one with the God Himself. But the Temple in this new sense is not the abode of the dead, and has no sarcopha- gus. Thus it has freed itself of that immediate sepulchral purpose which still clung to the Pyra- mid and even to the Column. The Temple has become the dwelling-place of the God, and the most important building of the age. The dead king is no longer buried in it, but has his own tomb apart, still magnificent and revered. But when he dies now, he is not the God, or one with God exactly. Thus we may consider that the Pyramid separates into two parts. Tomb and Temple, each ®f which 122 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIBST. has come to have its own distinct building which shows also a new development in religion. And not only this, but each is assigned to a separate locality : the Temple in the present case is built on the right bank of the Nile, while the Tomb with its accompanying funerary temple or chapel is still kept on the left bank of the Nile opposite to the city, near by the Libyan desert. These funerary temples have received their own name (Memnonia) and are on a line with the Pyramids both in place and in derivation . It is also signifi- cant of the new epoch that Thebes, its city, is built on the right bank of the Nile, while Mem- phis, the old city of the Pyramids, was on the left. Such is the separation between Tomb and Temple which has taken place along with the movement of Egyptian civilization. This un- doubtedly passed up the Nile, from L»wer to Upper Egypt, changing likewise the center of political power, and constituting respectively the Memphite and Theban periods. The Pyramid- builders of the Fourth Dynasty ruled over a united Egypt whose boundaries had extended from the Delta up the Nile. There succeeded a time of subjection, disintegration and disunion, with many fluctuations. Then came the Second Pe- riod, after which followed the blow given to Egypt by the domination of the Hyksos, or shepherd kings, as the word is usually translated. THE TEMPLE. 123 They were Seijiites, chiefly Arabians; they con- quered Lower Egypt and ruled five hundred years (from about 2200 B. C. to 1700 B. C). Thus Egypt was again divided into two parts and possibly more. II. The Hyksos were driven out by tne Eight- eenth Dynasty whose kings ever afterwards bore the name of Deliverers, having united Egypt once more under its native rulers. This was a period of national revival in the highest degree, and its center was Thebes. The Egyptian nation burst out of its bonds and became a great con- queror ; being no longer satisfied with the narrow limits of the Nile, it subjugated Asia as far as the Tigris to the East, and Ethiopia to the South. Particularly distinguished was the career of Sesos- tris (often identified withEameses II, or Sestura of this dynasty, as well as with Osirtasen I, of the Twelfth Dynasty). Now Thebes with its colossal monuments on both sides of the river is the archi- tectural expression of the epoch. Thus after many hundred years of national eclipse the people of the Nile have a third grand renewal and renas- cence, and begin to build works which in mag- nitude show an ambitious rivalry with the Pyramids. Egypt again reveals itself to be the greatest builder among nations; the old architectonic Spirit is the same, though it takes a new form, as already indicated. But this Third Period 124 ABC HITEC TUBE — CHAPTEB FIB ST. will likewise have its rise, bloom and decay; ^Egjpt will pass into decline and final subjuga- tion, this time permanently. The Third Period completes the Egyptian cycle. A new Architecture, therefore, appears in Thebes, and with it a new God. The old God of Memphis has been quite dethroned and put into the background. Ammon-Ra, son of the primordial Memphitic God Ptah, was previously the Theban local divinity ; but with the rise of his city he has risen to being the mighty mon- arch over all the Gods, having displaced his father, as Zeus did Cronus in the Greek Pan- theon. The home of this new God, the divine fountain of the new epoch, had to be built in a style of magnificence challenging the Pyramids at Memphis in order to be his worthy dwelling- place. Not one, but two vast temples are dedi- cated to Ammon at Thebes, known as Karnak and Luxor, and connected by an avenue more than a mile in length, with a row of sphinxes on each side. Such a dual Temple to the one God probably had its meaning for the old Egyptian. But we must not forget that this great typical Temple was built by addition to addition in suc- cessive ages, even down to the Ptolomies, who furnished the last accretion in two huge pylons. III. In regarding the evolution from the Pyra- mid to the Temple, we may first look at the enclosing principle which is the primal fact of THE TEMPLE. 125 Architecture. The wall of the Pyramid was barely differentiated, the room enclosed being almost nothing in comparison with the solid ma- sonry. But in the Temple we see the wall dis- tinct, by itself, completely separated. Indeed there were two walls to the Egyptian Temple and in parts of it sometimes more. First was the outer wall enclosing the sacred precinct or temenos; inside of this with considerable space between, was built the Temple proper having its special walls and covering above. It is true that these walls were enormously thick, as if betraying or suggesting their origin from the Pyramid. At Karnak the outer wall, made of crude brick, was thirty-three feet through, and its height must have been fully as great. With the most decided emphasis the world was excluded. Still the space enclosed was far larger than that occupied by the wall, wherein lay a strong contrast with the Pyramid. At least we can now say that the wall is space- enclosing, even if it is doubled. The roof also appears as separate in the Tem- ple, and requiring its own special support. In the Pyramid there is no such separation, the roof and the wall are one. IV . The Temple will also have its portal and its openings through which an entrance can bo made into the interior. We recollect that the Pyramid sought to close every connection with 126 ABCHITECTURE — GHAPTEB FIRST. the outer world, putting often into its door- way a carefully fitted stone weighing many tons. It is still a problem how such a huge stopper could be lifted out, if indeed it ever was. The exclusion of the Pyramid was complete, but the Temple let in not all or many, but a few — royalty, the priests and the initiates. Yet there was a gradation in these very few, perhaps only one could reach the Holy of Holies. We may say therefore that the Temple begins to break up Egyptian exclusiveness ; it opens and keeps open the Pyramid. Now this fact is sur- prisingly emphasized by the Egyptian architect. On each side of the portal stood a thick mass of material rising considerably above the regular wall as well as above the portal. These two imposing structures flanking the entrance of the Temple are the famous ^pylons, which so strongly impress the traveler in Egypt and which constitute one of the most distinctive features of the Egyptian edifice. It is always asked: Why just these shapes here? Of direct utility there is none. Undoubtedly they emphasize the opening of the wall and the place of the entrance. Whence came they? To our mind, from the Pyramid. They are slanting, they are usually of enormous size and have a pyramidal look, but they are not carried up to a point, and tjiey are rounded off at the top with a cornice. These pylons, as we look at them, show the piercing THE TEMPLE. 127 of the Pyramid, whose side must now become a wall with an entrance, and be transformed into a part of a Temple. Not the outside en- trance alone has a pylon ; it is repeated inside with every important opening. In this Temple of Karnak six such pylons have been counted. Here are also to be mentioned the two Obe- lisks, standing usually in front of the two pylons of the main fagade, and apparently forming a kind of introduction to the chief entrance. Thus the opening seems to be celebrated by an extra- ordinary display of architectural forms. V. If we look at the Egyptian Temple as a whole, we observe that it has a tendency to de- crease in height from front to rear, or to slant downwards toward the end. The same tendency may be noted in the interior, which seems to con- centrate more and more from the portal till the sanctuary is reached in a kind of point. Thus the Temple is a species of prostrate Pyramid, whose base is suggested in the strong and high pylons at the entrance. The lofty, almost solid Pyramid is thrown down upon the earth, and is pierced with passages ; its inside mass is transformed into a series of rooms continuing toward the apex. From this point of view we may consider the Pyramid to be hollowed out and changed into a real Enclosure, with wall and ceiling upborne by supporting columns. The Temple is composed of several separate 128 ABCHITECTUBE— CHAPTER FIRST. buildings, each of which has a portal with its own pylons. Thus it has a crawling worm-like appearance, with six or seven joints sometimes, or it may be with three or four. Hence it seems always an unfinished and indeed unfiniehable structure, quite the opposite of the Greek Tem- ple in this regard. We read of additions contin- ually made to the great Egyptian Temples by successive monarchs. Such an architectural form expresses the Egyptian striving for the Beyond, the mortal reaching out for the immor- tal. And internally the movement of the Tem- ple was from daylight to darkness, suggesting the evanishment of the Sun, of the Nile, of Osiris, of man himself passing from the sensible to the supersensible. The movement of Greek spirit was quite the other way, from within out- wards into the world of sense which its function was to transform. These various buildings of the total Egyptian Temple have received their special names. The first is full of columns and is fairly well lighted, and is known as the Vestibule or Hypostyle Hall. Then comes the Temple proper (naos), then the Sanctuary (secos). These are the three main structures, but to these often others are added, not only on the axial line, but even at right angles to it ( see the plan of the Temple of Karnak). Another peculiarity is that the Egyp- tian did not keep this axial line straight, but THE TEMPLE. 129 deflected it so that the outline of the Temple seems bent or broken. This may be ascribed to that Egyptian peculiarity of shunning the rect- angular when it is getting too pronounced, and of making a slant even sidewards. VI. We have already felt the Egyptian's love of the slanting line, a love which he never for- sakes^ as long as his nation lives and builds. Egypt clings to the rectilineal, but avoids the rectangular. The Pyramid, the Pylon, the Tem- ple, the Obelisk, show the Egyptian slant. Herein again lies a sharp distinction from the Greek who loved the rectangular, and ran the most of his architectural lines at right angles to one another. Again the question comes up : What lay in the character of these two peoples, impelling each of them t« make such a different selection? To be sure we can say that it was a mere accident, or possibly the whim of some architect or monarch whom everybody afterwards followed by sheer force of imitation. Or we may hold that it was so because it was, and there was the end of it ; that no good comes of this groping after the inner threads of the evolution of these architec- tural forms. The only way is to seize them as they bubble up on the surface of Time, and stop burro winoj and excavating^ in the dark under- world for grounds of connection between appear- ances here above in the sunlight. Thus we have 9 130 AttCmTECTtjnE — OHA-PTEB FlUSf. indeed gotten rid of the problem, and therewith of Architecture itself as an expresion of a nation or of an age. What reason, then, may be given for this difference of choice between Greek and Egyp- tian? There is but one right angle in the uni- verse, it is the universal angle ; to whatever ex- tent you may prolong or shorten its sides,' it is the one right angle. But there are millions of acute and obtuse angles, equal numerically to the infinite divisibility of space. And they are all measured, determined, and defined by the right angle, which is thus their fixed law, their standard, their unchanging principle. Now the Egyptian Temple we have seen to be ever changeful, yet never finished; while the G^ek Temple we shall find to be a complete rounded-off totality, to which nothing can well be added. The Egyptian is an accretion made up of layer after layer, but the Greek Temple is organic, determined in every member from within acord- ing to its modulus, and definitely brought to a conclusion. That slanting Egyptian line could be slanted indefinitely and still be slanting; it had no central unity for its variations like the right angle. The Greek Temple shows that the rule of Law has begun. Law as an inner control- ling principle both in the man and in the edifice. The Egyptian had Law too, but it was relatively THE TEMPLE. 131 external, and imposed from without, tience for- mally a caprice of the monarch. VI. Such are the leading thoughts which spring up in the mind at the contemplation of the Egyptian Temple. It is the last mighty prod- uct of proto-historic Egypt, and is the end of a great architectural evolution from the Pyramid through the Column. The stages of this evolu- tion as fully developed in the Temple we may state as follows : — 1. Wall ^ Roof ^ and Column. These are com- pletely differentiated in the Temple, and each appears in its own separate place and function. The typical Enclosure for all future Architecture has been evolved with its three fundamental ele- ments, as just given. We here speak of great Architecture, or rather of Architecture as an Art, and not of holes and huts and tents which the primitive man constructs in various ways. Self-conscious associated man has built a worthy home of the Spirit which associates him, which makes the people of the Nile Valley into a nation. Still the Egyptian Temple puts an exclusive stress upon the interior, though it lets some people inside. 2. The Entrance. This also marks a great advance over the Pyramid and likewise overBeni- Hassan, whose Entrance is to a subterranean room. But now the whole Entrance is made by man, not given even partially by nature, except the 132 ARCIIITECTUBE — CHAPTER FIRST. material, and the entire Temple is above ground, Hborn out of its earthy womb, evolved into its completed Egyptian shape. The Entrance means that there is an outside as well as an inside. 3. The Slant. The Temple in its way pre- serves the slant, though the rectangular shape has become mere frequent and more explicit in the Temple than in the Pyramid. The oblong quadrangle is often employed in the gcound-plan of Temples though the wall is slanting. Putting together these three stages of Egyptian Architecture — the Pyramid, the Column, and the Temple, — we see what may be called the archetypal movement of all coming great con- struction. The Temple of Egypt, itself the prod- uct of a long evolution, is the primordial form of the leading future Temples and Churches and also Mosques. The round shape is but a par- tial exception which is absorbed into the same general movement. Observations. — In the foregoing account Egypt is taken as the starting-point of civilized man, and even as the place where the human being first became self-conscious. It should be stated, however, that the more common view is that the Valley of the Nile obtained its art and culture from abroad. But to find out who were the early people bringing such wonderful gifts is the great problem. 1. The old theory was that Egypt's civilization THE TEMPLE, 133 was African, came down the Nile, specially from Meroe. A later theory held that it was brought from Asia, say from the cities of the Valley of the Euphrates. At present there are writers who claim that it was carried across the Mediterranean from Europe, thus reversing the race's movement from East to West. Perhaps the latest notion on this subject is that Egypt received her earliest spiritual impulse from peoples living in Central Africa around the great lakes at the head waters of the Nile. This is a return to the old idea that Egypt's civilization must have flowed directly down its great river. All of these theories are to be rejected, as un- supported by fact and contrary to the supreme probability of the case. Nowhere on the globe is nature as friendly to the primal development of the human being as in the Nile Valley. Egypt was not brought to Egypt from Africa, Asia or Europe ; it unfolded itself on its own ground, which was the most favorable spet for such an evolution on the globe. This is not saying that no foreign peoples ever entered Egypt and be- came mingled with its native stock. On the contrary the Second and Third Periods — both of them great revivals of Egyptian nationality and art — were probably produced by the infu- sion of the new blood of hardy conquerors into an old and decadent nation, causing it to have a new creative life, which we may still observe in 134 ABCHITECTUBE— CHAPTER FIBST. the Architecture of these two Periods. It is likely that the much-hated Hyksos in this sense were the saviors of Egypt and the real source of the fresh flowering of it during the Eighteenth Dynasty. The situation would seem to require some such process with the outer world. The Nile permits, indeed compels the Egyptian to live in one narrow stretch of territory ; he is not migra- tory, since the River brings to him his earth, he does not have to go to it. He has all the advan- tages of the change of climate without the change of locality. Thus he lives the Nile life, is a part of its process, and becomes inseparable from it. This natural situation, which is of supreme importance in the infancy of man, since the River is literally his nurse, becomes a drawback when he is grown by undermining his self- reliance and independence. Hence we see for- eigners, chiefly migratory peoples from Arabia and Libya, entering the Valley of the Nile, con- quering its inhabitants, and mingling with their blood. Thus the two elements, the migratory and the stationary, met, interfused in the course of centuries, and produced the oscillations which have been observed in Egyptian history and art. In this way Egypt digested the foreigner and became a new Egypt. Still the kernel remained the original Egyptian, autochthonous, born of the Nile. To hunt for his beo^inninor elsewhere THE TEMPLE. 136 is vain, is in fact contradictory, for that begin- ning must have already begun and hence de- mands in turn its beginning. Certainly nothing is explained about Egypt when we say that its civilization was brought to it by another people, when we do not know whence or how the latter obtained their civilization or even who they were. 2. Many centuries after the Third or Theban Renascence had risen and vanished, there was still another revival which came to Egypt through foreign conquerors, the Greeks, and under for- eign rulers, the Ptolomies. Once more and for the last time the Egyptians showed national ac- tivity along with some artistic power, though not by any means so great as in the three previous periods. It was rather the recovery and renewal of the old civilization, religion, and art, than any great original step in advance. It was imi- tation more than creation. Ancient edifices fallen to decay were rebuilt ; additions were made to old temples after the Egyptian manner, as we see in the case of Karnak, whose huge pylons in front were a contribution of the Ptolemaic time. Then wholly new temples were built in the an- tique style of Egypt, such as Edfou and Dende- rah. The reigning dynasty sought to make them- selves, or at least one side of themselves, Egyp- tian, and found a considerable response from the native population. But another side of the Ptolomies remained 136 ABGHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIB8T. Greek, or rather Hellenistic, and this side also was represented in Egypt, both by institutions and architecture. It seems to have been the policy of the reigning House not to disturb the organization of the old Egyptian communities, but it founded among the latter new communi- ties of Greeks after the Greek pattern, with the corresponding Greek edifices. Of these new Hellenistic communities, altogether the greatest and most important was one whose establishment is ascribed to Alexander himself, and is called after his name, Alexandria, a great city to this day, but anciently far greater, being the supreme Hellenistic City. Egypt in her time had also had great cities, Memphis of the First Period and Thebes of the Second Period, with many others of lesser fame. Butthey were Egyptian cities, narrow, nativistic, confined to the Nile. Thus they perished even in antiquity, through the contact and conflict with other peoples, who broke down and poured over Egyptian limits. The shock of Universal History, whose great supporters were the Greeks in that age, had already begun to destroy the ethnic exclusiveness of Egypt long before the time of Alexander. It is recorded that a troop of Greek mercenaries made an expedition up the Nile as far as Nubia during the reign of Psam- metichus, more than three centuries before the conquest of the country by Alexander. The THE TEMPLE. 137 same king settled his Greek soldiers in Egypt permanently, at the so-called Camps, which place we may regard as the first Greek community in the land of the Nile. A hundred years later King Amasis undisguisedly favored Greeks and Greek culture, and established a new Greek town, Naucratis, which has been recently exca- vated. It may be truly said that when Alexan- der appeared, the walls of Egypt had been already breached by the Greek; the great conqueror entered in and easily took possession. On the other hand the counter influence, the influence of Egypt over Hellas, was very great, for it was an old civilization teaching a new one, the latter being really its heir, even if unacknowl- edged and unknown as such. The Greeks them- selves, in spite of their hide-bound autochthonous claims, have celebrated both in myth and in history their connection with Egypt. During the reign of Psammetichus, if not long before, the Doric column began to move from Beni-Has- san to Hellas and specially to Sicily, where a wholly new development was awaiting it, in fact its real fruitage. Doubtless the Ionic column also unfolded out of Egypt to its full Greek bloom in Asia Minor. And these are not the only European architectural forms whose seeds and early sproutings we must look for in the land of the Nile, rightly deemed the chief generative source of Europe's civilization. 138 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTEB FIB8T. The universal and enduring city of Egypt, then, has been Alexandria, cosmopolitan, the meet- ing-place of Orient and Occident, whose Architec- ture showed both these influences, and hence had the character of universality. It was this charac- ter which must have strongly impressed Julius Caesar when he was in Egypt and saw its monu- ments. Alexandria could and probably did give him the hint of a universal, a truly imperial Archi- tecture which could employ Greek forms with Eg3^ptian colossality. When he went back to Kome and was its sovereign in fact if not in name, he began building imperial Rome, which work was carried on by Augustus and later Emperors. But this subject properly belongs to the final period of Classic Architecture where it will be taken up again. Just here, however, we may put stress upon the suggestive fact that Greek Architecture having risen to its complete development, returns to Egypt, the home of its primal, undeveloped forms. The result is the Valley of the Nile shows Classic Temples alongside of Egyptian ; the peristylar colonnade turned outward may be found not far from the hypostylar hall turned inward ; and we can conceive the hoary ancestor of the Greek column to be filled with astonish- ment and pride when it sees its handsome de- scendant standing in its presence. 3. It is worth while to note what constructive THE TEMPLE. 139 forms were avoided by the Egyptian architect — avoided, we say, because they were known and sometimes employed, though in a casual and sub- ordinate manner. ThQ Arch has been found in Egypt's First Period, and was used occasionally down to the conquest of Alexander, but it never was adopted by the nation as a structural element. The Greek Column in its early (proto-Doric) form was distinctly rejected, after being evolved, by Egyptian Architecture. The vertical elevation of the wall with its right angles was shunned in most cases, though not in all. In later Archi- tecture these elements will become the prominent ones, developed, explicit, whereas in Egypt they are still in an incipient, implicit, potential stage, which is the general character of Oriental Archi- tecture in relation to the total evolution of this Art. 4. Very significant is the persistent endeavor of the Nineteenth Century to get back to old Egypt, to work it over anew and to appropriate it as a part of the heritage of human culture. Such a task must be regarded as a phase of our evolutionary epoch, which strives to discover the original forms of human development on all its lines, physical and spiritual. Egypt is seen to be the great starting-point, and imbedded in the soil of the Nile are found remains of an old civ- ilization not to be paralelled elsewhere. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries sought to 140 ABCHITECTUBE — CHAPTER FIB8T. recover Hellas and the Classic World ; but our last Century felt impelled to reach behind Hellas to antecedent stages. Men from the leading nations of Europe, French, English, German, and also Italian, have taken part in this eager search, with a good deal of rivalry and at times with some degree (we cannot help thinking) of national jealousy. The impartial judge, however, will be inclined to give the palna in Egyptology to the French. Its greatest name is ChampoUion who deciphered the grand mystery, the hieroglyphic. Next in importance is the band of French savans who first opened old Egypt to modern Europe through the publication of their great work illustrating Egyptian monuments. Then that strange expedi- tion of Napoleon to Egypt, with its vague dream of re-establishing an Egyptian empire, had its source in the French character, which has cer- tainly shown itself to have some deep strand of sympathy with the ancient people of the Nile. Still all Europe has felt the thrill of the same sympathy, and has responded. 5. Greek Mythology has not failed to suggest the difference between Hellenic moderation with its bounds and Egyptian colossality outstretching for the boundless. The Titans thrust down into Tartarus can represent the fate of the Pyramids at the hands of the Greek. The Giants who piled Ossa upon Pelion in order to scale the THE TEMPLE. 