Appendix I., P. 270.

Footnote 107:

Since the article on the Temple in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible’ was written, from which most of the woodcuts in this chapter are taken, I have had occasion to go over the subject more than once, and from recent explorations and recently discovered analogies have, I believe, been able to settle, within very narrow limits of doubt, all the outstanding questions with reference to this celebrated building. I have in consequence written and published a monograph of the Temple, but have deemed it more expedient to leave the illustrations here as they are.

Footnote 108:

2 Chronicles xx. 5.

Footnote 109:

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

Footnote 110:

Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, § 2.

Footnote 111:

Josephus, B. J. v. 5, § 4.

Footnote 112:

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

Footnote 113:

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

Footnote 114:

Texier, ‘Asie Mineure,’ pl. 10 to 21.

Footnote 115:

Herodotus, i. 93.

Footnote 116:

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

Footnote 117:

“Toward the centre of the monument two large stones were found leaning at an angle the one against the other, and forming a sort of tent, like in Woodcut 124, under which was presently discovered a small statue of Minerva seated on a chariot with four horses, and an urn of metal filled with ashes, charcoal, and burnt bones. This urn, which is now in the possession of the Comte de Choiseul, is enriched in sculpture with a vine branch, from which is suspended bunches of grapes done with exquisite art.”—‘Description of the Plain of Troy,’ translated by Dalzel, Edin. 1791, p. 149.

If this is so, this is no doubt the vessel mentioned, ‘Iliad,’ xvi. 221, xxiii. 92; ‘Od.,’ xxiv. 71, and elsewhere. But where is it now? and why has not the fact of its existence been more insisted upon?

Footnote 118:

One of the most interesting facts brought to light in Dr. Schliemann’s excavations is that between the age of the “Ilium Vetus” of Homer, rich in metals and in arts, and the “Ilium Novum” of Strabo, a people ignorant of use of the metals, and using only bone and stone implements, inhabited the mound at Hissarlik which covered both these cities. This discovery is sufficient to upset the once fashionable Danish theory of the three ages—Stone, Bronze, and Iron—but, unfortunately, adds nothing to our knowledge of architecture. These people, whoever they were, built nothing, and must consequently be content to remain in the “longa nocte” of those who neglect the Master Art.

Footnote 119:

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

Footnote 120:

This tomb is considered by M. Renan (Mission de Phœnicie, Paris 1864) to be of Phœnician origin, who remarks generally on their work: “Phœnician tombs are generally excavated in the solid rock; their architecture is the carved rock without columns; they obtained all they could out of the solid rock, leaving it as they found it, with more or less attempt to make it graceful; the fact that it was worked before being transported suggests that as it left the quarry so it remained, no sound of hammer or saw being heard during its erection.” There is another tomb at Marathos also attributed to the Phœnicians, which is partly cut out of the rock and partially built in large blocks of masonry.

Footnote 121:

In reality the monument stands exactly over the centre of the rock-cut sepulchre. The section-line must, therefore, be understood to be carried back about 10 feet from the face of the monument.

Footnote 122:

Josephus, Ant. xvi. 7, § 1.

Footnote 123:

Beule’s excavations have proved that the outer gate of the Acropolis was in front, not at the side, as here shown. ‘Acropole d’Athènes.’ Paris, vol. i. pl. i. and ii.

Footnote 124:

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

Footnote 125:

Pausanias, ix. 38.

Footnote 126:

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

Footnote 127:

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

Footnote 128:

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

Footnote 129:

These antæ (parastades) or responds were destined in the first case to protect the angles of the wall, and in the second case to support the beams carried by them and the columns between, the sun-dried brick wall being not to be relied on; in the later Greek temples the walls were built in stone and marble, and the parastades became therefore no longer constructional necessities, being retained only as decorative features, of which so many others are found in the style.

Footnote 130:

Pausanias, vi. 19.