141 Greek Olympus were struck by the thunderbolt of Zeus, the supreme God of Hellas. In con- struction we have noted the Egyptian habit of '* piling Ossa upon Pelion," as the Greek might say. Dim adumbrations are these, but suggesting the dark wrestle of the Hellenic spirit with ante- cedent monsters ere it moved forth into the happy sunshine of its beautiful world. This stage in its architectural manifestation is what we are next to consider. CHAPTER SECOND. The European Type. By all means the most extensive and diversi- fied development of Architecture is found in Europe. The colossality of the Orient and especially of Egypt now splits up into a vast manifoldness of forms; on the whole Europe has multiplicity rather than magnitude; she is small in territory when compared to Asia, and her architectural works show somethinor of the same proportion, though these are more perfect and more varied. Enormous Asia, in order to become normal, has to pass through little Europe on the way to the future. We called the Orient relatively the potential, the undeveloped, the un- born, which Europe is to make real, explicit, manifested. For instance, the Column was with- (142) THE EVBOPEAN TYPE, U3 out question unfolded inside the Enclosure in Egypt, but it never there got outside. It was never truly born till it reached Hella«. Europe will accordingly manifest Oriental Architecture, though this manifestation will pass through many stages, being exterior in the Classic and interior in the Christian. The fundamental forms of the Enclosure — wall , roof , and column — will be developed and wrought over in great variety, adapting them to quite every sort of in- stitutional building. For the essential function of Architecture is to construct the home of asso- ciated Man, of his institutional world, both relig- ious and secular. Europe developing institutions will build their corresponding edifices, which will finally in the Renascence embrace with a pre- viously unknown emphasis the real home, that of the Family. Hence comes the great diversity of European structures, being adjusted to all the different institutions, while in Egypt there was chiefly one, that of the God, in deep conformity with the religious character of its people. It is worth while to ponder at the start the thought that Europe is not so immediate a builder, not such a direct and inborn architect as Egypt. There is in the former a doubleness, an inner and outer, a separation between the Spirit and its architectural Form which we do not find in the latter, at least not so developed. Egypt could not help building herself into her. 144 ABCHITECTUBE— CHAPTEB SECOND. montrraents, it was her instinct rather than her conscious purpose. It would seem as if the Egyptian God descended and constructed his own temple, of course through human hands; the building of the edifice was quite one with the deity in thought and act. But the European man makes the abode of the God who is different from it, is the inside of what is outside, the kernel of the architectural shell, to be separated from it, and to be known and worshipped as separate. Thus Architecture is truly brought out in Eu- rope, is revealed in its twofold nature which is the fundamental fact of it and the ground for classifying it among the other Fine Arts. Moreover much the greater portion of the works belonging to this Art is found within the limits of Europe which has so variously applied and developed its forms. Still we are to see the one underlying thread in all of these variations, the one Type which we call European as distinct from Oriental. So it comes that we have in the first place to formulate to ourselves the transition of Archi- tecture from the Orient to Europe. It is mani- fest that the former contains quite all the principles of the Art, but more or less implicit, scattered, unorganized. We shall find that Europe will often go back to the Orient for some constructive idea not fully realized there, THE EUROPEAN' TYPE. 145 though conceived and darkly fermenting. Of this fact a striking instance is the semi-circular Arch, which was known many hundreds of years in the Valleys of the Nile and Euphrates before Rome took it up, realized its possibilities, and made it universal as her law. Even the Pointed Arch occurs sporadically in the Orient, but it remained a germ, a mere potentiality till the Gothic Style unfolded it and made it a reality. In some such general way we seek at first to get a conception of the movement from the Orient to Europe. But now can we become more defi- nite and lay our finger upon the primordial con- structive form of this grand transition? In other words, what is the distinctive architectural act of Europe at its separation from the Orient? For the answer we have to look to Greece, the next neighbor and direct European heir of the East. When the Greek, forerunner of a new archi- tectural Type, in a mighty deed of construction threw the columns outside of the temple wall, and moreover formed them into a colonnade self -returning and engirdling this temple wall, he had transcended the Oriental structure and its basic idea . The sacred edifice is now open to the world, to the people at least on one side. We behold two Enclosures, of quite opposite kinds. The one is turned outward, does not exclude but rather invites the wayfarer to its 10 146 AEGHITEOTURE — CHAPTER SECOND. shelter — this is the outer colonnade, joyous, smiling, accessible to everybody. But there is the second Enclosure, called the Cella, which is turned inward, walled up, exclusive except at the right entrance, being the place of the presence of the God. Thus the twofoldness of European Architec- ture, in correspondence with European spirit, becomes manifest, is built into a holy edifice. We perceive the outer and the inner, the appear- ance and the essence, the Here and the Beyond, the Many and the One, Democracy and Aristoc- racy, bound together in an organic structure. We may hear Plato speak from a Greek temple with his two realms, phenomenal and ideal. The dualism of Europe we may see start on its con- structive career in the dualism of the Greek Temple, the Peristyle and the Cella. This double- ness, which is the first thing that the eye pene- trates in it, is undoubtedly unified into an organic Whole, as the two symmetrical sides of the human body become the total organism. Still the separation exists and is that which the future will develop in various directions, showing the look without and the look within, the world- regarding and the ^elf-regarding principles united in a God-regarding architectonic totality, which embraces World, Man, and God. If we now compare the Egyptian 'with the Greek Temple, we see the transition out of the THE EUROPEAN TYPE. 147 Orient to Europe. The outer wall of Karnak surrounds the rows of columns and keeps them inside itself, excluding the world and man (ex- cept the priest). The Parthenon puts these col- umns outside, and disposes them not simply in rows, but in a self -returning colonnade or Peri- style which surrounds the wall and makes it the Cella. Thus the Egyptian Temple is turned in- side out by the Greek, is revealed, is made mani- fest, appears to all who may look. Such we deem to be the primordial architectural act of Europe in its separation from the Orient. What is mysterious, hidden, undeveloped andunrevealed in the East and in Egypt specially, Greece will reveal, bring out to sunlight and make complete, as it has done in the case of the columnar Peristyle which is its great architectural revelation. Another point may be noticed in this connec- tion. The Egyptian Temple has accretions one after the other, growing smaller to the last. It is the unfinished and unfinishable in its outer shape ; it is a series like an infinite progress to- ward something beyond. But the Greek Tem- ple is in its way complete ; the Peristyle rounds it out and encloses it, permitting no accretions. It is reconciled with the world which is here, seeking not the Beyond in an indefinite struggle of shapes. In the rectangular plot of ground on which it is built there is a fixed proportion be- tween front and side, which makes the Enclosure 148 AECHITECTUBE— CHAPTER SECOND. a definite unity. There is no continuous slant upwards such as we see in the Pyramid or Pylon ; its shape is that of a paralellogram, determined from within and complete in itself, simply with a slanting roof for a cover in i*ainland. So the Greek Temple, compared to the Egyptian, is self-contained, individualized, finished. It moves from within outward,, to the visible, sensuous, finite; yet it also suggests the movement from without inward, to the presence of the God in the Cella. Herein again the two movements or tendencies complement each other, and form a spiritual Whole or rather a whole Spirit — not a one-sided striving for the Infinite, nor a one- sided lapsing to the Sensuous. While we have spoken of the Greek Peristyle as a single architectural act, still this work was not instantaneous, was not done at one cast of inventive genius. On the contrary there was a growth and quite a long growth toward the peris- tylar principle in early Hellas. The simple kind of temples, first with two columns in front (^tem- plum in antis), then with four columns in front (prosti/Ios) , then with four columns in front and four behind {a7nphiprostylos) were unquestion- ably stages of development toward the finished Peristyle. In fact Beni- Hassan has already substantially the facade of the Doric templum in antis. Greece developed the association of the columns into their complete inter-connected com- THE EUROPEAN TYPE, 149 munity, as well as unfolded the forms of the individual Column. And we must not forget that the European, as well as the Oriental wall, has to do double duty : it has to enclose and also to bear the superin- cumbent burden. Time will bring about its lib- eration from one of these onerous tasks, in order that it may perform the other more effectuall}^ But that requires a wholly new principle of con- . struction, which will bring forth the third great Type of Architecture lying beyond Europe in the new Occident. There is, on the whole, an agreement among writers in reference to the divisions and the general sweep of European Architecture. This corresponds to the historic movement of the State and of other Institutions, of which Architec- ture builds the fitting abode. Europe in almost every direction divides itself into ancient, medie- val and modern. But the deeper fact of this division must not be left out : it is an inner process having three stages in correspondence with the Self which created it and of which it is a manifestation. Along with the outer history of Architecture revealing itself in forms of in- finite diversity we are to trace the inner genetic principle whose speech they are. Accordingly we shall try at the start to indicate briefly the salient thought in each of these three stages of European Architecture . 150 AECHITEGTUBE — CHAPTER SECOND. I. The Classic 8tyle (^Greco-Boman), which is often called the antique. Its general charac- ter is to exteriorize and thus make manifest what was before inside; to develop the architectural forms of structure and to make them visible; to unfold and to evolve to their supreme validity the Column (Greek) and the Arch (Roman). The Classic Style really brings forth Architecture into the world outwardly, and then its work as an independent Art is done. II. The Romanic Style {Ohristiaii), whose general tendency is to interiorize the classic forms, particularly the Column and Arch, and to develop them inwardly, both together and in separation. Thus the columnar principle be- comes internal in the Church whose wall is again outside (as in Egypt), and the Column conjoined with the Arch is put inside. The dualism of this Style is expressed in an inside and outside (of the Church), and also in an upper heavenly world (as in the Dome) and the lower terrestrial world (as in the body of the Church.) III. Tlte Renascence^ or the Revival of the Classic World, which showed itself in Architec- ture, as well as in Art and Science generally. The movement was largely secular and built the new home for secular Institutions, though it passed over into ecclesiastical structures also. The name as well as the thought of this epoch signify the return to the first stage, that of clas- TEE EUBOPEAN TYPE. 151 sical antiquity, and the recovery of what was lost or obscured through medieval Architecture, and its great Institution. European Architecture thus works out the structural dualism which started in Greece with Peristyle and Cella. After developing outside, it will pass inside and develop there, till again it moves outward and recons'tructs the classic forms of Architecture, filling them with a new purpose and widening their horizon. In Europe as well as in the Orient Architec- ture must be grasped as the home of associated Man, the dwelling-place of the Spirit which unites the Community, the City, or the Nation. It is the God who associates, in Him the individuals are one Will which also must have its House. This House of all houses is what we study in Architecture, being the home of that Spirit which makes man institutional. Now, the Eu- ropean deity has been conceived variously at various times, and consequently there is a corre- sponding variety in his edifices. Still these have the common European Type, which in general demands that the indwelling Spirit be wholly separate from the Enclosure .which is the out- side. This separation, however, shows three different stages: first the Spirit as statue (Clas- sic) ; second, the Spirit in itself, apart from statue or idol (Christian); third, the Spirit as universal or seeking to be such by being both 162 ABCHITEOTUBE — CHAPTER SECOND. seculiar and religious (Renascence). Egypt never fully made this European separation, though showing a tendency thereto ; its Gods had an architectural element even when formed into statues. They were essentially building deities and found their best expression in Egyptian Architecture. But in Europe the indwelling Spirit insists upoh being distinguished from its outer dwelling-place, though the latter must be made worthy of its possessor, and reflect his spirit. Such is the outline of the movement of Euro- pean Spirit expressing itself architecturally for about 2500 years. It is felt that there is some- thing complete, indeed quite finished in this long period; it conveys the impression of a rounded-out totality, of a cycle of man's de- velopment in the confines of little Europe. Certainly for us it is the most important era of human culture, whose varied utterances (of which Architecture is but one) we seek to make our own, and to organize into an harmonious Whole. To this end we may primarily grasp it as the foregoing process, and then proceed to details in which we shall find the same underlying prin- ciple of order. Section First. — The Classic Style. Hellas and Rome are the twins of the antique world, each of whom gave a precious contribu- tion to Architecture. The Greek Column and the Eoman Arch, first in isolation, then in oppo- sition, and finally in reconciliation, form together the vital pulsation and process of the Classic Style in its manifold evolution from beginning to end. At the same time the Greek and the Eoman have the common principle of throw- ing their work out into the world, of making visible their constructive forms ; they manifest the interior through a transformation of the exterior. The veiled image of Sais (in Egypt) is unveiled and is made to show her face; the sacred hieroglyphic is translated into the vulgar tongue which all the people speak and read; revelation is already in old Greece the watch- (153) 154 ABCHITECTUBE - THE EUBOPEAN TYPE. word of culture and is destined soon to become the key-note of European religion in Christianity. We have already seen that Classic Architec- ture starts in ancient Greece by developing the double Enclosure of the God, namely Peristyle and Cella, which remain in one form or other to the conclusion of antiquity in the Roman Em- pire. The external relation of these two encom- passing elements is maintained, though broken into and reconstituted in a number of ways. Chiefly the introduction of the Arch is epochal since it substantially does away with the single long tie-beam as the supported cover in the Greek Norm. Also the Column as supporting is transformed in meaning, since it is reduced by the Eoman to a mere decoration or perchance explanation of his Arch. Still the Column with Architrave does not vanish, it continues to talk its native Greek speech, even if it drops down to a kind of rhetorical externality celebrating Roman triumphs perchance over itself. Here, then, we come upon the question. What was the inner necessity of this change? Why did the Roman turn away from the Greek con- structive Norm already fully developed and at hand for his use? There must have been some internal weakness in the Hellenic building which rendered it incapable of bearing the enormous burden of the Roman world-conqueror. What was it and where did it lie? THE CLASSIC STYLE, 155 The weakest spot in the Greek temple lay in the Architrave. That horizontal tie-beam con- necting two columns was the uncertain point, ever threatening to give way through some flaw in the material or through some unusual strain or seismic wrench. Evidently it caused no small anxiety to the Greek architect, and went asunder some- times while being put into place. It might be of wood and hence tenacious in fiber, still it was liable to combustion fast or slow, by fire or rot. Hence we hear of temples burning so often in Greece. It was probably Xerxes who forced stone construction through and through, on account of his having set fire to so many sanc- tuaries during his invasion. The old Parthenon was burned by him in its wooden portion, for drums of its stone columns can be seen to-day in the walls of the Acropolis of Athens. The same difficulty lay in the cross-beams of the ceiling. Thus the Greek temple became full of dangerous spots. If we ramble through Greek ruins we often see some of its horizontal beams in position while others have fallen, though their columns are still standing. It is an inadequate explanation to say, as is often done, that they were thrown down by human hands or by an earthquake, and were broken by the fall. They went asunder through some defect, being originally not so good as those which remain in place, and being unable to resist heat, cold, 156 ABCHITEGTUBE — THE EUROPEAN TYPE. moisture, the assault of the elements which are sure to find just this defect. Here we come to the fact which caused the Roman to reject for his great public works the Greek constructive Norm, though he employed it often for temples and basilicas, which had no weight to sustain except their own materials. That cross-piece could not be trusted in a via- duct or bridge, so he cut it up into voussoirs and made of it an Arch, which cannot break but seems to grow stronger with the increase of its burden. The new task laid upon Architecture by Eome demanded a new principle, and so the Arch weaves itself into the movement of the Classic Style. And now we have reached the point where we must grasp this movement which starts with the Greek Norm (trabeate-columnar), reaches out and appropriates the Arch, assimilating it in various ways till at Rome we see the Greek Col- umn supporting the Roman Arch (arcuate-colum- nar), which form we may take as the conclusion of the Classic Style (seen best in the Baths of Diocletian). Again we find in this sweep three leading stages which we shall designate as follows : I. The Hellenic Period; this shows the pure Greek Architecture, confined to the Hellenic nation. It has a centripetal tendency; starting on the border of the Greek World in the colonies THE CLASSIC STYLE. 157 West and East, then moving inward to conti- nental Hellas it reaches the central city, Athens, where it attains its highest development. Con- structively it shuns the arch and the slant, and clings to the rectilineal and rectangular. II. The Hellenistic Period; this is the centri- fugal movement of Greek Architecture passing outward from its Athenian center beyond the borders of Hellas to the non-Hellenic world. It sweeps over the Orient with the Macedonian Empire, and spreads through the West, pene- trating Italy and specially the rising Rome. Everywhere, however, the Greek Norm runs upon, struggles against, and finally coalesces with a new constructive principle, the Arch. III. The Roman Imperial Period; this is a new concentration of Classic Architecture, a gathering of it from the rim of the whole civilized world into a single central city, not the capital of one nation but of all nations. Thus Classic Architecture has another great centri- petal sweep to its culmination in one spot, from which, however, it will again fly outwards into the Roman provinces, showing itself to be truly imperial and universal. We see the Hellenic movement now borne out of its narrow national bounds and given to all peoples by Rome. With this act the career of Classic Architecture closes, or r-ather is brought to a close by the blow of Fate, and a new epoch sets in with its own 158 ABCHITECTVBE-^ THE EUROPEAN TYPE. Architecture which will not fail to preserve and to employ in new ways those constructive prin- ciples coming from Greece and Rome, the Column and Arch, or more fully, the colonnaded Architrave (trabeate-columnar) and the colon- naded Arch (arcuate-columnar). Glancing back at the Egyptian slant we may conceive it on its potential side as straightening itself up and becoming vertical (Greek), or as bending over and becoming round in the Arch (Roman). Moreover, the down-bearing prin- ciple which is so strongly emphasized in the Egyptian slant, is met by an equally powerful up-bearing principle in the perpendicular wall. But specially the Column, the supporter, is fully developed and manifested in all its glory, by the Greek. Only the Obelisk which is not dis- tinctively a supporter at all, but rather a soli- tary unsocial pier has gotten outside of the En- closure in Egypt. Still further, the Greek Column does not merely up-bear, but is a mem- ber of a social Whole, of the engirdling Peri- style, which columnar society has before it a long European evolution both outside and inside the Enclosure. So, when Europe starts on its distinctive career, we behold associated Man again making the home of the God of Association, who is now to be revealed constructively as associative, as the creator of association and the maker of in- THE CLASSIC STYLE. 159 stitutions. The columnar Peristyle appears in the first complete Greek temple, manifesting an association of architectural individuals, which unite and form a social Whole. Not a single column nor a row of columns do we see but a totality in itself, which is truly the sign of a new world. Putting together the preceding three Periods we must again call to mind that they constitute one process which is fundamentally psychical, having its root in the very movement of the Self, whether we take it as universal (the Pampsy- chosis) or as individual (Ego). For Architec- ture stands not alone in the Universe, but is a stage of a still larger process which embraces all Art, and even Art is merely one cycle included in a much vaster cycle. Still these lesser pro- cesses mirror the greater and the greatest, each being a part only because it contains ideally or in thought the Whole. 160 ABGEIT^CTUUE — EUBOPEAN/ I. The Hellenic Period. As the Pyramid may be placed at the begin- ning of the total architectural movement of the race, so the Greek Temple may be placed at the beginning of European Architecture. It is the normal building out of which flows the stream of succeeding edifices in Europe, at least those of truly artistic significance. The creative source of all great European Architecture is, then, the theme now before us, furnished by the cunning brain and hand of the old Greek. Through all future construction of the noble or artistic kind his work is to be seen, transforming and transformed, since he has given to his successors the primordial Norm of the beautiful building. This is not saying that Greek Architecture alone is beautiful, as some enthusiastic admirers have said and still say. But we may affirm that it starts and shapes the European evolution of the architectonic Art, and is to be seen as the creative principle running through it from beginning to end. As practiced by the Greeks, Architecture is a national Art, bearing the impress of Hellenic spirit. It rises with the nation's rise, blooms with the nation's bloom, and sinks with the nation's decline. It keeps pace with the move- TEE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 161 ment of Grecian independence, and is one form of the latter' s expression. To be sure Hellas produced many other forms of expression in Art, Poetry, Philosophy, Science; indeed she seems to have been the first to give to man the ability and the means of adequately expressing himself, to put outside of himself in transparent forms what lies within him. We shall see Greek Architecture to be an utterance, an external- ization of what was before implicit, unuttered in the Orient. What else is that free row of col- umns, standing forth in the world and encircling the Greek Temple? We are to see three main elements coming together in order to produce the phenomenon known as Greek Architecture. First is the old Aryan heritage of constructive ideas, primitive, even barbarous, common to early European peo- ples — we might call this element proto-European. Second is the developed civilized construction coming from Egypt chiefly, which Greece follows in the line of civilization. Third and most im- portant is the peculiar Greek development of in- stitutions, specially the City-State, very different from the institutions of Egypt or of the River Valleys of the Orient. Greece, divided up by mountains and estuaries of the sea into small, separate patches of territory, unfolded in the course of centuries its spirit of communal free- dom which became the deepest fact of the 11 162 ABGHITECTUBE — EUBOPEAN. national consciousness, moulding all its Art and Science, and imparting a unique character to its Civilization. Greek Architecture is, accord- ingly, the expression of the Greek institutional world, which obtained its materials from diverse sources, but transformed them all into the image of itself. The Greek City-State is the primor- dial artist of Hellas, who receives his clay from this quarter and that, but re-shapes it into his own beautiful Gods and their sacred dwelling- places. There is no doubt, then, that the Architecture of Greece is the child of Greek communal free- dom. The institution is the parent of Art, whose primal function in the present case is to make a home for the Greek Gods who united the Greeks in their institutional life. The Hel- lenic temple flowered out in all its beauty and perfection just after the Persian War, which was the complete separation of Greece from the Orient, and indeed the triumphant assertion of new Europe. But this mighty historic act, the greatest of antiquity, had long been preparing. The Trojan War had already shown the struggle between Asia and Europe. The Parthenon is as much a result of the Athenian Democracy as Marathon and Salamis, as Pericles and Phidias, as Aeschylus and Sophocles, as Socrates and Plato. But previous to the Parthenon and to the Democracy, there was a long evolution both THE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 16^ of the Architecture and the Institution. This k what we may now look at. I. • Long before the dawn ©f History, and long before the dawn of poetry in Homer, there was an old Greek epoch which we may call Pelasgic, in accord with the general conception of ancient writers. Much erudition has been spent upon finding out who were the Pelasgians, who seem to lie in the background not only of Greece but also of Italy and Asia Minor, in fact of the entire North-Mediterranean civilization. Verily they are a nebulous people (Niebelungs) dwelling in a distant, foggy, prehistoric cloudland (Nifleheim) often deemed by popular mythology to be giants on account of the. colossal works which they left behind in ruins. For our purpose we shall con- sider the Pelasgians to be that ancient race, the old Aryan, which moved to the West from Cen- tral Asia in migratory layers through Asia Minor to Europe, gradually passing into and taking possession of the three peninsulas of the Mediter- ranean Sea — the Greek, the Italic, and Spanish. Along the whole length of the line of this migration, or rather series of migrations, last- ing perhaps thousands of years, they left their monuments which have certain common charac- teristics from the Euphrates to the Atlantic. Such was the old Aryan substrate out of which the Greek stock grew and gradually individual- 164 ARCHITECTURE — EUROPEAN. ized itself as a people unique and distinct from other even cognate peoples. The cultivated Greek of later times knew, even if dimly and fragmentarily, of this original Aryan protoplasm of his race. He read his Homer, often knowing the Homeric forms by heart. Now Homer calls Zeus, the supreme Hellenic God, Pelasgic, and thus in religion con- nects Hellas with this old pre-historic people. But scattered villages of the Pelasgians still ex- isted in the historic age, as we may gather from Greek writers. Thus dispersed boulders of this ancient era were lying around in Greece, and Herodotus in the fifth century before Christ heard the Pelasgian speech and commented upon it, though not very intelligently. In the present connection, however, the object is to distinguish and to characterize the old Pelasgic monuments which may be regarded in part as the originals of Greek Architecture. First is the town-wall, that massive masonry which has excited the wonder of all observers, particularly of the Greeks themselves. Pau- sanias, a Greek traveler, declares that the walls of Tiryns are a marvel equal to the Pyramids of Egypt. Cyclopean this masonry is often named, the term being derived from the Cyclops, a fabulous race of giant smiths and builders. The quality of the work is of various degrees, from a pile of large irregular stones with interstices filled TEE HELLENIC PERIOD. 165 by rubbk, to huge rectangular blocks duly trimmed and laid in order. Another well known style of the Cyclopean wall employs polyonal blocks closely fitted together, instead of the irregular and the rectangular. But all these styles have the common characteristic: a manifesta- tion of prodigious human strength, a striving for colossality, which is to be tamed down into Greek moderation. In viewing these mighty town- walls, one feels that they are the product of the whole commun- ity working as one man with gigantic power. Such is, indeed, the real giant, not the individ- ual, but the associated Whole in which all the members are grown into one vast organic body which builds as its true counterpart this massive Enclosure for protection. Outside of it was insecurity of property and life and indeed of the institution; roving bands of maraud- ers might not only steal individuals, but might sweep the entire community into cap- tivity which then meant slavery. But in- side these walls lay communal security and independence, they were the bulwark not only of the individual, but also of the institution, yea of the God ; hence they are built with such terrible sincerity even if rude, with such a strength not simply of muscle but of conviction. As we look upon the walls of Tiryns and think of the labor involved, we cannot help feeling 166 ABCIUTECTUBE — EUBOPEAN. that they arose through a profound sense of religious duty, perchance of- religious fervor. They engirdled and protected that little society, separating it from all others even of the same kind, and giving to it the opportunity for devel- oping its own individual character. Herein we may see the primal origin of that large galaxy of independent Greek City-States, which show themselves in historic Hellas with such a variety of power and character, and out of which the perfected Architecture of Hellas is to spring. In these Pelasgic city-walls enveloping and protecting the institutional home of the people was another walled Enclosure much less in size, but the heart of the entire town, the Temple of the God, Most of these structures have van- ished, not being constructed for defense like the outer wall. Still a few have escaped, particu- larly in remote corners of the island Euboea. The so-called Temple of Zeus and Hera on Mount Ocha is declared to be the oldest m Greece, and has essentially the Pelasgic masonry. It is an oblong rectangle, measuring inside a little over 32 feet in length and somewhat more than 16 feet m width. Thus it shows both the shape and the proportion of the Greek Temple of which it may well be deemed the primitive Cella without a column inside or outside. The roof was made of stone slabs leaning against one another and resting upon the opposite side-w^alls THE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 167 of the building. Thus the ancient Pelasgians began to construct temples of stone, though their sanctuaries must have been chiefly of wood in primitive times. The citj-walls could not be built of combustible material, being exposed to the attack of the enemy. But this early race of builders made the transition from the stone-wall of the town to the stone-wall of the Temple. Still they hardly produced the round column with mouldings — this came from Egypt. Still less did they develop the Peristyle encompassing the Temple with its columnar rows — this is the product and the symbol of civilized Hellas. Another constructive principle known to the Pelasgians was the Arch, both the true and the false so-called, that is the Arch made of wedge- shaped voussoirs, and the Arch built by hori- zontal stone beams projecting gradually toward each other from different sides till they meet. It may be fairly said that the Pelasgic builders loved the round vault, so often do they employ it — wherein they stand in striking contrast to the historic Greeks (and also Egyptians) who evidently disliked it and discarded it consciously. The ancient Treasuries (Thesauri) built by the Pelasgians were roui^d and were vaulted inside, of course in the second way before-mentioned. They had apparently a triple purpose — as tombs, as sanctuaries for rites and worship connected with the dead, and as treasure-houses. 168 ABCHITECTUBE — EUROPE AK. Kound Temples we also find in this primitive age, at least round Enclosures which must have been regarded as sacred. So much for these primordial constructive forms which the Greek inherited from his old Aryan ancestry, but which he will modify in various ways. He will show a tendency to re- ject all round construction, including arch and vault; he will change from the spirit which breathes out of the massive Cyclopean masonry ; he will retain the rectangular stone Cella, but will make to it a unique additionin the column, which in its early shape is brought to him from abroad, from the Valley of the Nile. II. In the Pelasgic era the Greek was as yet unborn, undifferentiated from the underlying Aryan (or proto-European) mass which was the potentiality or primitive stuff of so many diverse peoples of Europe. But the time comes when the differentiation has to take place and when the Hellenic race has to be definitely born and to assume its grand historic task in the monumental labor of the ages. This period had been long preparing, but its crisis is heralded by the finest outburst of song in existence, the poems of Homer, which really proclaim not only the birth of Hellas but of Europe, Hitherto the differ- ence from the Orient, even if germinating, had not matured, that underljang Aryan substrate was essentially Oriental. But the separation THE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 169 from the primitive All-mother takes place in the painful throes of war. For the Trojan conflict, even if mythical, was very real and lasted not only ten years, but ten times ten and probably much longer. In fact it is not finished to-day, if we look at it in its widest sense. The age of Homer had its Architecture as we see from his descriptions, particularly in the Odyssey. The greater part of the monuments of Mycenae we may consider to belong to Homer's period. Curious architectural orna- ments we observe ; sculpture has arrived, though still a foreigner ; but especially the column has reached Mycenae, though seemingly not yet structural. Still it is not the Egyptian column, but shows an Ionic character as if it might have traveled to its destination through Asia Minor, The column between the two lions over the so- called Lions' Gate at Mycenae, seems an inverted Ionic column with base on top and diminishing downward. It is not unlikely that the Doric column also had arrived in the Homeric or Mycenean epoch , had arrived before the Dorians themselves who afterwards adopted it in distinction from the Ionic, and transformed it in accord with their spirit. It is also probable that both the Ionic and Doric columns were first wrought of wood. But this does not mean that they were wholly developed in Greece from timber construction. 170 ABCHITEGTUBE — EUROPEAN. On the contrary, the first imitation of the Egyp- tian columns in Greece was naturally of wood, from which it would pass to stone, as the more durable material. Here we must take note of a monument which has aroused a great deal of discussion. The so- called Herseon, uncovered by the German exca- vators at Olympia, is declared to be the oldest temple in Greece. It is a Doric Peristyle, with six columns on each front and sixteen on each side ; all the columns differ from one another, varying in their diameters, in their capitals, and even in their materials. To account for these differences conjecture has been very busy. Par- ticularly it has been supposed that the columns were originally of wood, and were gradually replaced by those of stone. This may be true, but the inference that the Doric column was entirely derived from timber construction does not follow and is absurd. The oblong Cella of this Temple is the earliest part, and resembles others found in Greece. But the Peristyle is later, much later ; we hold it to be post-colonial and in its conception to have been derived from the colonial Greeks who visited the Olympic games. It is a mistake to consider this Peristyle to be of the same period as the Cella, whose form exists still in many places of Greece without even a column. The peristylar Enclosure of the temple wall was the THE HELLENIC PERIOD. 171 last to develop, and this complete develop- ment of it appeared decisively first in the Greek colonies, as we shall see later. But such was the first separation of the Hel- lenic world which made it distinct from its ante- cedent Oriental condition. Homer shows Greece divided into many independent communities which, however, reveal their common character in their union against Troy. Those Cyclopean town-walls have protected and fostered a thou- sand self-reliant City-States great and small, each being jealous of its own separate autono- mous existence. Still they were Greeks, all of them, and the muster-roll in the Second Book of the Iliad counts them up one by one as they took their places in the great expedition against the Orient. But the work is accomplished, Troy is destroyed, these communal units return to their former condition when a new separation takes place. III. This is an inner separation, very different from that outer one revealed at Troy. Its crisis :s seen in what is called the Doric migration from Northern Greece into the Peloponnesus. An obscure semi-mythical event as narrated by the Greek historians, yet with a most important historic kernel: this is the separation of the Greek' sto. k or the most advanced portion thereof into two chief branches, the Doric and the Ionic, which separation is not known to Homer. 172 AMGHITEGTUBE — EUBOPEAN. There were other branches besides these two, but they were of much less significance. Such is the fact now arising which runs through and deter- mines Greek history, poetry, art, institutions, all of which henceforth bifurcate into a Doric or Ionic trend. Specially Architecture will project two lines of Temples down the ages under the name of Doric and Ionic. The third, the Corin- thian Order, comes later. Both these branches, Doric and Ionic, belong to continental Hellas, and will there unfold an inner tension which finally drives each side to a fresh migration, wherein comes to light another weighty fact of Hellenic history, colonization. The Greeks at this period show themselves supremely a colonizing people, and each colony is not a de- pency of the mother country, but a new auton- omous City-State. Thus the Greek community becomes marvelously productive of other com- munities like itself, which, however, sweep beyond the limits of old Hellas and settle in foreign lands, thus showing themselves adven- turesome, aspiring, limit-transcending. Colo- nization always takes the daring, progressive spirits for its work, those who are willing to face the unknown — the unknown sea, the unknown land, the unknown foe. Such bands of strong souls central Greece kept throwing out of itself for several centuries toward all points of the compass (probably from about 9-800 B. C). TEE HELLENIC PEEIOD. 173 In this movement the two branches of the Greek stock showed their inherent opposition by sending their chief colonies in opposite directions, the Doric to the West in Sicily and Southern Italy, the Ionic to the East along the coast of Asia Minor with its adjacent islands. Out of this historic background now rises the supreme fact of Greek Architecture : the Doric Temple with its columns arose and flourished in these Western colonies, while the Ionic temple in deep corre- spondence arose and flourished quite at the same time in the Eastern colonies. Such is the strik- ing historic symmetry in the origin and develop- ment of these two Greek Temples, or rather these two lines of Greek Temples, whose further double evolution proceeds upon these two lines toward the one culminating center of the Hellenic race. Each set of these colonies having moved forth from the original home and formed the outlying rim of the Hellenic world, had to grapple with a desperate task. Each had to face a conflict with the Orient to whose peoples they were ■ neighbors. In the West the Doric cities of Sicily impinged upon the Carthaginian empire which had also Sicilian colonies. In the East the Lydian king Croesus carried on a struggle with the Greek cities of the Asiatic coast, which were finally subjugated by the Persian king Cyrus. Now it was during this conflict long- 174 ABCHITE TUBE — EUROPE AN. continued that Greek Architecture assumed its normal character in the colonnaded Temple. The energy called forth by the conflict between Hellenism and Orientalism also called forth the highest manifestations of the Greek spirit of that time in Art, Science, and Philosophy which now definitely began as original Hellenic crea- tions. On the borderland of the Greek world was the first flowering of those spiritual dis- ciplines which from that moment to this, thrx>ugh the whole line of European development, have not ceased to be cultivated. At the same time these colonies are learning and appropriating much from their enemies. In all their work and thought an Oriental influence can be traced which they have taken up and transformed. For the Orient had a very ancient civilization, particularly Egypt, then in its de- cline, or rather in its final decline. We have to see that the Greek column, the most famous and lasting form of Greek Architecture, was derived and evolved out of an Egyptian prototype. In fact it may be deemed one of the chief functions of these frontier colonies that they formed a bridge for the transfer of Oriental culture into Europe, which culture, however, they decidedly modified. We place, then, the first emphatic appearance of the Peristyle in the colonies, where it became national . If there was a Peristyle in continental THE HELLENIC PERIOD. 175 Greece before the colonial epoch, it is not known. We have already stated that the Peristyle of the Herseon at Olympia is post-colonial, though the contrary opinion has been held by archaeologists, without proof, in our judgment. The Greek colonies in their conflict with the Oriental peo- ples, developed the completed union of individual columns in the form of the self -returning Peri- style, which is an image of their own united civic life necessitated by their circumstances. Such a necessity did not in early times press upon con- tinental Greece, but it will come, particularly when the Oriental foe has broken through the borderland of colonies to the East. If there were examples of the Peristyle in con- tinental Greece before the period of colonization, they were sporadic, accidental, and must have been few, since all traces of them have so com- pletely perished. Regarding the multitudinous remains of Doric Temples in Sicily, we have to conclude that these had become there a national product, the object of supreme effort for every city. In old Greece Corinth alone has some ruins of one of these early Doric Temples, and it probably sprang from intercourse with Sicily. We have already noted that in Egypt there is a decided suggestion of the Peristyle in the Mamm- eisi, but it was never truly nationalized in that country. It must, accordingh% be affirmed that, as far as present information goes, the Greek 176 ABCHITECTUBE — E UBOPEAN. colonies of Sicily made the peristjlar Temple a work of Hellenic patriotism. IV. The next important fact which meets us is that Greek Architecture, having started and taken shape on the colonial rim of Hellas begins to move toward the center of continental Hellas for its final complete development, which it at- tains at Athens after the Persian War. Thus we behold a centripetal movement of Greek Architecture, from the colonies back to the original Hellenic home in continental Hellas. A similar movement can be observed in Greek Philosophy which also sprang up in the Ionic borderland of Asia Minor, and flourished like- wise in the Doric colonies of Southern Italy and Sicily, before concentrating and culminating at Athens in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In a spiritual parallel with these greatest Greek phi- losophers and at nearly the same time with their appearance, Athens will rear the supreme Greek Temple, and will produce the greatest Greek plastic and dramatic Art. Architecture thus shares in the spiritual movement of the whole Hellenic race after the defeat of the Orient, and mirrors in its edifices just that lofty national spirit. Particularly the Greek temple becomes the home and the expression of the Greek insti- tutional world which repelled the assault of Persia, and asserted its freedom. At a later time we shall see that Hellenistic Architecture THE HELLENIC PERIOD. 177 will move in the opposite direction, will turn outward from Greece and become centrifugal, raying forth to the East and West, over the vast empires of Macedon and Rome. The centripetal movement of Greek Architec- ture embraces a period of not fully two hundred years. The oldest Temple in Sicily which shows the completed architectural Norm is probably at Selinus and must be dated a little before 600 B. C. The Parthenon was finished about 438 B.C. Between these two Temples we may con- ceive a row of Doric columns passing through the ascending stages of their evolution toward perfection. In like manner we may conceive a row of Ionic columns marching down the same centuries from Asia Minor and the adjacent islands to the Acropolis of Athens, taking their places in the Propylaea and in the Erechtheion. To be sure these early Ionic Temples have for some reason .now completely vanished, or possibly have not yet been dug up, for they seem to lie covered with earth more deeply than the Sicilian Temples. V. The beginnings of Greek Architecture are connected with another peculiar Greek appear- ance : the lawgiver. Solon, the Athenian, was at his work about 600 B. C, being a distinct historical character, while Lycurgus the Spar- tan is usually put several centuries earlier, and has a tendency to become mythical. About the 12 178 ABCHITECTUBE — EUBOPEAN. age of Solon and later, the lawgiver appeared in many Greek cities, so that he forms an epoch, a stage of consciousness in the development of the Greek people, quite cotemporaneous with its architectural development. The lawgiver endeavored to formulate the universal rule of conduct for all the citizens of the community. They were to adjust their lives and particularly their dealings with one another according to a certain Norm which all were to follow. Thus the City obtained order, a certain Greek proportion. Every individual had to obey the law to the end of sharing in the communal life. Now it was a great event in Greek history when this law was found, formulated, and ap- plied. Thus each little town might become a work of art, plastic in its way. Very analogous was the Greek Temple which also received its Norm about the same time. Every part of the building was to be adjusted to the law of the whole. If it was made larger in any part, the entire work had to be increased in proportion. If a Temple were lengthened, it had also to be broadened and heightened. In other words it was organic, like the human body, which cannot have long legs and short arms without a violation of the fundamental law of proportion. On this ground Vitruvius (III. 1.) compares the Greek Temple with the human organism. To be sure the law of proportion TEE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 179 both in the human and the architectural body is not absolutely rigid, it can and must vary within limits. Still in these variations we must behold the one Norm, elastic indeed, but permanent. Vitruvius was a Eoman architect who lived about the beginning of the Christian era, and was trained in the precepts of the Greeks. It is interesting to read this ancient testimony to their way of working. *' Proportion is the due adjustment of the size of the different parts to each and to the whole." This is probably a translation of some Greek treatise, as it is more to the point than, most of the statements * in Vitruvius. Thus every member of the Temple becomes symmetrical, being measured by a com- mon unit of measure called the modulus. This was taken from the lower part of the column, being half of its diameter. The height of the column, the intercolumniation, the entablature and its divisions were all adjusted to this under- lying unit of measure, which thus controlled the whole structure. The smallest members as well as the largest obeyed the common law of the whole Temple, which was itself an ordered community of architectural members. Thus we may see how the lawgiver in his realm corresponded to the architect in his realm, and how both must be the outgrowth of the same great national movement which orders a society of in- dividual members after one fundamental princi- 180 ABCHITECTUBE — EUROPEAN. pie or law. The same fact is seen in another Oreek art, Sculpture, which employs chiefly the human body for its representations. ** From the chin to the top of the forehead is one-tenth of the length of the normal man" (Vitruvius). The arms, the fingers, the legs, the feet, in fine every member has its mathematical relation to the whole body formulated ; such a body became the Norm of Sculpture, and was made into a famous statue by a Greek artist and called ' * the canon." Such was the attempt to make real the ideal man in those antique ages. It reflects the Greek State with its Law, which sought to train all the members of the Social Whole to an har- monious institutional life, in which each individ- ual realizes according to his ability the modulus of the Whole. VI. Thus we reach down to the fact that Architecture has as its fundamental task to build the home of associated Man. Particularly does such a thought impress us in the early temples of Greece, which obey so perfectly in every part their organic law. The God is placed in his own abode, which he in a sense has built for himself through his human instruments. He is indeed the Will of the whole community as one, being made personal in a divine shape (the statue) and given a habitation. There was a time when the individual member was forbidden to employ the distinctive forms TEE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 181 of the Temple for his own private house, for instance the colonnade . That was the dwelling- place of the institutional spirit, not of any individual, unless he became the tyrant of his city and usurped the function of the Social Whole. Seldom indeed do we know the name of these early architects, especially the Doric. They as individuals are one with their work, absorbed in it like other members of the com- munity. Later there will be a change in this respect along with other corresponding changes. And yet this Greek community, building its communal spirit into the Temple, is acting under a larger command than its own. It is obeying another stronger, higher law than its own. The Egyptian built his Temple in quite a different way, yet in obedience to the divine behest. Is there a deity common to Greek and Egyptian, yet above both? Or a law which includes both these peoples, and which will include others yet to come? The Greek Temple rises, blooms, de- clines ; the God after dwelling in it hundreds of years with content, will move out of it and order another Temple to be built fit for his reception. Still the Greek Temple is the beautiful home of the Spirit which produced the Greek City- State, with its order, its civic law, its ethical in- dividual. If we consider what kind of a social unit that old Pelasgic masonry environed and reflected, we think of the early Village Commu- 182 ARCHITEGTUBE — E UBOPEAN, nit J in which man is not yet separated from the soil on which he lives, and is unconsciously one with his institutional center. The column is not yet thrown out and made to stand forth singly in the world, and still be united with other col- umns. There is as yet no individualizing of property or even of the Self. The transition from the Cyclopean town-wall to the Hellenic Temple corresponds to a great social change, the transition into the Greek world proper. Already we have connected the rise of the column with the dawn of a new consciousness of selfhood, which began to appear far back in Egypt, but which was taken up by Greece and specially de- veloped. Man has to be individualized in order to individualize the column, or to give to prop- erty individual ownership. Still all these forms of individuality must be associated and thus make institutions. Perhaps the best image of Greek association is the columnar Peristyle, which is taken by man for his institutional build- ings even to this day. Pelasgic, proto-European Tiryns has been dug up by Schliemann ; we see a vast architectural shell out of which the life long ago departed at the appearance of the Hel- lenic City-State; the latter, however, has in its turn become a ruin. The vital principle in these great structures now^ empty was the social institution which originally built them for its abode. THE HELLENIC PEBIOD. 183 VII. Having thus traced the historic elements which unfold into the Hellenic Period of Classic Architecture, we must next look at the product, the completed building, the Greek Temple. The uncivilized and civilized contributions, the Aryan and the Egyptian ingredients, have been passed through the alembic of the new Greek institu- tional world and transformed into a new struc- ture, truly the genetic one of European Archi- tecture. What is its constitution? Can we find not merely its separate forms, but also its pro- cess? For it is or was an organic thing, endowed with its own peculiar life. In order to bring out the foregoing points we shall look at the Hellenic Temple under three different aspects, or rather behold it . in three separate stages which make its process or inner constitution. A. The Hellenic N'orm. Every Hellenic Temple is Hellenic through an archetypal form or idea which underlies it and really creates it. This we shall call its Norm, in which all Greek Temples are one. B. The Hellenic Orders. The Norm though it be one, has also division within itself, and separates into its essential varieties which are named Orders. There are three, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, which we shall again find forming a process within themselves. C. The Hellenic City. These three Orders 184 ABCHITECTUBE — E UBOPEAN. . are employed in different structures of the same locality, and are often combined in the same structure. Thus a collection of buildings for various purposes is brought together within a new Enclosure, that of the Acropolis, or possibly of the entire city wall. Such an architectural Whole arose specially at Athens, but likewise in other places of Greece, diversified in many ways through the different Orders, yet patterned after the one underlying Hellenic Norm, of which the Hellenic City becomes the complete manifesta- tion and reality. In these three stages we behold the workings of the Hellenic Norm, which unfolds through the Orders and determines the Architecture of the Hellenic City, whose every public building, though different from the rest, reveals in com- mon with them the one Norm which unifies all the important edifices into an architectural totality. At first this Hellenic Norm was applied to the Temple, the home of the religious insti- tution. But it passed to other structures, to pub- lic buildings, which exist also for the institu- tional life of the people. Thus the Temple even in Greece became secularized, and this tendency rose to be the dominant one in imperial Rome. Such a movement was in the natural order of evolution. The Hellenic Temple be- comes the mother of all the institutional Archi- THE HELLENIC NOBM. 185 lecture of Europe, both religious and secular. The different forms of associated Man reach back to that one Spirit who associates him, and whose edifice will be the Norm of all other insti- tutional edifices. And now we shall devote some study to this Norm specially. A. The Hellenic Norm. This is the eternal element in all Architecture which can be called Greek. We might name it in Platonic speech the Idea of which every par- ticular Temple is the sensuous manifestation. It is the universal principle which is the soul in all its individual forms. It is the architectural unit in all variety. It is not a crystallized pattern or scheme which has simply to be copied, but a genetic archetype freely producing shapes of itself indeed, but each with an individuality wholly its own. This architectural Norm is a distinct creation and expression of Greek Spirit. Wherever this Spirit built a Home for itself, it took the peri- stylar Temple as its only worthy Enclosure. On the Eastern rim of the Greek world, and on the Western rim in Sicily, the same basic Norm comes to light. The Dorian employs it as well as the Ionian, in spite of their antagonisms. Thus the Norm reaches down to the common soul of the 186 ABCHITEGTUBE — EUROPEAN . entire Hellenic race and utters it in Architecture at the greatest epoch of its history. The inner- most Greek Self builds outwardly its own character, and also its process, in the Greek Temple. We hold, therefore, that the Hellenic archi- tectural Norm, being the genetic, constructive Idea of all Greek building, must be conceived as a process, and its divisions are really the stages of this process. These stages form the three striking divisions of the total Temple. Again let the reader observe this triune movement of forms which is seen in all parts of Greek Archi- tecture large and little. It manifests so easily and naturally its psychical origin and organization that its innermost divisions seem almost super- ficial. These divisions are as follows. (I.) The Peristyle^ the self-returning row of columns which constitutes the outer vertical En- closure of the Temple, whose essential principle is to be up-bearing. Its direction is outward, and through the upright column it speaks to and of Man. (II.) The Cella, the oblong walled house which is inside the Peristyle, and constitutes the inner Enclosure of the Temple. The wall has a divided duty: it is the completely enclosing prin- ciple, yet is also up-bearing for roof and ceiling as well as strongly down-bearing with its own weight. Its direction is inward to the God, for THE HELLENIC NOUM. 187 whom the whole structure is built as a dwelling- place. (III.) TJie Entablature, the cover (roof and ceiling) of the Temple in its external manifesta- tion, connecting with the Peristyle and complet- ing the outer Enclosure of the house with the roof. Its character is horizontal, and hence down-bear- ing in contrast to the up-bearing verticalism of the Peristyle, with which it forms a unity reveal- ing the total outward Appearance of the Tem- ple, its visible manifestation. From this point of view the Entablature may be said to come back to the outer world where the Peristyle already stood, and to show the side of Nature in its pros- trate position, in its submission to mere gravity. It is a suggestive point that in the developed Greek Temple, the procedure of the construction of it was Peristyle first, Cella second, and then the Covering with the completed Entablature. This fact we see strikingly illustrated in the un- finished Temple at Segesta in Sicily. The Cella was never built, so there is simply the outer En- closure. The columns are rounded in the rou^h but have as yet no flutings, which must have been chiseled on the columns standins:. The city of Segesta was conquered by the Cartha- ginians about 409 B. C, and this is doubtless what stopped the work on the Temple, which still images in its unfinished ruin that old con- flict between Greece and the Orient. In historic 188 ABCHITECTUBE — EUROPEAN', development, however, the Cella was first, while the Peristyle was the last to unfold, being the most distinctive Hellenic contribution to Archi- tecture, even if siiggested in old Egypt. It is well to note again that the Column and with it the Peristyle is up-bearing essentially, even if it too is heavy and bears downward. On the other hand, the Architrave and with it the Entablature is down-bearing essentially, though it likewise has to sustain the burden above. In other words there is always a process in each of these forms with its opposite, and it is this process which gives life, when brought out adequately by the artist. In its way, which is the architectural way, the Hellenic Norm expresses the supreme Norm, the Norm of the Universe in its threefold totality — Man, God, Nature. The columnar Peristyle with its line of associated individuals, suggests Man, the free erect Man, co-operating in a social Whole. On the other hand the enclosed Cella shuts the soul off from the outward world and turns it inward to commune with the God who is present in his statue. But the Entablature shows the passage from the inside to the outside both structurally and in its mouldings; it is heavy Nature recumbent, yielding to gravity, manifest- ing by its horizontal posture its material charac- ter. Thus in the Greek Temple, when we reach down to its deepest source, we may see a con- TEE HELLENIC NOBM, 189 structive form of the Absolute Process, a reflec- tion of the movement of the All — Man, God, Nature. The same Norm is found in Greek Philosophy, notably in Plato and Aristotle (see our Ancient European Philosophy, suh voc), who express it not in shapes of stone but in the abstract categories of Thought. Still both kinds of utterance come from one and the same su- premely governing Spirit and reveal its process (the Pampsychosis). The Greek Temple is the architectural image of the Universe, purer, simpler, more transparent than is found in any other structure built by man. Such is our little paralellopipedon capped by a triangular prism, looking more like a toy than anything else at first glance, like a box with a double-slanting cover set upon an elevation. But when we see what became of it, and follow out its evolution for twenty-five centuries, we shall discover the meaning which lies hidden in its simple shape. This Norm may indeed be called a thing of the Imagination. But whoever does not use his Imagination in Architecture, had better let this Art alone, and also the other Arts. These forms, springing up so diversely and so cause- lessly to the outer eye, are all to be carried back by the Imagination to the Mother-form, to the originative Idea. But at first they lie before us in external vision, as separate, individual objects 190 AEOHITECTUBE — EVBOPEAK. of sense. How do they get to be? The build- ing must in its way be alive, and not only alive but creative, sending forth its members like an organic thing. This constructive activity is primarily to be seen by the creative Imagination which is cognate with it, and so can enter into the soul of the edifice, and re-create the process of the same, which is also its own essentially. The Ego of the observer is to penetrate to the original germ or the Norm, and see it unfolding into its visible shapes, and thus to follow out the movement of the Architect of the ages. This gives the Psychology of Architecture, in which the psychical process of the Universe is seen clothing itself in the manifold constructive forms which arise in time, but which ultimately go back to the one Norm, not directly 'visible in itself yet creative of all that is visible . Now it is this Norm which the Imagination is to behold, and behold creatively in its innermost movement, both Norm and Imagination being participants in the one fundamental process of the All. The student may well devote his best thought to appropriating this Hellenic Norm, since he must now get hold the genetic principle of all the finest edifices which he sees around him. For this Norm is still at the present day mar- velously active, creating as vigorously as of old, often, however, in combination