Footnote 131:

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

Footnote 132:

This refers only to the columns and antæ; the lower portion of the walls, 3 feet 6 inches high, were in stone; above this clay bricks were employed in building the walls, and it was to the disintegration of these that we owe the preservation of the Hermes of Praxiteles, which was found embedded in a thick layer of clay. At first it was thought that this clay had been washed down from the neighbouring slopes of the hill of Kronos.

Footnote 133:

M. J. Thacher Clarke, who directed the American expedition in 1881, is now occupied with a monograph on the subject, and a report by him was published in 1882. Boston and London. J. Trübner.

Footnote 134:

A proto-Ionic capital of early date was found in 1882 on the summit of Mount Chigri, in the Troad, by Mr. J. Thacher Clarke, and is described in the American Journal of Archæology, Baltimore. 1886. Another example ascribed to Phœnician artists was found at Trapeza in Cyprus, and is now in the Louvre; both are of the same type as that which is represented in the ivory carvings from the north-western palace of Nimroud, now in the British Museum, so that the Asiatic origin of the order is thus confirmed.

Footnote 135:

Pausanias, viii. 45.

Footnote 136:

Bohn.

Footnote 137:

Mr. Fergusson’s theory that a pillar, originally copied from the wooden post, is slenderer at first, and gradually departs from the wood form as the style advances, is borne out by the evidence of the Egypt lotus column; this, as found in the rock-cut tombs of Benihasan, is of very small diameter, and quite unequal to carry the weight of any stone superstructure; whereas afterwards in the temples at Thebes it assumes a proportion nearer that of the earliest Greek Doric example at Corinth.—ED.]

Footnote 138:

These facts have all been fully elucidated by Mr. Penrose in his beautiful work containing the results of his researches on the Parthenon and other temples of Greece, published by the Dilettanti Society.

Footnote 139:

For measurements we depend on Penrose, ‘Principles of Athenian Architecture,’ &c., fol.; and Cockerell, ‘The Temples of Egina and Bassæ,’ Lond. 1860. The details of the system were first publicly announced by Watkiss Lloyd, in a paper read to the Institute of British Architects in 1859; afterwards in an appendix to Mr. Cockerell’s work, and in several minor publications.

Footnote 140:

The pyramid-building kings of Lower Egypt seem to have had some distinct ideas of a system of definite proportions in architectural building, and to have put it into practice in the pyramid, and possibly elsewhere, but it has not yet been sought for in the other buildings of that age.

At times I cannot help suspecting more affinity to have existed between the inhabitants of Lower Egypt and those of Greece than is at first sight apparent.

Footnote 141:

It was called Zoophorus (life or figure bearer).

Footnote 142:

Footnote 143:

See Woodcuts Nos. 22, 24, 27.

Footnote 144:

Vitruvius, lib. i. ch. 1.

Footnote 145:

Boeckh, Corpus Inscript. Græc. No. 109.

Footnote 146:

Attica, xxvi.

Footnote 147:

Historia, viii, 41.

Footnote 148:

Among the many attempts made to restore the interior of this temple, the last and most elaborate is that by the late E. Beulé, ‘Acropole d’Athènes,’ 1854, vol. ii. pl. ii.; but it is also one of the worst. Indeed it is quite painful to see how the author twists his authorities to meet a preconceived theory. Without going into it, there is one objection which seems fatal to the whole.

Like most antiquaries when in difficulties for lighting Greek temples, he takes off the roof and makes the Temple of Pandrosus an open courtyard, in which he plants the olive. This is so opposed to the whole spirit of Greek art as to be inadmissible on general grounds, but in this instance it introduces the further absurdity that the Greeks opened three windows in the west wall of the temple to light this courtyard which was already open to the sky! The mode of lighting a temple by vertical windows is so exceptional that it would not have been introduced here had any other means existed of lighting the interior, and consequently the combination shown by M. Beulé seems simply impossible.

Footnote 149:

“Universo Templo longitudo est ccccxxv. pedum, latitudo ccxx. Columnæ centum viginti septem a singulis regibus factæ, lx. pedum altitudine: ex iis xxxvi. cælatæ, una a Scopa.”—H. N. xxxvi. 14.