with more recent forms. It is the initiation into the total Temple TEE EELLENIC NOBM, 191 of European Architecture, into the thought of the Supreme Architect in its primal productive shape. And if our student be philosophically inclined, let him read a Dialogue of Plato which sets forth the Idea or Archetype indwelling the whole sensuous Cosmos. Or if poetry be pre- ferred, let a drama of Sophocles be taken (say the Oedipus or the Antigone)^ and let its ideal Norm be compared with that of Hellenic Archi- tecture. Thus he will begin to behold the Norm of Norms, that Universal Norm of Greek Spirit itself, of which its Architecture is but one ex- pression. (I.) The Peristyle. — The most obvious as well as the most striking element of the Greek architectural Norm is the oblong four-sided girdle of columns which constitute its first Enclosure called the Peristyle from the fact that it surrounds with its colonnades the whole struc- ture. We have already noted that this Peristyle must be regarded as the first significant act of European Architecture in contrast with the Ori- ental and specially the Egyptian Temple, whose columns are here thrown outside the wall, are manifested to the world, and thus constitute the starting-point of the grand architectural revela- tion for the future. Let us always remember that the Hellenic Peristyle is not simply a row of columns stopping anywhere, not a colonnade, but a row sweeping around and coming back to itself- 192 ARCHITECTURE —EUROPEAN. thus giving a sense of completeness through this self-returning movement, and suggesting an association of columnar individuals. Another fact about the Peristyle is that it is everywhere open, though it also encloses. We may call it a series of entrances running around the Cella, and inviting everybody to come under its shelter though a railing sometimes may shut out the crowd. This invitation is given, we might say, with a pleasant smile in the best Greek Temples, as the Theseion and the Parthenon. Moreover' the columns at a distance seem to have movement, to be engaged in a kind of dance around the sanctuary of the dehghted God, who beholds this chorus of white-dressed Greek maidens celebrating Him in an eternal festival of happy marble. Why this never-ending joy of Greek columns? We hold that they are keeping a jubilee of freedom, having been released from their long confinement in that gloomy temple of Karnak; or possibly these Doric columns are celebrating their escape from the tomb itself, perchance from that very cemetery of Beni- Hassan in Egypt, where we once saw them standing at the entrance and evidently trying to get out. Such is the one side, properly the outside of the Peristyle, but there is another side, the in- side, which we may look at in this connection. The guest responding to the very cordial and THE HELLENIC KOBM. 193 literally open invitation, freely enters at any place, and then runs up against a high wall, the Cella. Thus he finds the Greek limit, he can be admitted only half way, the freedom of entrance is not complete, not universal. A special door rather small leads into the Cella which contains the God. Such is here the image of the Greek, in- deed of the European dualism: liberation on this side, exclusion on that. Greece had slavery along with, or rather inside, its freedom, aristoc- racy in its democracy, the privileges of birth in its widest citizenship. The people of Athens were really an aristocracy. Still, if freedom be the grand end toward which humanity is march- ing, we have in Greece a mighty step forward, which is reflected in her Temple. Far back in the Pyramid there was properly no entrance, this being closed up by enormous blocks of gran- ite, which the modern explorer has removed with great difficulty, when he has been able to find them. At Karnak the priests might enter but not the people. In Hellas, however, we are get- ting free outside, though much remains to be done inside — a problem which Christianity will grapple with later. It is a phenomenon which excites deep wonder- ing and rouses to much reflection that the Peri- style should leap forth from the All-mother so complete at the start. Yet there was an evolu- tion through partial forms of the Peristyle, 13 194 ARCHITECTURE — EUROPEAN'. though these in Hellas proper seem to have been few, such as the prostylos and amphiprostylos for instance. The strong inner bent of Greek genius, filled with the Spirit of the Ages, com- pelled the columnar row to be not simply lineal but self-returning, thus embosoming the Cella or inner Temple of the God as the internal element of itself. For this reason the Peristyle imparts to the beholder a sense of completeness within bounds, the idea of perfection in a limited world, or, as some philosophers say, of the infinite in the finite. Very Greek is this Peri- style, an outburst of the total Hellenic stock ; both its extremes, the Dorian and the Ionian, far apart and independently of each other seem- ingly, fling it out of themselves nearly at the same time, so that it must have lain in the original creative spirit of the total Greek race. To be sure, we, looking back from our van- tage-ground, see another and vaster process of which this Peristyle and all Greek Architecture and the entire Greek civilization make only one stage. We see that the whole line of the edifices of the ages forms one huge Temple through which the reader is now seeking to thread his passage and to behold the shapes in order. This is the Temple which the Universal Spirit (the Pampsychosis) is building for its dwelling- place, which is not yet finished by any means, but of which the Greek Peristyle has s hown it- THE HELLEniG NOBM. 195 self to be an important and beautiful member. So we may say that the Pampsychosis, now the All-builder, has taken the Greek man as archi- tect, who is to erect the Hellenic portion of the Universal Temple, in which we here behold with no small satisfaction the Peristyle. The Peristyle has its elements or stages. First is the Column taken by itself, of which Architecture has so much to say. But the Col- umn as supporting is not made to stand alone ; hence appears the tie-beam with its two columns or the traheate-columnar Pattern which is the archetypal form of the Peristyle, or the primor- dial cell whose repetition produces it. Such repetition of this Pattern brings forth the OoU onnade^ which, being brought back into its beginning through a circular or rectangular form, makes the Peristyle. These three elements we shall consider somewhat more fully. 1. The Hellenic Column, This is usually re- garded as the most perfect of all the varieties of the Column, that culmination of it to which antecedent forms ascend, and from which later forms proceed. On the whole the Hellenic Column is the favorite piece in all Architecture ; it has been oftener employed, oftener wooed by contending peoples than any other architectural beauty. We have already noted its first distinct appearance in ancient Egypt, and its migration to Hellas where it came to its classic perfection. 196 ABGHITECTUItE — EUROPEAN. As the Column will continue its evolution down -, to the present time, and will have to be spoken of again very frequently, we shall here give briefly an outline of its members, or we might better say, of its process, which, though of stone, must be grasped as suggesting movement, life, organic self-activity. It is true that a column may be dead, stone-dead literally ; but that is the fault of the artist. The columns of the Parthenon, seen at a distance, appear to be moving, yea to be dancing, like that before-mentioned chorus of white-dressed Greek maidens circling hand in hand at a happy festival. The Hellenic Column, taken by itself in its own individual development, has three members, the Base, the Shaft, and the Capital. Each of these again has its own process, upon which we may spend a word or two. (a) The Base is the lower part of the Column which rests upon the pavement of the Temple (Stylobat), which is in the form of an oblong rectangle. The Base must show the transition from the Stylobat to the Shaft, and here again are marked three stages, or perchance more, since these forms may be repeated several times. The Plinth of the Base is the square block, which con- nects in form with the rectangular below it and in size with the curvilinear above it. The Torus or cushion is the next part, round but bulged, hinting the superincumbent weight. The next THE HELLENIC NOBM. 197 important part bends inward and is called the Scotia which indicates a kind of concentration for a new up-bearing effort. These are the main forms, of which the Torus and the Scotia are often repeated with other mouldings such as fillets or bands, and also with flutings and various decorations. We may see suggested in these forms the living interplay between the up-bearing and down-bearing principles which are brought out in the Column, and belong fundamentally to all Architecture. The stolid Plinth takes its load without a grimace, showing the same face on each side ; but the Torus swells and yields, with a sort of an outcry at the fearful down-bearing burden which it has to sustain ; while the Scotia contracts itself for a tremendous up-bearing strain, which properly heralds the next member, truly the weightiest of all, the Shaft. The Greek architect took delight in the Base, diver- sifying its forms in a kind of sportive willful- ness, so that in the old classic Temples of Hellas probably no two Bases can be found exactly alike. (5) The Shaft is the middle member of the Column and the most important ; indeed it alone could do the mere up-bearing part without the other members. Base and Capital. In that case, however, the Column would lose its Greek char- acter, its expressiveness ; it would be but an un- 198 AE GHITE C TUBE — E VB OPE AN, developed pier, quite speechless, unable to tell anything about itself. It would lose the out- ward utterance of its process, which has to reveal itself in these three members. But the Shaft taken by itself has its elements which break up its monotony and give to it a subtle movement. First comes its Rotundity, which has the advantage of presenting no sharp corners to human intercourse going on about it. But the great fact of the round column is its complete separation from the wall, and from the pier which still partakes of the wall in character. That is, the column is individualized, rounded out in itself and resting upon itself, giving forth distinctly the note of individuality. In its way we may call it free, the supporting principle being liberated and made to stand up in its own right. Another element of the Hellenic Shaft is what is called the JEntasis, the slight increase in diameter for about one-third its height, followed by a slight decrease till the Capital. This quite imperceptible swell suggests the inner effort of the supporting activity by a sort of rise and fall, a struggle as it were between the two contending genii in the column, the up-bearing and the down-bearing. The Entasis is said also to cor- rect by its convexity defects of vision which would result from a regular diminution of the column from bottom to top. A third element of the Shaft is the Fluting, the hollow vertical THE HELLENIC NOBM. 199 channels seen in every Greek Column. The effect of these grooves with their edges is to carry the eye upward irresistibly along the numerous per- pendicular lines, thus emphasizing the up-bear- ing principle of the Column with overwhelming power. In this way the Shaft, after an inner struggle, mounts aloft till it reaches the third and final member of the Column. (c) The Capital, This member indicates the transition from the vertical Shaft to the hori- zontal Architrave, or more generally from the oblong rectangle below (stylobat) to the oblong rectangle above (the ceiling) which is supported primarily by the Column. As the Base hints the movement into the Shaft, so the Capital hints the movement out of it, with somewhat similar mouldings but inverted. The Capital in a sense shows a return to the starting-point of the Base, namely to the aforesaid oblong rectangle, though this is in the one case below, and in the other above. Thus there is a completeness of move- ment in the Column which is one source of the satisfaction it always inspires. It comes back to itself, if not in a circle, at least through a succession of forms, of which the first (the Plinth) resembles in shape and size the last (the Abacus). Thus the Hellenic Column not only finishes itself but imparts the sense of something finished in this world. But the Capital will also have its three distinct 200 ABCHITEGTUBE — EUROPEAN. stages, though with many variations. First is the Necking (technically the Gorgerin) of the Column, whose body (or Shaft) is now endowed with a neck. This was brought about in differ- ent ways in the different Orders and often in dif- ferent Temples of the same Order. The sim- plest way in the Doric Column was by cutting a couple of grooves at right angles to the flutings, and thus indicating that the upward movement was resisted, was in fact drawing to a close — a faint note of the coming horizontal Architrave. Next came the Echinus^ which varied much in the different Orders — being mostly a round pro- truding cushion in the Doric, having spiral- shaped, paired volutes in the Ionic, and having single volutes with leafao^e in the Corinthian. In fact the Capital became the chief member dis- tingnishinor the three Orders. Third was the Abacus^ a square block like the Plinth in the Doric, but of varied form and importance in the other two Orders. Such is, in general, the Norm of the Hellenic Column, taking into account its common elements and omitting as much as possible the differences which develop out of it, since these belong rather to the consideration of the Orders which come later. In the study and appreciation of the Hellenic Column the main point is to see and to feel what we have called its process, which, even if petri- THE HELLEma NORM, 201 fied to the outer eye, must be set to going through the imagination. Its Base is essentially horizontal, down-bearing, yet with a movement out of this condition ; the Shaft is essentially vertical, up-beacing, and gives character to the whole Column, yet it has likewise its inner* pro- cess, which gradually propels it to the horizontal Architrave through the various forms of the Capital. The up-bearing Column is heard at last to call for its burden, which is the down-bearing prostrate shapes resting upon it above in the Entablature. 2. The traheate - columnar Pattern, The Greek not only developed the single Column, but he also made it social in a new way, estab- lishing a kind of society of its many individuals. This principle of columnar association we seek to characterize in its germ or primal type by the preceding designation. We take two columns and connect them by superposing a long block of stone called the tie-beam (a name taken from wooden construction). Every columnar row, including the Peristyle, is composed of repetitions of this form wliich is, therefore, the unit of association. Observe that not simply the iso- lated member, or the individual column is the typical shape ; this requires two members and the bond of connection, thus being married and forming a sort of columnar family. We call 202 ABGHITECTUBE — EUROPEAN; it trabeate or beamed (united by a trabs or beam). The next step is to observe that this trabeate- columnar Pattern takes the shape of an entrance. The two perpendicular columns upbear the hori- zontal beam overhead; through the opening man passes within. In fact he is invited to enter by the wide and high passage, as well as by the mouldings — the architectural speech — of the three members. The two columns stand apart to let the outsider go inside freely, while the beam above is high and strong so that he can remain erect and not be afraid of something coming down upon his head. It is no wonder that this opening with its pleasant welcome has been the pattern of all doors, portals, even windows, down to the present time; we can trace it often in the unpretentious cottage of the laborer. It has been already noted that the Egyp- tian, being so exclusive, shunned the entrance, and hence never developed its architectural form ; the outside was not to get inside with him, but on the whole to remain outside as unholy, unin- itiated, unconsecrated. On the other hand the Greek Peristyle is a line of entrances one after the other. The Parthenon has seven on each front and sixteen on each side. Still we must not forget that the limiting wall is also found in the Greek Temple, though inside. Moreover with the tie-beam is introduced the THE EELLENIG NOBM, 203 horizontal principle which at last reaches the point of dominating the vertical principle of the column . Here again we come upon a limit of Hellenic Architecture: it cannot widen itself out beyond a certain bound without becoming flat, heavy, unideal, without losing its beautiful Greek proportion. We can study this effect in Athens at the present day in the remains of three Greek temples. The Olympieion is altogether too large for the Hellenic prototype, the small Tlieseion is happiest example of the Hellenic Temple ; the Parthenon is interme- diate in size between the two preceding, but it is a question if it is not a little too large in plan for the Greek ideal. With the tie-beam the down-bearing principle enters the Hellenic structure, and becomes thus the emphatic counterpart to the up-bearing principle of the column. Already we have des- ignated Architecture to be the struggle between these two principles, which struggle shows itself so emphatically at the start in the Pyra- mid. It is the artistic function of the Greek to reveal the golden mean between these two an- tagonistic principles in his Temple at its best. Yet even he will gradually get to leaning toward the colossal with its down-bearing character, as we shall see later. Already we have noticed a very early instance of the purely trabeate form of opening in Egypt. 204 ABCHITECTUEE — E UBOPEAN. The two upright stone piers, with a cross-beam likewise of stone, are found as a pattern in the old Temple of the Sphinx ( see preceding p. 105) . This passed through the evolutionary stage of Beni-Hassan, and thence moved to Greece, where it becomes the explicit trabeate-columnar Pattern aforesaid. Often Greek architecture is called trabeate in the books on this subject, but such a designation is not a happy one. The Greek Pattern has two Columns with their con- necting beam ; it is, therefore, trabeate-columnar, the two upright piers or beams having been devel- oped into the Hellenic Column. The four-cor- nered monolithic block (in the Temple of the Sphinx), has been rounded and fluted and other- wise enriched with a varied architectural speech which tells its supreme upbearing function as well as reveals what may be called its inner life, its process with itself. That rounded and fluted Column is not made to lie down, it cannot strictly be prostrate without contradicting its own nature expressed in its upbearing lines. Nor has it any side to rest upon, while the Architrave or tie-beam is formed for lying down on its flat side rather than for standing up on end. Note also that this Architrave is substantially just what it was far back in old Egypt, not having progressed a step even in Hellas, while the Column has had the wonderful development already mentioned. 3. The Colonnade. The preceding Pattern THE HELLENIC NOBM. 205 being reproduced and added to makes a line of these forms which is called a Colonnade. This line usually joins two structures, and hence has no inner determination as regards length. The tie-beam connects Column with Column indefi- nitely, and may be stopped anywhere from out- side. Such an indefinite Colonnade, however, con- tradicts the plastic, definite character of the Greek. Undoubtedly he constructed Colonnades, but as something temporary, incomplete, im- mediately useful in the market-place, or palaes- tra, for commercial and otlier intercourse. But when he built the Temple of the God, as a struc- ture worthy of himself and of his nation and of his deity, he made the Colonnade definite, or- ganic, self-returning, so that it became the Peri- style, encompassing worthily the abode of the God within, being itself determined from within. The question has come up: Is the Greek Peristyle structural or ornamental? It is not useful, if we compare it with the inner columns of the Temple of Karnak, which support the roof. The Egyptian would say in accord with his crite- rion that the Peristyle was unnecessary, iuorganic, a mere external layer or accretion around the Cella, which could well do without any such su- perfluous wrappage. But suppose we leave away the Peristyle and have only the walled Cella, what becomes of our Art? We are simply back again ^06 AnCBITECTURE — EUROPE Aft. in old Egypt, the architectural act of Europe is wiped out with its exteriorizing of the Egyptian column. Thus we come to the fact that Archi- tecture is an expression of the spirit of a nation or an epoch ; its final test is not that of utility though it certainly is useful. But it uses utility, while utility cannot use it as some pliant tool. From the Egyptian point of view the Peristyle is purely ornamental, while to the Greek it was structural in the deepest sense, a necessity for national existence. Unless Hellas were to revert to the Valley of the Nile or were to be absorbed back into the Orient, the Peristyle had to be erected for self-defense, as well as for defending the Hellenic Gods. But the Peristyle taken by itself encloses literally nothing ; hence we must pass to what is enclosing. Looking up we see that our tie-beam is supporting another beam which lies at right angles to it ; this we may specially call the cross- beam which makes the ceiling. But what sup- ports the other end? This we find resting upon a wall, whose presence has already been noted, the so-called Cella, the inner counterpart to the outer Peristyle. Already the opinion has been set forth that the Peristyle first developed in the Greek colo- nies as a national principle of Architecture. Par- ticularly in the Doric colonies of Sicily the many ruins still extant declare very emphatically the THE HELLEmC NOBM, 207 patriotic and religious zeal which manifested itself in building Temples to the Hellenic Gods. These Greek settlements were themselves a kind of Peristyle of colonies, environing the mother- country as a sacred Cella to the East, West, North, and South. They were thrown out singly like columns, autonomous, independent, yet connected together by the old tie of common Hellenic blood, which tie was the most ancient and weakest part of the structure (as was the actual tie-beam or Architrave). Columnization and colonization bore great resemblance to each other in the Greek world, which as a whole seemed to be one vast Temple with a colonial Peristyle embosoming the small continental Cella.*^ Egypt never threw out such a Peristyle of colonies or of columns, but kept both inside itself, walled up with enormously thick and high walls seemingly to prevent them from getting out. At any rate Hellas does just the contrary, and therein is the overture of Europe. Egypt may be called intramural in character, while Greece is extramural* Still the Greek Temple has likewise its intramural element showing a colonnade within its walls. This element, largely the transmitted one from the aforetime, is next to be looked at. (H.) The Cella. — The enclosing wall with its enclosed deity has now become inside, while S08 ABCHITECTUBE — E UBOPEAN. the Peristyle is outside, is the manifestation. ^Ou account of this lack of prominence the Cella has not been duly appreciated, while the Peri- style has received nearly all the attention and admiration given to the Temple. The modest, shrinking, self-introverted Cella lies nevertheless in the Greek character, but is not distinctively Greek, since it belongs to many other peoples as well, notably to the Egyptian, to whom, how- ever, it is the all-in-all. Not so the Greek, who demonstrates in a high strain, shows himself off grandly and is on the whole better able to express himself than any man before or since. Thus he has developed the exterior till it dazzles and dazes the long line of spec- tators who have been looking back at his per- formances these two last thousand years and more. Still it is a great mistake to think that he has no interior, that he is all show and rhet- oric, or ** blarney," as our good Irish friend Mahaffy diagnozes him, holding him to be the ancient counterpart of the modern Irishman. The unobtrusive but very real Cella of the Greek Temple, containing the God Himself as well as the worshiper in his innermost communion with the God, says the opposite in architectural speech. In fact we may regard just this relation of Peristyle and Cella as characteristic of all Greek Art, Poetry, History, in fine of the Greek himself and of his whole institutional world. TEE HELLENIC NOBM. 209 However fascinating and beautiful his exterior, we do not understand him till we penetrate to his interior, which, though not so obvious, is really the creative source of his brilliant exter- nality. The Cella represents the transmitted element of the Greek Temple. We see its connection with antecedent forms, Pelasgic, European, Ori- ental. In early Hellas it was often constructed of wood, we may well suppose, though such structures have long since perished. But the simple Cella built of stone, without any column outside or inside, may still be seen in Greece. The so-called Temple of Zeus at Ocha, is the walled Cella in its primeval form without col- umns, a single oblong room. Several similar structures have been found in Eubcea and else- where. But the Cella with columns inside sup- porting the roof is a development of Egyptian Architecture, which we have already seen un- folding from the piers of the old Temple of the Sphinx to the columns in the Hypostyle Hall of Karnak. Now the Cella in its final Greek form retains these interior columns, to be sure in a new way. Inside the wall is another lateral row of columns parallel to the row outside, but usually smaller. Then on top of these was another row of col- umns still smaller than the last and forming the gallery of the second story. (See the large 11 210 ABCHITECTUEE—EUBOPEAN. temple of Paestum.) Thus it will be seen that the Greek preserved his Egyptian inheritance, with the changes necessary to uphold the slop- ing roof of rainland. But he encompassed it with his grand original contribution, the Peri- style. Still this exteriorizing of the column has many stages, from the first shy appearance of two columns before the main entrance, yet held back between the extended side-walls (seen in the Distylos in antis), till the peristylar prin- ciple becomes doubled and even quadrupled to the front and rear (see plan of the Olympieion at Athens). We have already stated that the Peristyle and Cella have their prof oundest meaing in the fact that they bring out in a very striking manner the twofoldness of European Architecture at its start, thus giving an architectural presentation of that spiritual dualism which underlies Eu- rope's entire civilization. For Architecture, building the dwelling-place of institutions, has to manifest their character. But we must like- wise consider that all Architecture, taken in its universal artistic meaning is twofold, is the outer Enclosure of the Spirit within. The Cella, then, remains the archaic, trans- mitted, inherited element of Greek Architecture — the old surrounded by the new which, however, it has projected out of itself and thereby made a new type of construction. The main points THE HELLENIO NORM. 211 of the Greek Cella, we may put together as follows : — 1. The Entrance. We recollect how the Egyp- tian Temple at Karnak emphasized its Entrance as if something very important had been won. A suggestion of the same sort meets us at the Entrance of the Greek Temple, which, though of various kinds, betrays some ancestral traits coming from the valley of the Nile. For instance the two extended piers in front (an(ce) represent the pylons in spite of many differences in form and size. The two columns before the portal (in the Theseion and elsewhere) have a kinship, even if remote, to the two Obelisks before the Egyptian Entrance. The pilaster with its own capital and base, and even with flutings, shows the column just beginning to emerge from the wall in the shape of a pier and making an open- ing in the Cella. Through its position, form and mouldings the pilaster declares its origin to be of the wall, from which the supporting principle (the future column) is just beginning to peep out and smile, as well as to form the Entrance. 2. Divisions. If we compare the divisions in the ground-plans of the Cella, which are given in books on Architecture, we find them varying from one to five (the latter in the restoration of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. Usually, however, there were three : the Vestibule (pVo- naos), the Temple proper (naos) and the Annex 212 ABCHITEGTURE — EUROPEAN, (epinaos). The Temple proper was the heart of the whole building, the simple original house of the God round which the other parts were built in a series of layers. In this room stood the statue of the God, receiving light from an opening in the roof above ; at least such was the case in the so-called hypsethral temples. Start- ing from this single room as the primordial center, we can see how the Cella is capable of accretion, like an Egyptian Temple, till it is sur- rounded and restrained by the chain of columns, the Peristyle. 3. Interior Colonnades. It has been already noted that the Cella of the developed Hellenic Temple had its system of Colonnades inside its wall, as had also the Egyptian Temple. But these did not assume the form of the self -re- turning Peristyle, which belonged outside and gave completion to the structure. Generally these interior Colonnades were two, one on each side of the naos, which thus had two lateral gal- leries. Sometimes another row of columns, smaller in size, was superposed upon each of these lower Colonnades, forming two upper gal- leries. Thus quite an extensive columnar de- velopment took place within the Cella, employing columns not only of different sizes but even of different orders. Kecent investigation reports that Ionic and Corinthian Columns have been THE BELLE NIG NORM, 213 found in the temple of Apollo at Bassse, built by Ictinus, the architect of the Parthenon. So much for the Cella which carries us back to the intramural colonnade of the Hypo- style Hall at Karnak, though the columns of the two kinds of Temples, Greek and Egyptian, show differences of form, and are differently arranged. To our mind the Cella indicates the conjunction of two diverse elements, the prim- itive -proto-European (the simple stone wall) and the civilized Egyptian (the interior col- umns). Both these elements we have seen en- tering Greece which, through its newly developed social institutions, transformed them and united them with its own peculiar architectural form, the Peristyle — the latter being an association of individual columns complete in itself outside, but holding in its embrace the Cella inside. Taking aglance into the future we can see that the Cella has a great development before itself in the Christian Church, which will again interiorize the outside column, and unfold an inside Archi- tecture supplanting the Classic Style. But at present we are to observe the return from the inside (Cella) to the outside (Peristyle) in a new connecting member, which rounds out the whole Temple, bridging the dualism between the two previous members, and completing the process of the structure. 214 ABGHITECTUBE — EUROPEAN. III. The Entablature . — We have now reached the third constituent of the Hellenic Norm, which again turns outward and manifests a new form of what lies within. The covering of the structure, having done its duty by protecting the interior from the assailing elements of nature, is to show in external shapes its service, its character. It is the supported, the upborne, resting upon the column (the supporting) and upon the wall (both supporting and supported). It is also prostrate, horizontal, lying down upon its supports at full length, in contrast with the upright, upbearing tendency of the column. Finally it is the connecting member of the entire edifice, which we behold rising from the pave- ment into its separate members — many columns and many walls — but is unified and rounded out above by the covering whose various elements find their outward expression in the Entablature. This part of the Hellenic Norm has proved itself to be immortal, lasting in full bloom down to the present day, and being almost as great a favorite as the Peristyle. The Temple as space- enclosing must be covered over, and this cover- ing must afford protection to what is underneath, notably to the God. Now the climate of Greece is much more exacting than that of Egypt, it has rain, and in most places ice and snow, Egypt beyond the Delta being quite rainless, and of course warm. Thus the covering of the THE HELLENIC NOBM. 215 Greek temple is the protector who has to meet the bitter assaults of Nature, in the form of sua and shower and cold. It has, therefore, an im- portance unknown in Egypt, whose chief natural foe during a portion of the year is old Sol. Hence the Greek developed so fully the Archi- tecture of the Covering, and expressed so com- pletely in forms of stone all its details of function, even down to the drops of rain trick- ling from the eaves (guttce). But the chief effect of the climatic difference will be seen in the slanting roof to shed the rain. This produces the triangular shape in front and rear called the pediment, which the Greek eagerly seized upon and filled with statuary telling usu- ally of some great action of the God who was present within the Temple. The Entablature has three parts, representing the thrice-panoplied Protector of the Greek sanctuary. These three parts are the Archi- trave, connecting outwardly the separate columns into the Peristyle; the Frieze con- necting the outer and inner, the Peristyle and Cella, and forming the basis of the ceiling ; the Cornice, announcing by its projection the roof as the completed covering of the structure. Each of these parts of the Entablature, we shall look at separately in a short characterization. 1. The Architrave. Notice has already been taken of this element in connection with the 216 ABCHITECTUBE — EUBOPEAN. Peristyle, whose separate columns it unites into the columnar circuit. The single tie-beam (the unit of the Architrave) with its two columns forms the trabeate-columnar Pattern whose rep- etitions constitute the total Peristyle. Moreover the Architrave renders possible the Entrance, and produces with its side columns that rectangu- lar shape which delighted the Greek, the lover of the right angle in Architecture. Having performed the function of overcoming columnar separation though associating those somewhat refractory individuals, the columns, and also having assisted in making a free opening to all the world, the Architrave has done its work. It has hardly any mouldings, sometimes a few horizontal lines in it accentuate its meaning, which, however, is already plain enough in its very form and position, being an external con- necting tie by its own nature. It seems to lie down, stretched from capital to capital with a heavy horizontalism. which makes no resistance to gravity. It is the unchangeable, stolid mem- ber of the whole Temple, being just about the same old stone block which we saw in the most ancient structures of Egypt, lying flat on its back and reaching from pier to pier. In con- trast with the utterly unprogressive, undeveloped Architrave, the Column has shown itself more capable of development than any other archi- tectural member. The one may be thought to THE HELLENIC NORM. 217 represent Spirit, the other to represent Matter, yet both are united undissolubly to make the peristylar circuit. But in this old, undeveloped, unregenerate Architrave lay the fundamental weakness of the Hellenic Temple which somehow never could transform this backward member. If the tie- beam was strong, the building was strong ; but if its material had a flaw, or if it crumbled easily by being physically too soft, the ruin would begin at that point. The Greek temple, so self-suffic- ing and internally determined in many respects, had just here the Fate of Nature ominously hanging over it, and ready to smite almost with- out warning. It is no wonder that the Greek consciousness had such a strong impress of Destiny, having built the same into its Temple of the Gods. Through Greek Tragedy runs the same thread of Fate, which subtly insinuates itself into the very Norm of Greek Achitecture. 2. The Frieze, This is the second element of the Entablature, and is variously treated in the different Orders, and even in the same Order. Primarily it springs from the ends of the cross- beams connecting the Architrave and the wall of the Cella; on these ends the so-called tri- glyphs of the Doric Frieze were cut. Between the triglyphs was an opening nearly square (metope) which was employed for sculpture or filled with a bare stone slab. In the other 218 ABGHITEGTUBE — EUBOPEAN. Orders the Frieze was decorated with figures or left naked of ornament. It was called by the ancients, Zophoros^ the life-bearer in image, showing some mythical conflict in relief usually. The grooves of the triglyph in the Doric Frieze seem a continuation of the flutings of the column underneath and change the horizontal lines of the Architrave (down-bearing) into ver- tical ones (up-bearing). And the openings of the metope have their correspondence in the openings between the columns below. We thus see in the Doric Frieze, which is the most original of all the Friezes, a repetition, even if somewhat remote, of the Peristyle below. The spaces between the columns was for actual life, while the spaces between the triglyphs (metopes), not being accessible, were filled with images of life (Zophoros as above). The Frieze resting upon the Architrave went around the entire Temple. In the Ionic and Corinthian Orders it began to lose the construc- tive meaning which it had in the Doric, and be- came hardly more than a repetition of the horizon- tal Architrave, even when this repetition was con- cealed by profuse ornamentation. To be truly organic, the Frieze should indicate verticalism, as it does in the Doric, which was, therefore, used sometimes in the other Orders. The Cella had also a so-called Frieze some- times, which species has become famous through TEE HELLENIC NOBM. 219 the Frieze of the Cella of the Parthenon, a long line of sculptured figures in low relief supposed to represent the Panathenaic festival. This was outside on the Cella wall, but there could be similar representations inside. Structurally the Frieze was a supporting, up- bearing element, and was properly to be seen as such in its outside appearance. Now we are to see that which it supported. 3. The Cornice. This third element of the Entablature shows decidedly a return to the hori- zontalism of the Architrave, making the entire Entablature a process of the supported which rests upon the columns of the Peristyle. The Cornice overhangs the whole outer structure, giving protection to what is below, and at the same time concluding the edifice. It is em- phatically down-bearing in character, and hence in its forms reposing upon the up-bearing Frieze. Internally from it springs the upper cross-pieces of the ceiling which also protect overhead. Likewise out of it rise the slanting rafters of the roof for shedding rain. This slanting roof pro- duces the triangular spaces in front and rear called pediments, which form one of the most striking peculiarities of the Greek temple, be- ing filled with a row of statues which can rep- resent a history or a process in its rise, cul- mination and decline, and at whose apex can stand the God of the temple in some divine 220 ABGHITECTUBE — EUBOPEAN. deed at its critical moment. Moreover, it was this pediment which imparted to the Hel- lenic temple in front the suggestive look of the human face with its bi-lateral symmetry, with the hair of the head parted in the middle and fluffed down the sides. Thus the pediment is a kind of forehead of the total temple, and has its relation to the forehead of the Goddess standing upright in its center (see Athena in the pediment of the Temple of Egina). The Cornice is the last element not only of the Entablature but of the entire Temple, and hence its projections may be deemed to have a treble reference: first to the Frieze just below it, secondly to the Architrave or perchance to the whole of the Entablature, thirdly to the whole of the Temple, which it finishes. The mem- bers of the Cornice, however, vary from two to six or more, with omissions and additions of forms of diverse sizes and shapes in the dif- ferent Orders and even in the same Order. The Greek Cornice has proved to be a lasting thing, since we often see it upon the humble cot- tage of brick or wood, fulfilling its function there as well as upon the temple or palace. To make it has become a part of the trade of the ordinary carpenter and bricklayer, who is likely to have no knowledge whence it came. Still it reveals even in the hands of the common artisan its Greek character of expressiveness, telling its TEE HELLENIC NOBM. 221 purpose through its forms. It suggests the Covering of the Structure through its overhang- ing members which reach out in order to cover all that is underneath . Of these projections we may count three as the average number, though they may be more or less, always hinting, hcrw- ever, that the roof and ceilino: inside are mani- festing themselves outside in an architectural expression. The first prominent projection of* the Cornice suggests the division which comes from the mejnber just below it, the Frieze, which in the Doric Order has Triglyphs and Metopes, with upbearing lines. The Mutules and the Dentules of this first prominent projection of the Cornice receive their divisions from the Frieze and join Ihem together in a band or horizontal form, constituting thus a transitional link between the two upper members of the Entablature (Frieze and Cornice). The second prominent projection of the Cornice is 'the Corona, mainly a repro- duction of the prostrate Architrave. The third prominent projection of the Cornice is the jSitna, the eaves proper, ending in a fanciful waterspout (lion's head, etc.). Between those three main projections other forms are often introduced, with many bright turns of fancy, particularly in the later Roman Cornice, which takes delight in finishing off the last member of the fine house with manifold flourishes. ^22 AUGHITEC TUBE — E UBOPEAN. At this point we wind up the movement of the Hellenic Norm in its three stages — Peristyle, Cella, and Entablature — constituting the ideal life of that most original and prolific structure, the Greek Temple. Though it be of stone, we have sought to emphasize its living, moving soul by keeping always in view its process, each of whose stages is again a process reflecting the Whole. But this ideal Hellenic Norm we are now to see becoming real, taking on its particular shapes in avast multiplicity, which has, however, its order also, its own distinctive process next to be set forth. B. The Hellenic Orders. The Hellenic Norm is the archetype of all Greek structures whatever, the primordial Con- ception of them, out of which they are born. They have something in common which makes us call them Greek, however diversified they may be; they possess an underlying creative form which begets them and stamps the impress of the parent indelibly upon their features. This fact having been considered in the pre- ceding section, we now pass to the Norm real- ized, uttering itself in actual shapes to the human eye in a vast manifoldness. This stage is that of the Hellenic Orders, in which the Norm be- comes particular, real, yea sensuous; or, think- TEE HELLENIC OBDEES. 223 ing our theme again in Plato's speech, we may say that the architectural Idea now appears, is the Phenomenon in these Orders. Thus outer diversity enters in contrast to the inner unity of the Norm, which now breaks forth into the full- ness of existence. Still this fullness is by no means indefinite, chaotic, without proportion. We shall see these Hellenic Orders unfolding outwardly, according to their inner law, and manifesting in their de- velopment a truly Greek harmony. They will go through their complete cycle and then con- clude. The history of Greek Architecture is itself a Greek Temple in symmetry and com- pleteness. All the Greek edifices of all ages form at last in the mind one total Greek edifice of which they are the harmonious parts, which totality the Greek tried also to realize in his city, as we shall see later. It will hardly surprise our alert reader now to learn that the Hellenic Orders are three, and, though three, form one process together, whose contemplation leaves in the soul that sense of evolutionary completeness which has a kinship with music. These three Hellenic Orders are known under the names of Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, the first two being called after two Greek tribes and the third after a Greek city (Corinth). These designations are firmly estab- lished and must remain, as they come down from 224 ABCHITECTUBE — E UBOPEAN. antiquity. But we may run a second line of flames alongside of them derived from the his- toric sequence of the Orders, entitling them Early Hellenic, Middle Hellenic, and Late Hel- lenic. ' That is, in the development of the Hellenic Orders, the Doric is to be placed first. It best corresponds to the original, native character of the whole Greek race. It has a primitive, im- mediate, undeveloped element which can only spring out of the total folk-spirit of a youthful and somewhat rude age. We must not confound the Dorian, especially this early national Dorian, with the Spartan, as is so often done. Sparta never developed any kind of Architecture, or Art, or Philosophy. We must recollect that the bloom of the Doric Order took place at Athens, which was of Ionic blood. The Theseion and the Parthenon are Doric temples, erected not long after Athens had done her supreme national act in expelling the Persian, when she was filled with and became the representative of the total Hellenic spirit. She must have chosen the Doric Order for these structures, not because it was Spartan or tribal, but because it was national and Hellenic, the early original Hellenic Order. Then came the Ionic and last of all the Corin- thian. Reaching back for the evolution of this Order we have already found it in Egypt at Beni-Has- THE HELLENIC OBDERS. 225 san. But when did these Egyptian forms reach Hellas and begin their influence? Quite impos- sible to tell the date, but we can mention a sug- gestive fact or two. In a distant mountain valley of the Peloponnesus are lying the frag- ments of an octagonal column of an ancient temple (probably that of Artemis at Limnse) . Another column of the same kind has been found at Troizen, belonging apparently to that temple of Apollo which Pausanias declares to be the oldest known to him in Greece. So we behold to-day on Hellenic soil the duplicates of the octagonal column already noted at Beni-Hassan. Moreover several ancient pyramids, not very large it is true, have been found in the Pelopon- nesus. All this can mean but one thing: at an early time Greece began imitating and trans- planting Egyptian architectural forms, which it started to work over and transfigure after its own character. Herewith rises another question: When did this transformation into the present Doric and Ionic shapes take place ? Again the date cannot be set. But we see columns with a developed base at Mycenae (in the Thesaurus) , and between the two Lions over the gate stands a pillar which resembles an inverted Ionic column. The fol- lowing curious statement we read in Pausanias : Myron, the tyrant of Sicyon (about 650 B. C.) erected at Olympia a treasure-house which had 15 226 ABGBlfEOTUBE — EUROPEAN: one chamber in Doric and another in Ionic style, ^piympia was the gathering place of the whole Hellenic race, all its influences centered there and went out thence, at least as news; we may fairly infer that the two kinds of columns had been differentiated fully, and had become known throughout Greece 700-600 B. C. But a treas- ure-house could not well have had a Peristyle in its rooms. The full development of the peri- stylar Temple took place doubtless in the Greek colonies, West and East; so the monuments remaining speak to-day. The Doric Order (as previously stated) has left its earliest, largest and most numerous ex- amples in the Greek cities of Sicily and South- ern Italy. The ruins of more than twenty Doric temples are to be found in Sicily alone, attesting the wealth and spirit of its Hellenic population. The striking part of the Doric column in these early temples is the protruding echinus, which suggests the enormous burden which it has to bear. Moreover the columns are thick and short and placed close together, with a nar- row Cella having a wide passage around it. The almost crushing task of bearing their burden cries out of these Sicilian Peristyles, which be- speak a people building them under the weight of a struggle almost unendurable. These heavy columns of the first Hellenic Order seem to indi- cate the burden which the colonial cities labor THE HELLENIC OBDEBS. 22l under to maintain Hellenism against the ever- threatening power of Semitic Carthage. In Sicily too the conflict between the Orient and Hellas has to be fought out and also to be built out. Hence it comes that these cities erected so many temples to the Greek Gods, seeking to ob- tain divine assistance against the enemies of the Hellenic nation and of its deities. The struggle with the Semite was of a more religious cast than that with the Persian. Sicily is literally strown with the ruins of these Greek temples, quite all of them belonging to this early period, which must have been animated with a stronof religfious fervor for the national Gods. Later the Sicilian Greeks built no more temples, refusing to finish even those which had been begun in that former period of zeal. Still to-day we see the half- trimmed blocks of stone at which the workman was hammering over two thousand years ago, when his hand w'as suddenly stopped, probably by some blow of fate befalling his city. If the Doric Order arose to its normal devel- opment in the Western Greek colonies, the Ionic arose in the Eastern. The coast of Asia Minor and the adjacent islands were filled with Hellenic cities in which the Ionic stock was domi- nant. There the Ionic Order naturally came to its bloom. What was its origin? Besides the view that it was a native product of the country, two opinions have been held : one that its home is 228 ABCBITECTUBE — EUROPEAN. • the valley of the Euphrates, the other that it comes from the valley of the Nile. There is much to suggest the volutes — the most distinc- tive member of the Ionic column — in old Assy- rian as well as in later Persian Architecture. But the probability m that all these forms, Greek as well as Oriental, sprang from that mother of Architecture, old Egypt, whose children flowed forth both into Asia and Europe. There are lotus columns which certainly hint the Ionic cap- ital. Then, on the Egyptian monuments are drawings which present the volute quite fully developed, we may say Ionized. We must recol- lect that these colonial cities both East and West lay on the sea, and engaged in a direct maritime trade with Egypt. They differed in this respect from the older cities of continental Greece, which were mostly built inland, though not far from the coast, where they had a port. Thus the in- tercourse of the Greek colonies with the East was more near and easy. The early Greek his- torian (Herodotus) has mentioned the reign of Psammetichus (670 B. C), as the time when Egypt was opened up to the Greeks by a friendly king. But they had long been coming, even if under restrictions. While thus the thriving Greek colonies on the borderland of Hellas took up the Oriental stream, they were not absorbed by it, they were not Orientalized. On the contrary this is what they THE HELLENIC 0BDEB8. 229 resisted with all their might by force of arms. They asserted their Hellenism by Hellenizing the Orient, whose constructive shapes and whose culture generally they made over into their own. In fact just this victorious struggle against subjec- tion to the Orient is what called forth the Greek world politically, as well as its Poetry, Art, Philos- ophy. Now this is also the case with Architec- ture in both its Orders, Doric and Ionic, in Sicily and in Ionia. The lonians, however, were less religious than the Dorians, hence we find fewer early temples in the Ionic East than in the Doric West. Moreover, the lonians were beorinninff to ' DO philosophize at Miletus (Thales, 600 B. C), and this Philosophy was not favorable to the Gods, Oriental or Greek (see our Ancient European Philosophy, pp. 69,79). It must also be con- fessed that the Dorians of Sicily asserted their Hellenism with far greater tenacity and success than did the lonians in the East, who, however, were the more cultivated stock, the more ad- vanced in Art, Science, and Philosophy. Hence the Ionic Order must be deemed more developed than the Doric, also a little later in time though apparently not much, as they seem to move nearly together. Still later than the Ionic is the Corinthian Order. Yet it is not so late as has been gener- ally supposed. Recent discoveries show that it must have been in use about the middle of the 230 ABCHITEQTUBE — E UBOPEAN. Fifth Century B.C. There is a likelihood that it will yet be traced back to the Sixth Century B. C, thus approaching the period of the birth of the two other Orders. Still the three are plainly successive in time, and still more plainly succes- sive in development, going through their cycle of rise, bloom, and decline along with the corre sponding historic movement of Hellas. It is the Orders which introduce the element of change, separation, variability into the Hellenic Norm. This is not the absolutely rigid and crystallized, but is truly plastic, capable of infi- nite diversity, yet never failing to manifest the Idea, the universal Greek character. First we may note that the modulus changes in each Order, and with it height, proportion, inter- columniation. But not only size but also form changes in each Order, which fact shows itself in differences of Base, of Capital and of Entab- lature. But thirdly each Order varies within itself, having its own inner evolution through a manifold diversity of size and form. That is, the three Orders constitute an evolutionary pro- cess together ; then each Order in and of itself has within itself such a process. Here the reader can glimpse in advance the object and the method of the following exposition of the three Orders — Doric, Ionic and Corin- thian. They are to be shown as inter-related, as parts or stages of one greater Whole. Each of THE DORIC OBDEB. 231 these Orders will, accordingly, reveal a weakness, a defect, which will bring it to an end, showing it to be not sufficient in itself, but partial, a member of a higher totality. Going back again to Greek Plato who was cotemporaneous with the grand flowering of this Architecture, and who sprang from the same marvelous out-pour of Hellenic Spirit, we may catch up one of his words, and call these Orders dialectical. They show in their movement the Platonic Dialectic, the dissolving energy working in all finitude. With their very excellence comes to light the mortal limitation, and upon this weak spot falls the blow of Greek Fate, which overhangs the beautiful world of Hellas from Homer to Alex- ander, when it descends, producing the mighty cataclysm which swallows up Greek independ- ence and with it Greek originality. This inner movement of the Hellenic Orders, or the Dialectic of stone, we shall try to make clear by pointing out the particulars. (I.) The Doric Order. — Already we have designated this Order as properly the early Hellenic, the most completely national and original of all the Greek Orders. It indicates the robust primal Hellenism of the early stock of Hellas, more straightforward and combative, yet less developed and polished, and also less enervated than the later Orders. Still we shall find that the Doric Order will 232 ABCHITEGTUBE — E UBOPEAN. develop a limitation which makes it transitory. Hi will transgress its own modulus or unit of measure, and thus break down its own law through a deeper necessity. Even in the Parthe- non we cannot help noting the columns cramped together at each corner in broken proportion. This is the work of the disarranging triglyph above through which the Order becomes dis- order, refusing to obey its own governing principle. Such is the fact plainly manifested in the following stages, in which the mentioned limitation is seen to be an element of the process. 1. The Doric Column. The general charac- ter of this member has been already described. The fact of its directness or even bluntness is indicated by its lack of a base, which in the other Columns is the polite transition from the rectilineal stylobat to the curvilineal shaft. Its height was from four to six diazneters (the Par- thenon was over ^yq and a half) ; the intercol- umniation (distance between columns) was from one and one-fourth to one and one-half times the diameter. It will thus be seen that the Doric Column was not absolutely fixed in its propor- tions; it, too, changed, was plastic and adjusted itself to the taste of passing periods, which de- manded more slender and condescending shapes. Wherein likewise we must see that the original Hellenic character was gradually losing its na- tive force and robustness. The low, thick, heavy TEE DOBIC ORDEB. 233 shaft with its pugnacious echinus in the temple of Selinus (reaching out defiantly against the Carthaginian), is wholly transformed in the easy graceful, even light-moving column of the The- seion. Still that abrupt connection with the stylobat remains, but it begins to produce a dis- card which calls for some new adjustment. 2. The Doric Triglyph. The Frieze is the most distinctive thing in the Doric Entablature, and in the Frieze the emphasis rests upon the Triglyph, literally the triple-grooved rectangular block, though there are really but .two grooves with two half-grooves on the sides of the block. These Triglyphs alternate with openings which are usually filled with sculpture in high relief, the so-called Metopes. Now the Triglyph was essentially a continuation of the fluting of the Column below, with its vertical lines in contrast with horizontal lines of the Architrave. Here rises the difficulty which affects the whole Order. The Triglyph placed at the corner does not stand over the center of the column, while all the other Triglyphs have this central position. The result is the Column next to the corner, is brought a little closer to the latter, and the opening above is somewhat widened. By this compromise the trouble is patched up, though the patch is decid- edly visible. The modulus controlling the whole Temple is set aside twice at each corner both in the Frieze and the Peristyle, that is, eight times 234 ABCHITECTUBE — EUBOPEAN, in each. The same discord gets inside the Tem- ple also, since the ceiling is determined by this outer arrangement. We see from Vitruvius, whose views are taken from his Greek authorities, that the foreofoinff difficulty was present in all its fullness to the subtle minds of the Greek architects, at least of the later ones. It is said that Hermogenes, an architect belonging to the time of Alexander the Great, having collected his material for building a Doric Temple, transformed it into an Ionic one, seemingly in accord with the spirit of the time. The anecdote may well bear testimony to the fact that the Doric Order had reached its end, which is also the end of the independent Hellenic nation in the empire of Macedon. The national Column has found a substitute. But we must understand that this outer rejection has for its cause an inner decadence; the Doric Column and the Greek City-State are both transcended. With right instinct the Greek architect insisted that the vertical lines of the Triglyph must con- clude each side of the Frieze, which would otherwise seem incomplete and also would be weakened in its up-bearing character. But this arrangement is what produced the before-men- tioned difficulty. So the architect distributed this Doric discord by a compromise somewhat like that of Bach, who distributed the musical THE IONIC OBDEB. 235 discord of his piano scale by means of his so- called temperament, and thus rendered it imper- ceptible. 3. The Doric Peristyle. The difficulty of the self -returning row of Columns called the Peristyle has now become evident. At every one of the four turns, both before and after, it has broken its regular gait, its ordered movement. It has been determined from without by the Triglyph and thus has suffered a breach in its freedom. In this way the Doric Peristyle with its Order shows itself restrained, restricted by an external power like Fate, being held back from its natural development and cramped up at the corners. Evidently the next attack will be upon that fatal Triglyph, discord-producing, prophetic of Hellenic dissolution. This attack will be made by the Greek of another mental cast ; in fact, it already been made almost cotemporaneously with the rise of the Doric Peristyle. The Ionic Order will quite obliterate that troublesome Doric Frieze, reducing it to hardly more than an Architrave, whose nature however may be partly concealed by figures painted and chiseled. (II.) The Ionic Order. — The rule of the Triglyph over intercolumniation is broken down by the Ionic Order, which in this respect restores the authority of the modulus throughout the Peristyle and indeed throughout the whole struc- ture. At once we feel the expansion, the free- 236 ABCHITEGTUBE— EUROPEAN, dom which comes of making the law universal. The pinched-up corner is released from its ex- ternal constraint, and assumes its natural organic shape — a liberation which runs through the whole Temple and transforms its character. Accordingly we may expect the Ionic Order to bring about some corresponding changes in other regards. We noted that the Doric Col- umn with all its manly vigor was still somewhat undeveloped, uncivilized, a little rude even in the Parthenon. It is too brusque, too abrupt, too impolite without a Base for reconciling and smoothing over the sudden transition to the round Shaft plumped down directly upon the oblong Stylobat. Just a little too frank for the polite society which has risen in every Greek city, particularly if it be of Ionic origin. 1. The Ionic Column, Hence it comes that the Base of the Ionic Column is provided with three main transitional forms — Plinth, Torus and Scotia — which are repeated and diversified and commingled with other mouldings almost to infinity in the older monuments, so that it may be said that the ancient Ionic bases seek to differ from one another . All the neat little phrases of polite intercourse, pretty enough but often quite meaningless, seem to find here their architectural counterpart. The height of the Ionic Column varied from six to eight diameters, though it is known to i:he ionic OitDEn. 237 have reached even nine and a half diameters. The intercolumniation was about two diameters. Thus the Column with its facade is growing more slender, graceful, feminine, and also effeminate, the stern Dorian would say. In fact, a common- place of Greek Architecture calls the Doric Order the male, and the Ionic the female. This same tendency is seen in the increased number of flutings of the Shaft, usually twenty-four to the Doric sixteen or even eight (octagonal), also deeper and rounder. Thus the up-bearing mo- tive is emphasized, giving to the whole greater ease, lightness, joy, less severity, yea less earnestness in sustaining the burden of existence. Also there is less silent endurance, more demon- stration, show, exploitation, perchance more vanity (which is surely the right of the female Column). Thus the Ionic Column claims and receives a Base for itself. But even more important than the new base is its difference from the Doric Capital whose rather stolid undeveloped char- acter now blossoms out into amazing forms. Particularly the projecting echinus, hitherto round seems to break out of its secret nest, and curl back into itself like a snail-shell, or better, like the two horns of a ram, a set of two such horns connected together being on each side of the Capital. They are called Volutes, and with 238 ABOHITECTURE— EUBOPEAN. them comes the chief trouble for the Ionic Order. 2. The Ionic Volute. This is the part which we select for emphasis, since it is the member which brings separation into the Ionic Order and final dissolution. Herein it is like the Triglyph in the Doric Order. But now the Ionic Column on its side finds its limit. Having released the Doric Peristyle from the cramp at the corner and moved ahead in right proportion, it finds that it cannot make the turn to form its Peristyle with- out a shrill discord, a veritable clash in the Cap- ital at the corner. -The Volute proper with its scroll cannot be seen otherwise than by a front view, and both of them must be seen; the side view presents to the eye only a meaningless round roller without any suggestion of bearing up under the superincumbent pressure. Unless we see the Capital curling itself up in the two Volutes, one on each side, to endure the burden, we miss its whole significance. But when we turn the corner of the Peristyle, we obtain merely a sorry side-view of the one Volute, which goes out into blank insignificance, unless the other coil be made to turn around with us and present its spiral still to our vision. And this is what the Greek did, in order to keep both his Volutes fronting the spectator from every side of the Peristyle. But he made the four corner columns abnormal, veritable monstrosities, by dislocating fHE lOmC ORDER. 239 the two pairs of Volutes in relation to each other. Thus the Ionic Order having solved the" Doric problem by doing away with the Triglyph and restoring the modulus, finds its limit in the Capital and becomes subject to that remorseless Dialectic before mentioned. The Dorian, so devoted to legality, is driven to break his own law; the Ionian, not so legal, but devoted to outer form, is driven to deform the most unique member of his Order, the Capital. Thus the rent goes through the central point of character in each case. 3. The Ionic Peristyle. The Volutes prop- erly allow only a consecutive row of columns, the Colonnade. The self-returning row, the Peri- style, becomes very difficult for the Ionic Column. The two parallel pairs of Volutes in the Capital are beautifully adopted for succeeding one an- other on a straight line ; but the limitation be- comes manifest when the turn in the PeristyTe has to be made. The Doric Peristyle (and we may add the Doric character) had no such trouble. This limitation was known to the old Greek who was urged by an inner necessity to transcend it, not by relapsing to the Doric but by creating a new Order. The Ionic Order would do for a colonnade simply, or for those temples which did not require a Peristyle (as the prostylos, 240 AUCHITJSOTURE — EUROPE AK. amphipi^ostylos , and templum in antis). But such structures were felt by the Greek to be in- complete, not truly Hellenic. Hence there is developed a new Order for meeting the Ionic problem. (HI.) The Corinthian Order. — At once let us say that the Corinthian Order has been un- duly disparaged and abused by modern writers on Architecture, who in the main regard it as a degenerate specimen of decadent Greece, as a mere mixture of other Orders and lacking in originality and force. That it shows increasing refinement and luxury approaching effeminacy we shall have to grant; but we emphatically affirm also that it is an original evolution of the Greek architectonic genius, quite as necessary and as independent as either of the two preced- ing Orders, and also possessed of as much in- dividuality. Certainly it has shown itself to be the most abiding and universal of the three Orders, having been employed more by other peoples, and being still to-day the favorite Greek Order for practical purposes. Such a record does not bear testimony to inferiority. It has an eternal element greater than either Doric or Ionic, and this is what we are particularly to see. Very distinctly does the Corinthian Order manifest itself to be the third and completing stage in the movement of the three Hellenic THE COBINTHIAN OBDEB. 241 Orders. Without it Greek Architecture would be a torso, beautiful, but broken off at a vital point. But with the Corinthian Order it has a completeness of development which makes the contemplation of it as a whole more satisfying than the view of any individual specimen of its construction, though this is not to be dispensed with. For we see that the three Hellenic Orders together constitute a psychical process which carries the mind out of these forms beyond into their primordial source, and brings us into com- munion with the ultimate creative principle not only of Architecture but of all things ( the Pam- psychosis). The Corinthian Order, therefore, in the deepest sense belongs to the totality of Greek Orders which through it returns into itself and thus rounds out the cycle of their develop- ment. We may indeed conceive the three Hel- lenic Orders as forming together a kind of Peristyle around the ideal Greek Temple, which can only be seen as universal, as the creative Norm manifesting itself primarily in this Peri- style of Orders. And yet the Corinthian Order will also mani- fest its limitation, like the other two Orders, but such limitation will reach beyond Triglyph and Capital, and become universal, showing itself to be the limitation of the whole Hellenic Norm, which thus will produce no more Orders hereafter (the Tuscan and Composite being essentially con- 16 242 ABGHITEGTUBE — EUBOPEAN. glomerates). Hence with the Corinthian Order the Hellenic Norm has reached its goal, being no longer productive of Orders, which produc- tivity was the very life of it, and the ground of its existence. With it the Greek Peristyle of Orders returns into itself and is finished forever. There is properly no Corinthian Entablature since the problem of the Entablature was solved in its way by the Ionic Order, and this solution remains. Historically the Corinthian is the last developed of the three Hellenic Orders ; for this reason its history has been supposed to be bet- ter known. Its name is said to come from the city of its origin (Corinth) ; also the architect who originated it is personally designated (Cal- limachus). Likewise the time of its earliest employment, though not of its birth, may be approximately stated as the middle of the fifth century B. C. These dates, however, as well as the name of the originator, are subject to re- vision, which is likely to come through new dis- coveries. 1. The Corinthian Column. This grapples with the Ionic difficulty already mentioned — the two parallel pairs of Volutes in the Capital, which interfere so seriously with the Peristyle. The Corinthian Capital breaks up the pairing of the Volutes and makes each of these independent, causing them to spring directly from the Col- umn at four places equi-distant, and making of THE COBINTHIAN OBDEB. 243 them a squared outline. Thus the front-view of the Corinthian Column is the same as the side- view ; it can be placed at the corner without any change either in the Capital or in the intercol- umniation. Manifestly this solves both the Doric and the Ionic troubles, that of the Triglyph and that of the Volute. We can say that the Corinthian Column is a return to the independ- ence of the Doric, through overcoming the inner scission of the Ionic. Thus it is not a reversion or retrogression, but a grand advance through which the process of the Hellenic Orders com- pletes itself. But while the Corinthian Column shows the completeness of Greek Architecture, it also heralds its approaching end. Another important fact about the Corinthian Capital is its vegetable tendency; it breaks out into leaves and even flowers, often with a festal profusion. Herein it reaches back to Egypt and suggests the lotus Column. The echinus with its projecting coils supports the heavy Architrave above ; but when this duty is done, the rest of the Capital wreathes itself in foliage, chiefly of the Acanthus, having some- times as many as four rows or garlands encirc- ling itself. This organic growth was previously suppressed in the Column, but now the rigid grip is relaxed and a floral festivity breaks out, celebrating freedom from the long restraint. Decoration begins to assert itself, though fes- 244 AB CHITE TUBE — EUB OPE AN. tooning the stern hand of the law, for the modulus is still present and is followed. The height of the Corinthian Column rises to ten or twelve diameters ; the intercolumniation is also increased in proportion. The flutings are usually twenty-four in number. The result is a still greater slenderness and lightness than in the Ionic. These tall forms bursting out into leaf- age at the top seem quite impatient of the Archi- trave and independent; still they are easily associated in the Peristyle which indeed reveals their happiest employment. But the widening of the intercolumnar spaces has called up a new peril which assails this Order and limits its use, and finally will reduce the whole Order to an ornament in the Roman world. It may well be said that this Eoman use of the Corinthian Order is foretold by the decorative foliage of the Col- umn. The Doric seriousness of the capital in sustaining the great burden above is rather laughed at by that Corinthian play of leaves ; but the burden is there still, and even greater than before. Moreover, the Corinthian Order will carry with it all the other Greek Orders into this realm of ornamentation at Rome. 2. The Corinthian Architrave. Already it has been said that the Architrave was the weak point in the whole trabeate-columnar system, with its tie-beam always becoming longer and more heavily laden. The Doric Order with its THE COBINTHIAN OBDEB. 245 narrow intercolumniation and its thick heavy members in the Column and in the Entabkiture guarded specially against this weakness, which it seemed to anticipate by its very precaution. The Ionic Order by its ever-increasing inter- columnar spaces calls vividly to mind the limi- tation of the connecting tie-beam. But the Corinthian Order, pushing still further the dis- tances between the Columns, was unquestionably suspected by the Greek architect, who trans- mitted his suspicion to the Roman. Doubtless the finest example of the Corinthian Order whicb has come down to our time is seen in the choragic monument of Lysicrates at Athens, erected about 334 B. C. The Architrave is supported largely by the round wall from which the beautiful Corinthian columns or rather half -columns seem to be emerging. If this monument may be taken to represent the view of the Athenian architect, he distrusted the Corinthian column as the sup- porter of the Architrave. Another instance may be given from a still earlier classic time. About 380 B. C. Scop as built the Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea. The three Orders were em- ployed in the following manner, according to the statement of Pausanias : the Peristyle was Ionic, the inside lower columns were Doric, while the gallery resting on them from above was Corin- thian. This is a very significant arrangement 246 ARCHITEGTUBE — EUBOPEAN. of these Orders by a great artist : the stout, thick Doric is made to bear not only its own burden but also the Corinthian whose Architrave evi- dently supports little or nothing, while the Ionic is turned outward with no task but to up- hold its own Entablature. Such was the very suggestive commentary of the old Greek archi- tect upon the three Hellenic Orders. With time, however, this little Corinthian colonnade will come down from its perch, will pass outside, and make itself peristylar. 3. The Corinthian Peristyle. This is cer- tainly the most easy, natural Peristyle of the three. It is not compelled to break the law of intercolumniation by an outside power (the Triglyph), nor is it forced to make a monstrosity out of the corner column in order to produce harmony in the other columns as we have seen in the Ionic Order. The Peristyle has now per- fected itself ill its columnar arrangement, but develops the original imperfection of the Archi- trave, which is in the Hellenic Norm from the start. Moreover, the Corinthian Capital is essentially four-sided from spiral to spiral, and thus in out- line takes the rectangular form of the total Peristyle, to which it is now completely ad- justed. The strong Doric abacus is therefore not needed in the Corinthian capital, and hence is not so prominent. Again w^e see that the THE COBINTEIAN OBDEB. 247 Corinthian Order in its significant member, the Capital, goes back to the Doric, but takes the Ionic along and unites the two in a new adjustment, together with its own pecu- liar vegetable decoration. We may, therefore, read in the Corinthian Order the need and the effort for reconciliation between Dorian and Ionian, not only in Architecture, but also in Institutions. For the intense dualism between the Doric and Ionic stocks had rent asunder Hellas during the Peloponnesian War, and left it divided, weakened, and exposed to the alien in- vader. A Pan-Hellenic patriotism, struggling to reform and unite in new ties the Greek City- State, shows itself at this time on many sides, particularly in the writings of the philosophers, the universal men of the age. Plato's Republic is an attempt to re-construct the shattered Greek institutional world. Aristotle's Work on Poli- tics seeks in its deepest tendency to restore the declining communal life of Hellas. But such reformatory attempts, however praiseworthy, were vain; in these works themselves a close analysis will find the very weakness which they sought to correct, the same disease which they sought to cure. The Corinthian Order represents in Archi- tecture this same tendency to heal the troubles, which had arisen in both the Doric and Ionic Orders, by a new reconciling principle. It is 248 ABC HITEC TUBE — E UBOPEAN. wonderful how completely it eliminates the diffi- culties which we have seen in the Doric Order as well as in the Ionic. But all the more strik- ingly does it bring to light the inherent weakness of the original Greek Norm itself, that primor- dial limitation of the total Hellenic Spirit under- lying both Dorian and Ionian in all their deeds and works, being born with the birth of Hellas and brino^ing it to its conclusion. Such is the cycle of the three Hellenic Orders which, taken together in their thought and de- velopment, show a symmetry and completeness which must also be considered classic. A cer- tain serenity speaks out of all these Orders as they evolve from form to form without strain and pain, unfolding as naturally and easily as the flower. The whole is simplicity itself . That simple parallelopipedon capped by a triangular prism, has indeed reached the limit of its form- creating power, but it has given the start and genetic Norm to European Architecture. Its inner plastic energy wanes as pure Hellenic, but it will still be active under other shapes in other lands, and from this point of view its work, instead of being finished, is barely begun. C. The Hellenic City. We have now reached the third stage or move- ment of the Hellenic Period of Architecture — the stage whose general tendency is to bring together THE HELLENIC CITY. 249 the separated Orders and to form them into an architectural totality. Some indications of this movement we can discern in numerous localities at different times . Each city must h ave taken pride in possessing a group of fine public buildings constructed after the Hellenic Norm. But there was one city which outstripped all the rest in the beauty, grandeur, and number of its structures — Athens. Still to-day it contains the finest speci- mens of ancient Greek Architecture, though they be partially in ruins. Continental Hellas threw out its rim of colo- nies, forming a kind of colonial Peristyle antece- dent to the architectural one, toward the four points of the compass, around the old dear Cella, namely the mother-country. These colonies un- doubtedly took with them the column more or less complete, but they developed, if they did not originate, the Peristyle, and made it national. Both in its Ionic and in its Doric form, it belongs properly to colonies, one to the Eastern, and the other to the Western, group. Now begins a counter movement, the centripe- tal ; the colonial Peristyle starts to move back to the mother-country, there is a return of the colum- nar principle in its new development from the outlying Hellenic periphery to the original generative center. This return did not take place of a sudden ; one of its earliest and purely imitated examples is the old Doric Temple, a few 250 ABCHITECTURE — EUBGPEA2T. of whose columns may still be seen at Corinth, Here, too, we may place, if anywhere, that very doubtful Peristyle of the Heraeon at Olympia, considering it to be an early instance of the peristylar principle derived from the Greek colonies. But what brought about its gradual acceptance in Hellas proper? The Oriental question was pressing closer and closer; at least from the time of Darius, if not from that of Cyrus, it was manifest to continental Hellas that there would have to be a reckoning with the great empire of Persia. The Greek (Ionic) colonies of Asia Minor were already subjected (in the last half of the Sixth Century B. C). The Greek (Doric) colonies of Sicily were engagedin a furious strug- gle with the empire of Carthage, fighting for the Hellenic City-State and its Gods. Now the peri- stylar Temple arose, or at least became national, the emblem of the Greek race, on this border- land of warfare against the Orient. That columnar Peristyle sprang from the soul of the time and its deepest conflict. It signifies the free individual standing upright by himself, yet in association with his fellows, the whole consti- tuting the Greek community whose enormous burden of maintaining Hellenism is indicated by the heavy forms, particularly of the Doric col- umns of Sicily. The same conflict with the Orient was drawing THE HELLENIC CITY. 251 nearer and nearer to Greece proper ; the struggle of the colonies was becoming hers, and she showed a consciousness of the fact in a number of ways, one of which was the adoption of the Peristyle in the new Temples of the Gods, par- ticularly the Doric Peristyle, which was really the early Hellenic or national form. At last the grand collision broke forth, the Persian was expelled by the associated Hellenic City-States, chief of which was undoubtedly Athens, though not the ostensible leader. Not till after the Persian war, when the Orient is thrown back upon itself in utter defeat, does the great concentration of the best Greek Architecture take place in the one city, Athens, and even on one spot of that city, on the Acrop- olis. Now this concentration does not mean simply that many buildings were erected in that one place, for other cities at the same time, before, and afterward, gathered their public edifices in a group, but it does mean a concen- tration of excellence. Athens did not discover the Peristyle, but she perfected it ; she was not the first to employ the Column, but she made the most beautiful Column that has yet ap- peared. All the constructive principles of Greek Architecture, even the mouldings, were brought to her, and she transfigured them. That is indeed her work. The transfiguration of Greek Architecture and of all Greek Art and of 252 ABGIIITEC TUBE— EUROPEAN. all Greek expression took place on and around the Athenian Acropolis in the middle years of the Fifth Century B. C. It was not Greek Architecture alone that re- ceived during this tiine the complete develop- ment and utterance of every possibility that lay within it originally. Every kind of artistic ex- pression seemed to burst out at once in a supreme excellence. Dramatic Poetry rose to its highest ancient point ; in fact an analogy can be traced between the three great Athenian dramatists and the three Hellenic Orders; Aeschylus has the Doric cast, Sophocles the Ionic, and Euripides the Corinthian. And of the great orators, some were Doric in character, particularly Pericles as represented by Thucydides ; others were Ionic, while the later rhetoricians were usually Corin- thian, and even Koman-Corinthian in style. Sculpture and Painting (it is said, for there is nothing left of its coloring) attained their high- est ancient bloom during this same Epoch. History, too, shot up in its mightiest manifesta- tions, though with a curious inversion, for Thu- cydides the Athenian is more Doric in character and style, though writing in the Attic dialect, while Herodotus the Dorian by birth is more Ionic, having written his great work in the Ionic dialect of Asia Minor. Xenophon the third (espe- cially in his Hellenica) is much weaker; he may THE HELLENIC CITY. 253 be deemed to be of the very simple and very slender Corinthian Order. But the deepest and perhaps the most lasting expression of this great Athenian period is the philosophic, which completes itself in the mighty Triad — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Philos^ ophy is not simple expression, but is the expres- sion of all expression, is expression seeking to grasp itself and to formulate the meaning of itself. Athenian Philosophy thus has an univer- sal element in its individual, trying to utter in its particular way what this universal underlying principle is, which is driving the whole age to expression. The architectural analogy we may likewise apply to these three philosophers, with due exceptions : Socrates declares his sympathy with Doric institutions and his life is more a Doric one in its simplicity and its primitiveness ; Plato in spite of his expressed Dorism, is Ionic in style and method and character, yea in his philosophy, we hold — that dualism of his being peculiarly Ionic and Athenian. Aristotle, the third of the group, is not Corinthian in style as far as we can judge by the works which have come down to us, though some of his lost writ- ings may have been of a different cast. Still even Aristotle can be seen to have his Corinthian element in the fact that he solves in his way the problems of both Socrates and Plato, answering indeed the latter 's dualism and then falling 254 ABC HITEC TUBE — E UBOPEAN, into a deeper dualism of his own (see our Ancient European Philosophy, pp. 444-452). This same characteristic we noticed in the Corin- thian Order : after meeting the Doric and Ionic difficulties, it brought to light its own limitation, which is that of the Hellenic Norm itself. And so it is essentially with Aristotle's Philosophy. We have run these parallels of the Arts and Sciences with the Hellenic Orders — Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian — for the purpose of indi- cating that they all spring from the same great movement, from the same universal Greek spirit, of which Architecture is but one manifestation. Such is the grand totality which concentrates at Athens, and passes through that Athenian center for its final perfection. The finest spiritual essence of the whole Hellenic world gathers there for its last and highest transfiguration. We naturally ask, Why just Athens and Athens alone? She is only one among many Greek City- States, but she has shown herself to be the most perfect one in performing the supreme Hellenic deed, the expulsion of the Persian. Her work, in fact, reaches far beyond Hellas: Marathon may well be deemed the primal European act, separating a new-born world with its civilization and its institutions from the Orient. In that seemingly small particular deed of hers lurks a significance of the widest, farthest-reaching universality. THE HELLENIC CITY. 255 Such has been her deed, without which she would be nothino^ and have nothinor to tell. But to this mighty power of the Will she adds even a mightier power of the Word; all expres- sion is hers by a kind of divine birthright. That is, she possesses the ability to make every particular utter the Universal ; in Art this is the Beautiful, in Ethics the Good, in Philosophy the True. All forms of Hellenic expression, not yet fully unfolded, are brought to her, seem to fly to her as to their magnet, seeking that perfection which is verily the end of the Uni- verse, is God Himself. When the Marathonian deed has been adequately spoken out, we shall have Athenian Literature, History, Philosophy, and Art, likewise that Athenian Architecture on the Acropolis. That which united the Greeks, making them one people against the Barbarians and specially against the Orientals, was the Greek religion, for they had no political union. There was no common State, but there was substantially a common Pantheon, which bound them together. Politics in Greece always produced separation, religion produced unity when there was any. Such was the tendency, though certainly excep- tions in both ways can be found. The great fact, therefore, is that the Hellenic Gods were what associated and unified the Greeks both as a race and in their communities taken singly. 256 ABCHITECTURE — EUROPEAN. The result was that the associated Greeks in the period of their highest worth and activity, built many noble Temples to the Gods who associated them, in whom they felt themselves to be one race or even one city . The entire Hellenic stock contributed to re-build the fanes at Delphi and at Olympia, when these had been destroyed, as beino^ the common sanctuaries of all the Greeks. •But especially each Greek city of importance strove to erect a worthy abode of the God, whose protection and whose worship made them a city, a distinctive community. Every Hellenic Tem- ple was, accordingly, the creative center of that Spirit which produces the institution, and the people came there to partake of that Spirit in order to renew and to keep renewing their insti- tutional life as distinct from their merely indi- vidual selfish pursuits . At this point we again reach down to the thought that the prime function of Architecture is to build the Home of associated Man, or the universal Man we may call him, in whom all the city is one, possibly all the nation and all the race. And so Greek Architecture is to build the Home of the Greek Man associated, not the house of the individual man, which must be a trivial thing compared to the abode of the total city or of all the na- tion. Finally Athenian Architecture is to build the Home of the Athenians associated in one THE nELLENIC CITY, 257 community with its peculiar spirit, with its own Will and Thought. Such is the Architecture which is now to appeal* upon the Acropolis, making the latter truly the institutional dwelling- place of Athenian Spirit. Thus Athens is chosen for the great Archi- tectural manifestation of the ao^es — who chose it? In one sense it chose itself through its own native ability and activity. Still Athens with all its Architecture and all its Art, Science and Philosophy is but a stage of a greater process which calls it up, develops it, and then dismisses it from existence. So it is not the Whole but a part of the Whole which really determines it, and makes it a part or a stage of itself. Now Athenian Art, Poetry, Philosophy, each and all, are striving to express or to formulate this ulti- mate Totality which makes Athens in all her glory but a phase of its own process. This is what Phidias sought to put into a statue and called Zeus ; Ictinus doubtless strove to build for it a suitable dwelling-place which we know under the name of the Parthenon. It is that Universal which every age in a great or small way puts into the particular form belonging to such age. It is the process of the All (the Pampsychosis) which reflects itself in that fair Athenian world as a stage of its own self -evolution. At Athens, then, there was a time when the individual easily, quite unconsciously made him- 17 25^ . ARCHITECTURE — EUBOPEAN: self the representative of the universe, and put that same character into all his works. The pres- ence of the Eternal in himself and in his city he would make eternal in Art, Poetry, Philosophy. That which fills him and determines him and his world, he would determine in his individual finite way. On the Acropolis we feel not merely in the presence of Athenian Spirit, but rather of the All manifesting itself as Athenian. And that is still for us the divine element on the spot, where we can detect the Pampsychosis talking Attic Greek and building a home in the style of Athenian Architecture. A brief characterization of the Acropolis with the structures still existing on it may now be given. These can be grouped from various points of view, but we shall keep in line with the preceding architectural development and arrange them according to the Hellenic Orders. They show great variety, but all of them lie within the Hellenic Norm in their construction. (I.) The Doric Order. — It has already been stated that Athens, an Ionic city, erected in the very height of her power and of her self- assertion two Doric Temples, which are still the models of their kind. The explanation of this strange fact is that Athens did not regard the Doric Order as peculiarly Dorian, but as national, as universally Hellenic. Doubtless she had another name for it, which we do not now know. TBS BBLLENtC CITY. 259 The present designation came later when the different Orders had not only arisen but were discussed and described. At any rate Athens conceived the so-called Doric Order as the primal Hellenic one, and so employed it in her two chief Temples, both of them built while she was still in the fervor of her great patriotic deed done not simply for herself but for all Hellas. The Theseion is not on the Acropolis directly, but on a spur of the same hill not far off and leading up to it. Hence this Temple may be reojarded as a kind of overture to the higher glories, a preparation for what is to come. The fact that it is dedicated to a Hero (Theseus) and not to a God, may be the reason why it is not placed on the Olympian apex of the Acropolis, but on the way thereto. It is still the best pre- served Temple coming down tons from antiquity and one of the oldest, being older probably than the Parthenon. It is also the best proportioned specimen of Greek Architecture, being the most complete realization of the Hellenic Norm in existence, better in this respect than the Parthe- non. It has six columns in front and rear (Hexastyle) and thirteen columns on the sides, still in position and quite perfect, though here and there the marble fluting has been chipped off by a cannon ball seemingly during some of the conflicts which have surged around it down the ages. The time of its erection is usually 260 ABCHITEC TUBE — E UBOPEAn. placed about 365-70 B. C, and its originator is stated to have been Cimon, the son of Miltiades, who brought the bones of the Athenian hero Theseus from Scjros and built this sanctuary in his honor. But the deeper motive of the Tem- ple springs from Marathon, in which battle Theseus, though a spectre, was seen by every Athenian eye smiting the foes of his country and of his race. We shall have to add that most of the above points have been contested. Ludwig Ross a good while ago denied that this Temple was the real Theseion, and recently Dorpfeldhas attempted to prove it to be a Temple of Hephaestus. This last view, which has met with some favor, con- tradicts the Metopes of the Temple, which are wholly devoted to the contests of Hercules and Theseus. The Frieze of the Cella, though almost obliterated in places, seems to have the same general character. The Temple is an Heroon, dedicated to the Greek hero who con- quered wild men, wild beasts, and wild Nature, representing the preparatory stage to human cultivation. In this light it may be regarded as an introduction to the Acropolis, the home of the highest divinity of Athens, Pallas Athena, who is also to be housed in a new Temple. This is the all-famous Parthenon^ often regarded as the most beautiful building ever erected by human hands. It lies nearly in the THE HELLENIG CITY. 261 center of the Acropolis, a little to one side on the south, having eight columns in width to sev- enteen in length. Its originator was the states- man Pericles, and it may be taken as the best artistic expression of the man along with his city and his age. The date of its completion is stated to be 438 B. C, after some sixteen years' labor, having been begun later than the Theseion, though some authorities place the construction of the Theseion after that of the Parthenon, which was far more elaborately finished and dec- orated than the former. But its proportions are not so perfect, chiefly on account of the increased width, which seems already to be transcending the size which best realizes the Hellenic Norm. Of course upon this somewhat subtle question of taste there are different opinions. The names of its architects have been trans- mitted, Ictinus (probably the chief) and Calli- crates. But the greatest artist connected with the building of the Parthenon was Phidias the sculptor, to whom is specially ascribed its varied plastic ornament, but who was doubtless the artistic head governing the entire work. During the time of its erection Pericles the statesman must have known that the conflict of Athens with the Doric stock under the leadership of Sparta could not be put oft much longer. Still he built to the divine Protectress of Athens a Temple which we call Doric, but which could 262 ABGHITEGTUBE^ EUROPEAN. not have been so designated by any Athenian of that day, at least with our meaning of the term. There was an older Parthenon destroyed by the Persian which was also Doric, as can be seen by the fragments still existing in the wall of the Acropolis. The second Parthenon like the Theseion sprang from Marathon and the Persian War, since the form of the Goddess Athena was witnessed helping her people with divine power in the heat of the battle . Still there can be no doubt that the distinction between the Orders now called Doric and Ionic was knowQ at Athens during this period. In fact the conjecture has been made that the Parthenon had Ionic columns in its upper gallery. But we need not resort to conjecture in the present instance. On the Acropolis are still to be found Ionic architectural monuments in abundance. (II.) The Ionic Order. — This order, taken by itself, finds a representative in a single small Temple called N'ike Apteros (Wingless Victory), a form or epithet of Athena. It is supposed to have been built in honor of Cimon's victory over the Persians at the Eurymedon (469 B. C. ). If this conjecture is correct, it is contemporary with the Theseion. Thus a Doric and an Ionic Temple spring up together at Athens, originat- ing from the same person (Cimon). Probably the Ionic Order was chosen on account of the THE HELLEmO CITY. 263 victory having been won in Asia Minor, its birth- place, with the sympathy and help of the lonians. It should be stated that this Temple is not peristylar, but is an amphiprpstylos (four columns in front and four in the rear ) . Its forms show the finest Athenian workmanahip, and its sculptured ornaments are particularly excellent. In this connection another Ionic Temple may be mentioned which is usually supposed to have been cotemporary with the preceding one. It is only known through the drawings of Stuart and Eevett, since whose time (they went to Athens in 1751 and remained there nearly three years) it has totally disappeared, having been torn down by a Turkish official. (III.) The Commingled Orders. — Under this caption we place two structures still found on the Acropolis. Of these the Erechtheion so-called is one of the most peculiar'specimens of Greek Architecture. It is in form triune, a combina- tion of three Temples in one, each having its own Order. Apparently it was dedicated to three different divinities or heroes, but who they were it is difficult to say. Athena Polias, the old Athena of the City, had here her personal sanctuary. Thus two separate Temples were erected on the Acropolis by Athens to two dif- ferent Athenas, or at least to two different con- ceptions of its divine Protectress. The Par- thenon, distant a few feet, seems to have been 264 ABQHITEGTUBE — EUBOPEAN. dedicated to the new Athena by the new Athens under Pericles, and stood for that marvelous spiritual development which took place in this city after the Persian War. But the new order of things was resisted by the old set, the con- servatives, who looked back longingly to the good old times and cursed the innovations of the present with a bitterness and mockery of which we may catch a strong reflection in the comedies of Aristophanes. It is a significant fact which recent excavations have brought to light, that the old Parthenon (the so-called Hecatompedon) occupied, in part at least, the present site of the Erechtheion, evidently embracing those ancient sacred objects soon to be mentioned. But the new Parthenon was entirely separated from the venerable spot, and given a wholly distinct foundation, while another Temple (also new, by the way) was to be built for the old Athena, dear to the hearts of the antediluvians. Yet this new Temple of the old Goddess was very slow in getting finished ; not till long after the completion of the Partlienon could it be dedi- cated. The Erechtheion probably occupies the holiest ground in all Attica. Here was the very sf)ot on which took place that primeval contest be- tween the Gods, Poseidon and Athena, for the possession of the country. In the enclosure of this temple was the salt spring which Poseidon THE HELLENIC CITY. 265 caused to spout forth from the earth at a blow of his trident, whose imprint could ever afterwards be seen on the rock. Here also stood the sacred olive tree which Athena created at a touch during that same contest, and which, after being burned by the Persians, shot up an ell long in a cou{)le of days. The deities of navigation and agri- culture, the sea and the land, contend for Athens, but really she takes both, and here puts them together into one temple. It is said that the shrines of Erechtheus and Pandrosus were also located in the structure — out of which myth not much can be made. But let us not fail to note that the ancient wooden image (xoanon) of Athena which fell from Heaven, was likewise kept in this sanctuary, .and was evidently re- garded as far holier by the old-timers than yon- der chryselephantine statue of the same Goddess by Phidias, set up in the Parthenon. As regards the Architecture of the Erech- theion, the three temples are, as it were, inter- grown in the rear, while each has its own col- onnade in front, there being -no Peristyle for any one of them or for all of them together. Two of these fronts or rather porticos have Ionic col- umns, so that it would be an exclusively Ionic temple, were it not for the third portico with its human figures, the up-bearing female statues called Caryatids, who have to support on their heads the heavv Ponic Entablature. Such a de- 266 ABGHITECTVBE — EUBOPEAN. vice is contrary to the spirit of Greek Architec- ture, which has employed elsewhere the same prin- ciple a few times, though not often. But Athens never repeated, as far as is known, this mistake of substituting the human form for a column. It *" was committed probably through her ex- cess of hostility to the Persian, for tra- dition has connected these Caryatids with the women of Caryse (a town of Arcadia) who favored the cause of Persia against Greece in the great national conflict. Here is their punishment for all time, they are compelled to undergo a labor greater than Sisyphus, since he at least gets some respite from his toil. The Order of the Caryatids has been named the Persian Order, and it certainly is more Oriental than Greek. Still it has been much admired; particularly women " love the Caryatids," and a female architect has been known to select them for a public building, apparently as representa- tive of her sex. It is significant that the Erechtheion, though the oldest and most revered sanctuary at Athens, was not finished in its present shape till about 407 B. C, long after Pericles and near the close of the Peloponnesian War. But the fact is said to be derived from the inscriptions found on the spot. The PropylcBa is the architectural Entrance to the top of the Acropolis, and is generally con- THE HELLENIC CITY. 267 sidered the finest work of its kind in the world. The Entrance has been a most important element of construction from the Egyptian temple (see Karnak) down to the present. The Propylsea was begun in 437-6 B. C, the year after the completion of the Parthenon, and was finished in ^\Q years, as far as it was ever finished. It belongs to the Periclean age, the architect being Mnesicles. It is quite irregular, though it shows substantially a triple shape in its ground-plan, having two wings and a central structure, through which passes the road up to the Acropolis. The fronts of the wings had their colonnades inside at right angles to the colonnaded front of the central structure; thus the whole structure formed in its ground-plan a striking contrast with yet similarity to the Erechtheion, which was essentially the Propylasa turned inside out, though both were three temples in one (see plans of these buildings in the books on Architecture). Both Doric and Ionic columns are used in the Propylaea, with a nice adjustment which suggests a careful reflection upon the nature of the two Orders. The main front has a Doric colonnade with corresponding Entablature ; but the consid- erably higher colonnades — one being on each side of the road within — are Ionic. To the outer world the Propylsea seemed Doric; but when the spectator entered through the passage, he saw himself flanked on both sides by a row of 268 ABCHITECTUBE — EVBOPEAN, Ionic columns. This inner change is striking, and probably called up to every Anthenian look- ing at it the inevitable struggle at hand. The Peloponnesian War, the great conflict between the Doric and Ionic branches of the Greek race, was on the point of breaking out when the Propylsea was erected, in fact some writers say that it was interrupted by that War. At any rate everybody thereafter who ascended the Acropolis, had to pass through a line of lofty Ionic columns on either hand. Thus the Acropolis shows the rent of Hellas into Doric and Ionic dividing also Greek Archi- tecture with all its perfection. The Greek dual- ism is seen running through these buildings, separating them into two groups and even show- ing the division in the same building. The transfiguration of Greek Architecture takes place for all time on this Acropolis hill, yet in the very act of it is revealed the deep-seated Hellenic trouble, the malady of which Hellas is to die. • The Corinthian Order, the attempted reconcil- iation of the two conflicting principles, has not been found on the Acropolis, and probably would not have been tolerated there in any prominent place at this early period. Still it was then in existence, and must have been known at Athens. Ictinus, the architect of the Parthenon, em- ployed it at Bassse where are found also Doric and Ionic forms. Thus to him at least the three THE HELLENIC CITY. 269 Orders in combination were familiar. Somewhat later they were put together by Scopas in the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea. By these examples it would appear that the conjunction of the three Orders was first favored in the Peloponnesus. But at Athens the Corinthian Order seems to have been first used in the chor- agic monument of Lysicrates, erected almost a hundred years after the temple at Bassse. The Propylsea we must consider to have been a religious edifice in the eyes of the Athenians, since it was the grand entrance to the Acropolis on which stood only temples of the Gods, and since it was itself a cluster of temples in its three- fold shape. Still it connected with the outer world and thus had its secular side. In fact, it has been sometimes regarded as a secular build- ing, which view we believe to be a mistake. It calls up, however, the secular Architecture of Athens, which must have been limited at this early period. But the movement is toward secularization, and this must have at least begun in the time of Pericles. Later the secular spirit will dominate Classic Architecture, particularly at Rome. Of course there were numerous other temples at Athens besides those on the Acropolis. In the valley of the Ilissus are still to be seen six- teen huge columns, of which one is lying pros- trate, having been blown down by a storm in ^10 ABCIUTECTUBE - BUBOPEAlSt. 1852. They belong to the Temple of Zeus (Oljmpieion) which was begun by the tyrant Peisistratus (about 530 B. C), but which was interrupted by his expulsion from Athens. After- wards the Athenians would have nothing to do with this work of the tyrant whom they hated, and seemingly they did not care much for his God, the tyrant of Olympus. Aristotle doubt- less reflects the common opinion when he calls it a work of despotic power. Democratic Athens let it stand unfinished and built the Parthenon overlooking it from the Acropolis. Not till more than six hundred years had passed, was it finished by a human world-ruler, the Roman Emperor Hadrian, in honor of his divine counter- part, the Olympian world-ruler. The old God of the Greeks is thus put into the background, if not wholly set aside in this new Periclean world. But we may notice another similar advance in divinity. The Delphic Apollo had played a rather ambiguous part in the Per- sian War. A deputation of Athenians, consult- ing him about the impending struggle, could only wring out of him the uncertain advice that they should stick to their wooden walls. What does this mean? At Athens there were two leading interpretations, one of which was that the Ora- cle intended the wooden walls of the old Acrop- olis. But Themistocles said that by the wooden walls the Oracle meant that the Athenians TBt: BELLEmc cm. 27i should trust to their ships. They followed his interpretation, they went down with him in- to their new wooden walls ; the result was the battle of Salamis and the defeat of the Per- sian. Is it not plain that the interpretation of the Oracle has become more important than the Oracle itself ? Rational intelligence is hence- forth to rule at Athens, rather than oracular wisdom; Athena has transcended Apollo, and becomes the Goddess of the new order, even if she keeps up her old connections. But the archi- tectural fact of this profound spiritual transi- tion is the Parthenon, Athena's home, towering over all other temples in the city. In the age of Pericles, democratic Athens attained the culmination of the Greek City-State, and imparted her peculiar perfection to all that she did. Democracy was the institution which brought out and trained the individual to his highest power. It gave him freedom, yet also kept him obedient to law. As in his Architec- ture, so in his Institution, the modulus was pres- ent and controlling him, yet it was also his own. Now, through this completed Athenian Institution , the City-State, everything Greek had to pass in order to receive its final perfect touch, its transfiguration. Hence comes that centripetal movement from the periphery of all Hellas toward the Athenian center of perfection, as already often noted. 271 ABQHITECTURE — EUROPEAN. There is no doubt that the rest of Greece visited' and admired these marvelous works, which indeed formed an architectural totality. Athens as city becomes the realized ideal, or type for all Greek cities, and inspires imitation, re- production, and also no small amount of envy. But the total Athens now works creatively, and produces cities, not merely single temples. Throughout Hellas runs the word that the Greek archetypal Idea can be found in an actual visible example, and great is the impulse to see and to re- create, if not to create. New cities (like Megalop- olis) are built after the ideal Hellenic pattern ; other cities (like Syracuse) seek to transform themselves after the same pattern. Herewith begins a new transition ; a centrif uo^al movement out of Athens starts forth in striking contrast with the previous centripetal tendency. The Athenian University commences its career, and has something more than a curriculum of learned studies. The whole city is a work of Art, not merely filled with works of Art. Specially Architecture is seeking to build an entire metrop- olis into the home of associated Man, not sim- ply a temple or a group of temples. Such an aspiration we can now see at Athens, presaging future fulfillment in distant ages. Still we have to remember that this perfection is Athenian, not absolute, and in it lurks the national limitation which is the birth-mark of THE BELLENIC CITY, 273 mortality. Beautiful Athens is tragic ; so speak her great dramatists, describing her destiny in the outlines of their heroic characters ; so speak also to-day the ruins of the Acropolis. But the transfiguration is accomplished, the movement outward has begun again, not now merely to the colonial rim of Hellas but to the bounds of the whole civilized world both in Space and in Time. We shall behold it spatially reach- ing out to the limits of the Eoman Empire and temporally extending down to the present age with no sign of cessation for the future. It is at this point of transition, however, that the purely Hellenic Period comes to its conclusion, and another Period sets in, quite opposite indirection and character. 18 274 ABGHITEGTUBE — E UBOPEAN, II. The Hellenistic Period. We have now reached the time wheu it be- comes the supreme function of the Greek nation to make its culture universal, to impart its spirit- ual acquisitions to peoples who do not possess them. The political duty of the Hellenic City- State is done, another task lies before Greece, which is henceforth for several centuries to re- veal itself as the intellectual center of the world, as the University of Civilization. Other States like Macedon and Rome, will do the governing, while all Hellas turns pedagogue to mankind, a position which she has by no means renounced at the present day. Now Greek Architecture is one of the disci- plines which the Hellenic nation has developed and which is to become a very important branch in this Greek University of Civilization. Archi- tects from Hellas will follow in the track of Alexander to the East, and will soon start to building under his command. They will likewise penetrate to Eome in the West, and will help transform the imperial City into a great architec- tural totality. The institutional abodes of the whole civilized world, religious and secular, pub- lic and private, will shoot into the marble forms of Greek Architecture as if by a process of uni- THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 275 versal crystallization. From the Atlantic to the Ganges will these architectonic pulsations of little Greece be felt, and from the forests of Germany in the North to the deserts ©f Africa in the South. Almost everywhere in the landscape of the Medi- terranean the traveler comes upon ruins of this vast architectural world, which still speak of their antique home in Hellas. It is evident that Greek Architecture had a period of expansion .following its period of cen- tralization just recorded. It overflowed its nar- row Hellenic boundaries and spread out through all civilized nations, fertilizing and enriching with its beautiful forms the souls of even barbarous peoples. Succeeding the centripetal movement from the outlying rim of colonies rises a mightier centrifugal movement, which surges beyond the outermost Greek borderland and reaches the farthest zones of ancient civilization. This is the great external manifestation in space of what we here .call the Hellenistic Period in distinction from the pure Greek or Hellenic Period, which was an ingathering and preparation of the spirit- ual forces of the Greek race. Already we have noted the start of this outgoing movement from its Athenian center, and its spread through the rest of Greece. But its sweep does not now stop at the periphery of Hellenism, but it breaks over or rather breaks down the national walls and be- comes what we call Hellenisticism, the union and 276 ARCHITEGTUBE — EUROPEAN. mutual transformation of the nations through Greek culture, in the present case through Greek Architecture. Thus the non-Hellenic world Hellenizes, ap- propriates Hellenism. Previously that world, even if civilized in its way, was deemed bar- barous by the Greek, who is now to transcend his hide-bound nativism. For the influence was not wholly on one side. In passing through the non-Hellenic or ethnic mind pure Hellenic civil- ization takes a new tinge, is doubtless widened and in a certain manner perverted, or, as is often said, barbarized. At the same time it fulfills its great historical function of becoming universal; the excellence developed by one people is imparted to all. Centuries will elapse during this grand metamorphosis of national spirits ; the world is to be made Classic, Hellenic, till the blow falls which shivers this fair fabric, and a totally new Era sets in. I, Whithersoever the Greek carried his Archi- tecture, he found buildings already existing and constructed after some principle upon which he impinged. We have previously spoken of Pe- lasgic structures, which form a kind of under- lying architectural protoplasm, out of which the edifices of the classic world seem to spring. The Greek architect, issuing forth from the bounds of Hellas, finds everywhere this primordial, pro- toplasmic construction. When he reaches the THE HELLENISTIC PEBIOD. 277 valley of the Euphrates or of the Nile he comes upon old, fully developed Architectures, with which he has to reckon. The result is that the Hellenistic process begins at once, showing a coalesceuce of ethnic and Hellenic constructive forms. The case of Deinocrates, a Greek archi- tect, who accompanied Alexander to the Orient, furnishes an example. The Macedonian monarch commanded a colossal funeral pile to be built at Babylon to his deceased favorite, Hephaestion. The foundation of brick was a stade square, and the whole was in the form of a pyramid with flights of ascending steps, six stories high. The lower story was decorated with 240 golden prows of ships, with colossal statues of kneeling archers and standing soldiers, and contained 30 lavishly finished rooms inside. And so onto the top, with manifold Greek and Oriental forms combined. We may note the fourth story which had a famous Greek theme, the battle of Centaurs, wrought of gold; while the fifth story was devo- ted to an Assyrio-Babylonian display of art, the ever-recurring shapes of bulls and lions, also of gold. Nor should we fail to mention the highest story, where the arms of the conquering Greeks and the defeated Orientals were piled up together, apparently a symbol of peace and union. The whole was crowned by statues of Sirens, which were hollow and contained the singers who were to chant the dirge to the dead. It was 130 ells 278 ABCHITECTUBE^ EUROPEAN. high, and cost 12,000 talents (Diodorus Siculus XYII, 115). Here is, indeed, a striking example of Hellas becoming Oriental, and also of the Orient becom- ing Hellenic. A subtle interpenetration of each in the other is observable, a reciprocal transfor- mation of one into the other, whereby both are passing into something beyond both. This is the Hellenistic process as manifested in the Orient, which also interweaves its peculiar dark symbolic vein into the clear simple art of Greece, as we may feel in the foregoing instance. A wild fantastic caprice begins to sport with the plastic Greek shapes; a bound-bursting spirit breaks over the moderation and measured harmony of Hellenic spirit; the careful, definite proportion of the Greek temple starts forth into colossality and immensity, carrying along, how- ever, column and entablature. The tomb has become the supreme architectural monument — a distinctly non-Greek feeling; an Oriental other-worldliness striving beyond and beyond in pyramidal fashion is taking up the serene Greek this-worldliness with its happy statues and laughing colonnades, and is bearing it skyward toward a new future. In the Orient Alexander and his successors practiced city-building on the same magnificent scale, of which the chief instance was Alexandria in the delta of the Nile between Lake Mareotis THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD, 279 and the Sea. Egypt built in her time many great cities, but, strictly speaking, not one of them is now standing. But the site of Alexandria was chosen with such skill by Alexander himself, and laid out with such foresight and large-minded liberality that it remains the leading city of Egypt to this day, imperishable, though often outwardly destroyed in the warsjand devastations of the ages. It is a sea-city, and through it that mysterious introverted, secretive Egyptian soul flows out into the world and is made to impart its spiritual and material treasures to all man- kind by means of Greek genius. Alexandria be- came the great Hellenistic center of the Orient, in which were gathered the arts, the commerce, the learning and particularly the religions of the East, and through which they became all more or less Hellenized. II. Greek Architecture also traveled to the West, though more slowly, since it was not borne thither by the mighty and rapid arm of political conquest, as was the case in the East. Still it crossed over the border and gradually made its way to the Italic peoples in its centrifugal career. These peoples retained their national charac- ter in essence, though appropriating Greek culture. The indestructible germ of the tribe and of the nation remained; they did not be- come Greek, they did not lose their ethnic peculiarity. In fact, the Greek in Italy began 280 ABG HIT EC TUBE — EUROPEAN. to brush against a mightier national individuality than his own during these later Hellenistic cen- turies — Rome. It is Rome, the universal City-State of an- tiquity, which will finally absorb all these single Greek City-States, along with their art and science and philosophy. Again we shall witness a centripetal movement of civilization, not, however, toward the Athenian but toward the Italic metropolis, when it has become the world's capital. Architecture also will share in this centralizing tendency, and will gather all its scattered forms, Greek, Oriental, Barbarian, into one vast architectonic Whole, such as was never before seen or since. When such a centripetal current sets in toward Rome from the periphery not merely of Greece but of the whole civilized world, it is evident that the centrifugal movement of the Hellenistic Period must come to an end. And that is what we are now to see. Rome, having transformed herself from her ethnic into her imperial char- acter, produces a similar transformation of all ethnic Architecture, which is there whirled into the Roman cauldron, and after a time comes forth imperialized^ all its separate members being united in one grand imperial totality. We find this change working decisively under Augustus at the beginning of the Empire. Reckoning from his time back to that of Alexander, we may THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 281 consider that the Hellenistic Period lasted some- what more than 300 years. III. We must next seek to find out the chief means, the main constructive principle which is employed to coalesce with Greek Architecture in order to transmute it into its Hellenistic character. The answer is simple: the Arch. Everywhere Greek construction which is essen- tially rectilineal, as it moves beyond the rim of Hellas, runs upon the Arch, which is essentially curvilineal. The two principles, Greek and Barbarian l5t them be named for the nonce, grapple, fight and finally come together. In both the Aryan and the Semitic Orient the Arch was found, as well as among the Italic nations of the West. It is a curious fact that the Arch seems to be an original possession of all peoples who have reached a certain stage of primitive civilization. W"e have already noted that the Arch in both of its constructive forms, called the true and the false, was known to the Pelasgians, that underlying old- Aryan layer of so many European nationalities. The Arch, then, lurked already in this original folk-proto- plasm, existent indeed, but with its chief capaci- ties not yet unfolded into their bloom, waiting for some nation to seize upon it as their supreme constructive expression, and to develop its latent power into visible reality, which nation will be the Boman, especially under the Empire. 282 ARCHITECTUBE — EUBOPEAN. To the Greek architects of the Hellenic Period the Arch must have been well known. Every- where in the ancient towns of Greece could be seen examples of its employment. The Tombs, Treasuries, and doubtless many Temples were vaulted in the old ages, and they still existed for inspection. Now this vaulting, constructed by means of horizonal layers of stone gradually pro- jecting and coming together from different direc- tions till the whole is overarched, rests upon the formal principle of the voussoir, which is the Wedge-shaped stone of the regular tipright arch. This pressure is indeed lateral chiefly, not down- ward, but the principle in form is essentially the same. Moreover there are instances of the regular Arch which must be referred to ancient Hellas. We have, accordingly, the right to in- fer the Greek architects of the rectangular Tem- ple saw the Arch around them on their own soil. Moreover, if they visited the cities in the valley of the Euphrates, as they could easily have done during the Persian supremacy, they would have seen the Arch applied very generally to brick structures. It is known that Egypt was open to Greece from the reign of Psammetichus, and in Egypt also the Arch was used and could be observed by the traveling Greek architect, who would not fail to study the monumental forms of the. Valley of the Nile. We are careful to bring toorether these facts THE HELLENISTIC PEBIOD. 283 in order to show that the Greek architect of the national Period rejected the Arch 'knowingly^ with a full consciousness of its character. In reaching down to the Psychology of the archi- tectural movement of the ages — and this we must do, if we would get to the bottom of it — we must next ask, What made the Greek turn away from the Arch? Why is it un-Greek in the opinion of the Greek? In a general way we can affirm that it did not express his national spirit, it did not mirror his associated life, so that he would not build it into his institutional Home. He disliked it, shuddered at it, deemed it barbarous, or an antiquated Pelasgic or Ori- ental form, which he had long since transcended. We can well conceive that the sight of an Arch smote upon the Greek soul with a discord which became actually painful. He felt it to be his enemy, to be antagonistic to the innermost spirit of Hellas, to all that Hellas meant in herself and for the future. I-f we look into the source of this profound opposition, we find that it lies primordially in the structural principles themselves. The Greek principle, the column and tie-beam, had to be broken to pieces and trimmed into those wedge- shaped voussoirs, in order to build the Arch. Then the Greek in his Peristyle had a limited power of enclosure, which the Arch broke over, thus revealing within itself an unlimited power 284 AECHITEGTUBE — EUROPEAN. of enclosure — and to this day it is still widening it«elf out. The Greek with his native plastic sense demanded a well-rounded totality, a limited Whole ; but the Arch suggests and reaches out for the unlimited All, a tendency which makes the Greek unhappy and undermines his world. No wonder that the Greek was minded to cast the Arch out of his beautiful, but limited Uni- verse, regarding it as a sort of architectural devil who would shiver it to fragments. And when the destroyer did appear, behold, he brings with him just that diabolic Arch. IV. The Greek architect of the Hellenistic Period, however, is to rise above this nativistic limitation of his Hellenic stock. Passing over the boundary of Hellas spiritually as well spa- tially, he must begin to reconcile himself with the Arch, to study its structural nature and unite it harmoniously with his Greek inheritance. In fact we believe that many a Greek architect of the fourth century B. C. began to feel the con- finement of his little Hellenic City-State and its Architecture. Alexander simply realized the barrier-bursting spirit which had arisen in Hellas, and gave an outlet to it eastward. It streamed forth and overflowed Asia, combining with the pre-existent elements of art and civilization in the Orient. The bounded self-returning peristyle will break up into the indefinitely prolonged col- onnade; the Arch, being placed alongside the THE EELLENISTIQ PEEIOD. 285 column, will take from it its supporting power and reduce it to an ornamental expression ; the arched passage, even if it uses the columnar row, will pay little respect to intercolumniation, and thus will strike down the modulus, or meas- uring unit which lies at the root of the propor- tions of Greek Architecture. This loves the small or the moderate, which it seeks to make perfect in form and finish . Hence comes the fact that Hellenistic Architecture, expanding toward the colossal and turning the view beyond the limited, pays less attention to detail and gradually deteriorates in quality of workmanship. It should be observed that the Arch is com- paratively an artificial thing, the result of ex- perience and a certain degree of calculation. Nature hardly shows us the regular Arch, even if some of her caves and passages be rudely vaulted. Her method is to pile layer on layer in horizontal or inclined courses, following the line of gravity; her direction goes to the earth's center. Herein the Greek obeyed Nature, and the stone in his building takes its natural bent downward. He sought to be in harmony with his physical en- vironment; to cross Nature would produce in his poetic soul a discord. Hence he stratified his Temple in the same general way that the native rock was stratified which he quarried out of Pentelicus. The old Pelasgic Arch, even, though it was constructed of horizontal blocks, called up 286 ABC HITEG TUBE — E UBOPEAN. a discord within him, as being inharmonious with Nature, and so he threw it aside. But the regular semi-circular Arch primarily breaks away from this natural direction to the earth's center, and substitutes a center of its own in which the sides of each voussoir, if extended like radii, would meet. From this central point the Arch is determined, rays out, so to speak, into a circumference of stone. On the other hand each of these stone wedges pushes with all its own weight and the weight put upon it against its neighbor, which pushes back again with equal force ; thus both and all are striving to reach and occupy the same central point of the Arch. The result is that they are interlocked and con- solidated through pressure into one common monolithic mass, which nevertheless leaves the space beneath itself open for a passage. It is true that the Arch as a whole still tends to the earth's center by virtue of gravity; but the earth's center has become secondary while that of the Arch is primary. So it comes that the Arch may be said to have two centers, the nat- ural and the constructive. But the column and tie-beam with their horizontal layers show no such inner separation, since nature and cpnstruc- tion are one and work together in harmony. The Hellenistic Arch was the stepping-stone to Oriental and Roman colossality which to the Greek of the Hellenic Period was on the whole THE HELLENISTIC PEBIOD. 287 inartistic and repugnant. It is true that he made some colossal statues, notably, that one of Athena on the Acropolis. But this was intended to be seen from afar, from the distant sea; it was erected for the Athenian mariner who, voyaging homeward, as his ship wheeled around Sunium would first of all catch the sheen of the tip of the spear, then of the helmet and shield of his protecting deity. But for the per- son who went to the Acropolis, there was another statue of the same Goddess, which had mod- erate dimensions, and which could be seen inside the Parthenon. In this respect also the Greek shunned the enormous shapes of Egyptian sculpture. V. From the foregoing account it is evident that there will be an Oriental Movement of the Hellenistic Period, in which Hellenic Archi- tecture sweeps eastward beyond the Greek bor- der — which event culminates rapidly in the time of Alexander and his successors, though it had been slowly taking place before. Then there will be an Occidental or specially an Italic Movement of the Hellenistic Period in which Hellenic Architecture will penetrate westward and start among the Italic nations. Finally with the unity of Italy under republican Kome, there will be a corresponding concentration of Archi- ture in the world-conquering city on the Tiber, 288 AECHITECTUEE — EUBOPEAN'. wbich will bring to an end the Hellenistic Period with its centrifugal tendency. 1. The Oriental Movement. It has been already noted that Greek Architecture went to the East along with Alexander. This fact has been embodied after the Greek fashion in a striking story or perchance myth, which has been handed down by Vitruvius. Deinocrates, an architect filled with the spirit of the time, came before Alexander with a grand project. This was to cut Mount Athos into the figure of a huge overtowering statue, and under it to build a city. Alexander was struck with the plan, but on inquiry he found that the place was without a good supply of water. Whereupon he vetoed that scheme, but bade Deinocrates attend him on his expedition since he had work for just such a man. Thus he finds his architect cog- nate in genus with himself; loving the colossal form though a Greek, and seeking to make it actual; also a city-builder in imagination on a large scale, which, however, he will realize. In Deinocrates we see that Greek Architecture is breaking over its narrow boundary; doubtless many architects of the time showed the same tendency, in fact all must have felt the limit- transcending pulsation of the age. Hellas had wrought itself out to the full limit of its own small perfection, and must step forth into a larger arena, imparting and receiving. Hence it THE BELLEmSTIC PEBIOD. 289 rushed so impetuously into the outlet opened by Alexander, taking along its art, its science, its philosophy, its All to the East. In one sense this sapped the country of its most aspiring souls, but on the other hand it realized Greek spirit, making it universal. So it was in the order of things that an archi- tectural conqueror should accompany the political or institutional conqueror in order to make a fitting Home for the coming institutions. Dein- ocrates erected cities in Asia for Alexander, but his greatest work was the building of Alexandria in Egypt, as previously noted. He was also the architect of that astonishing structure, the funeral monument to Hephaeston, which has been already described. An autocrat seemingly in his way as much as was Alexander, he orien- talized Greek Architecture. His character ap- pears to be hinted in his name which suggests a man of " terrible power." It seems to have been chiefly his strong individuality, which took up and realized the aspiration of his age, that the Hellenic constructive spirit becarne Hellenistic. The Successors of Alexander continued and extended the architectural work begun by Alex- ander. We read of cities springing up with Greek names in the valley of the Euphrates, like Ctes- phon and Seleucia, and even in remote Bactria. In Syria Antioch and many others arose, attest- ing the new spirit which had come into the Orient. 19 hb ABCHITEGTUBE — EVBOPEAN. Particularly the Ptolomies in the valley of the Nile were lovers of the architectoDic art, and reared structures, some of whose ruins still exist and reveal a peculiar mutual influence and inter- marriage of Greek and Egyptian forms somewhat after the fashion of the Ptolomies themselves. Nearly all the Hellenistic Architecture of the Orient has perished. Cities built by the Suc- cessors of Alexander seem to have vanished without a trace. Some will perhaps yet be dug up in this age of excavation. But we have echoes of them in the later cities built during the im- perial Roman Period, such as Baalbec, Palmyra, Jeresh. These show the Greek architectural traditions still ruling the Orient, even if in a debased form. Among these Hellenistic cities the chief one is never to be forgotten, Alexandria, which showed a tendency for a time to make itself a center of Oriental Hellenisticism. But owing to its lack of political importance, it simply remained one among many such cities in the East. 2. The Italic Movement, Southern Italy (called also Magna Grecia) was settled by Greek colonies which shared in the first development of Greek Architecture. Paestum, not far from Naples, has still most important remains of early Greek temples. Central Italy, inhabited by in- dependent peoples, chiefly the Etruscan and Latin, began to feel the influence of Greek civil- TEE HELLENISTIC PEBIOD. 291 ization at an early date in their history, though the progress was gradual. There was no Greek conqueror in the West like Alexander, to trans- form at a blow arts and institutions. Pyrrhus may have had some such ambition, but he was foiled by the valor of the Eomans, who had already a strength of national character greater than the Greek of that age, not to speak of the Oriental. The Architecture of Hellas, therefore, does not come to Central Italy as a sudden conqueror. It meets, however, the same constructive prin- ciple, the Arch, that common possession of peoples. Eastern aud Western. The result was a long architectural battle whose outlines can be faintly seen at intervals. The Italiots (by whom we mean the ancient non-Greek peoples of Italy), did not have orig- inally the peristylar temple, till they imported it, doubtless, from the Greek colonies of South- ern Italy and Sicily. Still they adopted the column at quite an early period, but placed it in front and formed there a colonnade having the walled enclosure to the rear. Thus there is a two-foldness, an external separation in these Italic temples, with columns before and cella behind, which stands in significant contrast to the inner division of the Greek temple with its peristyle engirdling the cella within itself. Still there are Greek instances similar to the men- 292 ABCmT£!CT[fIiE — EUROPEAN'. tioned Italic form, which is known in Greek Architecture as the prostylar in distinction from the peristylar. The temple of Wingless Victory on the Athenian Acropolis is prostylar. At Ehamnus not far from Marathon is another form frequent in Italy, the templum in antis, with two Doric columns in front of a walled cella. Both of these forms of temples are much older than the peristyle ; in fact they lead up to it in a gradual evolution, and belong to an ancient stage common to Greek and Italic stocks. It is characteristic that the Roman Architecture, much later than the Hellenic in development, has the tendency to retain the earlier construc- tive shapes which the Greek abandoned so com- pletely that only a few examples are now to be found on the soil of Hellas. In like manner the Latin tongue often preserves more purely the old Aryan speech than the Greek, which matured long before Latin. A certain con- servative, tenacious, unifying power seems to lie originally in the Italic stocks. (a) The mentioned Italiots were split up into many tribes and indeed nations. There was an old-Aryan migration into the Italic peninsula which brought with it certain simple structural principles ; these are what we have already called Pelasgic. Throughout Italy we can trace that early huge masonry of irregular and polyonal THE HELLENISTIC PEBIOD. 293 blocks which walled in the towns of a primitive, pre-historic people. There must have been numerous displacements of these early tribes through war and migration. Though the Celts seem to have come into Europe before the Italic stocks, we find a line of Celtic towns in Northern Italy long after the Italiots proper had entered the peninsula and had settled in its middle and southern portions, having apparently gone around the Adriatic and passed through that belt of hostile towns. Then there is the standing mystery of the Etruscans. At present, however, the design is simply to call attention to this original architectural pro- toplasm of Italy, which is to unfold into its own peculiar structures chiefly through the influence of Greek Architecture. But Italy was also full of communities which had their own distinct institutional life. The town and city there de- veloped an individual Italic character, different from the Hellenic, even if allied to it in a num- ber of ways . From the start there was a cer- tain inner unifying tendency in these Italic communities, which after many fluctuations cul- minated in Rome, the one central city which at last united them and all the civilized world. Thus the civic institution in Italy as in Greece was the transforming power which brought forth what may be called Italic Architecture. Its materials were chiefly two : the transmitted old- 294 ' ABGHITECTVItE ~ EUBOPEAN. Aryan construction, and the highly developed structural forms of Hellas, which had likewise been primarily received from a foreign civilized people, the Egyptians, though much changed in the transition. The Italic temples of the Gods will, therefore, be somewhat different from the Greek, since every people must build the home of its God who makes it a people distinct and peculiar. (5) The Etruscans seem a foreign stock wedged into the heart of Italy. They had at- tained a considerable degree of civilization con- temporaneous with the Greek and antecedent to the Eoman supremacy. They are a people who have furnished more problems to the antiquarian, the philologist and the historian than any other around the Mediterranean. They show almost an equal combination of Aryan and Semitic characteristics ; they have also something Egyp- tian in their nature, but are capable of Greek culture. They seem in many regards a contra- dictory dualistic people, who never succeeded in bringing some deep original antagonisms of their folk-life into unity. There is a mysterious ele- ment in their character, an unuttered and pos- sibly unutterable strain which makes them as well as their speech and institutions an unread hieroglyphic. They are supposed to have reached their historic seats in Italy, lying chiefly between THE HELLENISTIC PEBIOD. 295 the Arno and the Tiber, a little before the founding of Eome. Coming to their Architecture, we find the same substrate essentially which has been al- ready named I^elasgic,' and which has been traced through Greece back into Asia. The Cyclopean town-wall in its chief forms, poly- gonal blocks as at Cosa, and horizontal courses of stone as at Volterra, can still be seen ; some- times the two are combined, as at Eusellse. The Etruscans also possessed the method of vaulting by horizontal layers, as has been noted in the Greek Treasuries (Thesauri) and Tombs. In Rome an instance i^ the so-called Tullianum, the lower chamber of the Mamertine prison, which Sallust describes as the place of Jugurtha's pun- ishment. But the chief fact ,of early Etruscan construc- tion is the Arch. Whence it came is useless to inquire The Arch we may repeat, was the com- mon possession of Mediterranean and West- Asiatic peoples ; it belonged to that architectural protoplasm of early races. But the Etruscans as they advanced in civilization, retained and de- veloped the Arch. Herein their action was just opposite to that of the Greeks, who threw it away after their Pelasgic epoch. Such a fact hints a profound difference of national character. The bound-breaking nature of the Arch must have found its echo in the Etruscan heart. 296 AECHITEGTURE — EUEOPEAN. Etruria was a laud of Tombs like Egypt. The attention this people bestowed upon its sepulchres has preserved them to this day . Herein we may observe an other-worldliness, in contrast to the Greek this-worldliness. ' The old Etruscans evi- dently put much stress upon the Beyond, the future life; we cannot help thinking that Tuscan Dante was one of their late -born children, who inherited their character of dwelling upon fu- turity, and has given a striking picture of it modified of course by Christianity. The hill- sides of Tuscany still at the present time are full of these old Etruscan cemeteries, and surprise the traveler by their number j^nd the care in their preparation. The regular or vertical Arch is seen particu- larly in entrances through walls. The city-gate of Volterra is unique. Out gf the Arch above the entering road project three sculptured human heads, from three different points: from the keystone and from the two bases resting on the wall. Thus the Arch seems to speak down to the wayfarer and tell its character. From the center, the ke^^stone, it sends its pressure not downward but sideward, till the bases are reached, when the direct line of gravity again prevails. The Arch may be conceived thus to tell of open- ing a protected passage through the obstructing wall to every person going underneath it into the city. It is evident from these figures and their THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 297 position that the Etruscan must have reflected upon the nature of the Arch, and by a signifi- cant symbol expressed his view of its character. But the boldest manifestation of the Etruscan Arch is found in the large sewer of Kome, the Cloaca Maxima, which empties into the Tiber, and is still performing its ancient duty of drain- ing the Forum and the low grounds in the same neighborhood. Its mouth is said by some authorities to be about twenty feet wide, which fact indicates that the possibilities of the Arch were known to the Etruscans who are reported to have built this sewer in the sixth century B. C, at the time of the Etruscan Kings of Kome. One other structure of this people must be mentioned: the Temple. If in the matter of the Arch the Etruscan defied the Greek influence,' on the other hand he yielded to this influence as re- gards the Temple. It has no vaulting, no Arch visible at any entrance. It is rectangular, though not oblong, being nearly square in out- line. It has the colonnade in front, forming: a kind of portico, but there is no peristyle. It possesses a walled Cella with three separate rooms, each of which had its own door in front leadinsr to the image of a deity. The entablature was Greek with its triangular pediment, but there was no facade to the rear. The strict int.erco- lumniation of the Greek was not regarded ; the 298 ABCmTECTUBE— EUROPEAN. columns stood so far apart often that wooden tie-beams were necessary. It is evident that such a building shows many Greek elements, but by no means developed into unity and proportion. The Etruscan Temple seemed halved crosswise into the columnar por- tion (Anticum) and the walled portion (Posti- cum), and the two were clapped together without any inner connection. Very different was the rela- tion of the outer surrounding peristyle to the inner cella of the Greek Temple. Symmetry was also violated by the disregard of the law of proportion. Then the Greeks, polytheistic though they were, rarely put more than one God into a temple, even if economy and convenience demanded the contrary. Thus we feel in the Etruscan Temple an inner scission, a lack of organic wholeness. It falls asunder of itself. The Etruscan treat- ment of the Greek column ruins its beauty, or at least its delicacy, by changes^ in the base and capital which destroy their naive expressiveness, as well as by the omission of the fluting of the shaft. Still this Etruscan Temple passed over to the Romans, who preserved it to the last, even if Vitruvius, probably echoing Greek criticism, condemns it. And its career did not stop there. From the Romans it passed through Italy to the Renascence, and often showed its form in both public and private Architecture. It came THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD. 299 to America and is really the pattern for our colonial style so-called. Many of our court- houses, state-houses and bank buildings of the older sort, which we still meet with throughout our country, have their original norm in the Etruscan Temple. Finally, this very building in which I am now speaking to you, my hearers, if you will note the four columns, when you go out, with portico in front and walled house to the rear, is a lineal descendant, even if remote, of the Etruscan Temple. (c) If we pass to the south of the Tiber out of Etruria we come upon a wholly different Italic people — the ancient Latins, whose lan- guage proves that they were of unquestioned Aryan stock. The old walls of their towns show everywhere the Pelasgic masonry, but their dia- lect, which became the speech of Italy and of Europe, was their most enduring monument. Their truly colossal product, however, was Rome itself, which they founded and upheld. We have the right to say that in this old Latin tribe dwelling chiefly between the Tiber and the Alban Mountains till the sea, lay an original germ of organizing power which was unique in history. Their speech and their institutions show the spirit of system, which often drops into formal- ism, but whose destiny is to put the world into law and order. Looking into the primitive Architecture of 300 ABCHITEG TUBE — E UBOPEAN. this people, we find that it developed particularly one form of the temple, the round. This it undoubtedly received from its Pelasgic or old Aryan ancestry. The circular form of structure is seen among many early races, chiefly in tombs, which were often a kind of sanctuary or temple. But the Latin people selected it, emphasized it, put their national seal upon it, so to speak. Much significance lies in the fact that the two of the largest buildings of ancient Rome, the child of Latium, are still standing and are round, the Pantheon and the Colosseum, the one circular and the other oval. As these belong to imperial Rome, we see that the round building persisted through all the Roman periods to the last. It was the original Latin bent in the city, and indicated national character. And it even passed over into the Christian world with Rome. Herein is indicated a basic difference between Greek and Latin Architecture. Hellas employed the rectilineal for her sacred structures and shunned the curvilineal. It has been already noted how she avoided consciously the arch ; on the same principle she would have nothing to do with the round temple. Still the Greek architect knew of it, and could erect a curvi- linear building if it was desired, as we see by the Philippeion at Olympia (about 336 B. C). and the Tholus atEpidaurus (about 300 B. C). Rome, however, being the city of appropriation, THE BELLENISTIC PERIOD. 301 did not fail to appropriate the Greek temple along with the rest of the world. But she kept also the original round temple of her Latiin ancestors. Rome had her pre-imperial or ethnic period of Architecture. As already indicated, there lay in her a Latin substrate of population and character which persisted to the end. At the same time other influences entered her life, and she became the arena of a contest between archi- tectural tendencies. The Etruscan square temple with its front colonnade became the type of many Eoman temples. Moreover she took up the Arch, developed it and applied it as it had never been applied before, finally making it her national symbol in the Triumphal Arch. Such were chiefly the Etruscan architectural influences. But the Greek constructive principles also entered ethnic Rome. The peristyle came, the Greek Orders, and the Cella. Then followed the Hel- lenistic Architecture of the Orient as developed by the Successors of Alexander, with their com- bination of the Column and the Arch, as well as the vaulting. Also the Hellenistic city-building began to show itself at Rome during the later Republic. The round temple of the Latins may then be deemed the architectural substrate of Rome. The old Latin deities, Jupiter and Vesta and also others had originally round temples, as it seems. 802 . AnCHITECTUBE — E UBOPBAN. This introduced the curved line into the Roman soul, which never threw it off in spite of foreign » culture and influence, Etruscan and Greek. Worshiping in round sanctuaries, the curve be- came a part of the Roman's being, of what con- nected him with the God, with the All. We can well understand how the curved temple opened the way in his heart for the Arch. For the round wall is the Arch prostrate, lying on its side. When the Etruscan came with his devel- oped Arch upright, the Roman was ready. He had doubtless seen in Latium the undeveloped Arch as the common possession of all proto- European peoples. The Cloaca Maxima has a diameter at its mouth quite as great as many a temple of Vesta, which we may regard as a double Arch built up in horizontal layers. Thus the old Latin institutional world, pro- genitor of the Roman, erected a round abode for itself, when it had separated from the primeval Aryan protoplasm, and had become individual- ized. We saw the Greek institutional world differentiating itself from the same general source and selecting an oblong rectangular dwell- ing-place. Architecture as the home of associ- ated Man starts with this difference in the Greek and Latin stocksj the one choosing the rectilineal for the primordial Cella of its God, the other the curvilineal. The Greek will engirdle his Cella with a rectangular peristyle, while the Ro- THE IIELLENlSfIG PERIOD, B03 man will engirdle his Cella with a circular peri- style, which is thus a Greek form Romanized. 3. JEnd of the Hellenistic Period. — In the fact last mentioned, the Romanizing of Greek forms, lies the change which means the end of the Hellenistic Period. The great architectural expansion eastward and westward from the cen- tral Hellenic city, Athens, has been traced iu a general way. But a new concentration In a new city has been noticed as beginning to take place. The column and the arch have been brought together at Rome in a kind of war ; the round and the rectangular temples exist along- side of each other without any adequate recon-