Footnote 150:

Footnote 151:

The finial ornament is triangular in plan, and there are three scrolls on the roof with mortices in them, showing that something must have stood on them to support the projecting angles. Dolphins and various other objects have been suggested. My own conviction is that they were winged genii, most probably in bronze, and gilt like the neckings of the capitals.

Footnote 152:

Footnote 153:

It will not be necessary to enter here into all the details of this restoration. They will be found in a separate work published by me on the subject, to which the reader is referred. [The student should also refer to the restoration suggested by M. Pullan in the work published by him and Sir Charles Newton (‘Discoveries at Halicarnassus, 1862’). In the arrangement and design of the podium it accords better with other examples of Greek tombs than Mr. Fergusson’s. The three columns as shown at the angle of Mr. Fergusson’s peristyle would be quite repugnant to any student of Greek architecture.—ED.]

Footnote 154:

Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5.

Footnote 155:

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

Footnote 156:

The circumstance of Asoka, the Buddhist king of India B.C. 250, having formed an alliance with Megas of Cyrene for the succour of his co-religionists in the dominions of the latter, points to such a conclusion even if nothing else did.—‘Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vii. p. 261; J. R. A. S. xii. p. 223 et seq.

Footnote 157:

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

Footnote 158:

Vitruvius, iv. 7.

Footnote 159:

Dionysius, iv. 61.

Footnote 160:

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

Footnote 161:

The Etruscan and Roman origin of the circular temple is now known to be erroneous, as remains of large circular temples have been discovered at Epidaurus and Olympia.

Footnote 162:

Even in more modern times I know of no building showing a trace of these forms except the tomb of Theodoric at Ravenna. This, however, is Etruscan both in form and detail, as will be seen farther on.

Footnote 163:

Plin. ‘Hist.’ xxxvi. 13.

Footnote 164:

A diagram is given in ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art’ p. 459, which shows at least that there is no difficulty in designing a monument in perfect accordance with the text. Whether the latter is to be depended upon or not is another matter.

Footnote 165:

These dimensions, with all those that follow, unless otherwise specified, are taken from Taylor and Cresy’s ‘Architectural Antiquities of Rome,’ London, 1821. They seem more to be depended upon than any others I am acquainted with.

Footnote 166:

These two temples, like almost all the others of Rome, have recently been renamed by the Roman or rather German antiquaries. The Jupiter Tonans is now the Temple of Saturn, and the Jupiter Stator is decreed to have been the Temple of Castor and Pollux. The names by which they are currently known has been adhered to, as the architecture is of more importance here than the archæology.

Footnote 167:

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

Footnote 168:

IMP. CÆS. M. AVRELIVS ANTONINVS PIVS FELIX AVG. TRIB. POTEST V. COS. PROCOS. PANTHEVM VETVSTATE CORRVPTVM CVM OMNI CVLTV RESTITVERVNT. Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ p. 37, pl. xii.

Footnote 169:

When the first edition of this work was written I believed the rotunda to have been added to the portico by Severus; and if this were so it would get over many of the difficulties arising from its size and the character of its brickwork. My personal examination, however, has forced me very unwillingly to give up this hypothesis. It certainly is, however, very astonishing that such a vault should have been attempted at so early an age.

Footnote 170:

The bronze plates which were removed by Pope Urban VIII. in 1626 to make cannon, and also for the great Baldachino in St. Peter’s, were taken from the portico; the coffers of the interior of the dome were decorated, according to Prof. Middleton, with mouldings in stucco painted and gilt.

Footnote 171:

This building is commonly called a temple, though it is not known to what deity it was dedicated. My own impression is that it was a tomb, or at least a funereal monument of some sort.

Footnote 172:

Owing to a misreading of Vitruvius’s statement respecting the temple it had always been classed as decastyle. See Mr. Penrose’s researches published in the ‘Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects,’ vol. iv. New Series. 1888.

Footnote 173:

See ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ where the reasons for this arrangement will be found stated at length. [See note on page 272.— ED.]

Footnote 174:

Canina, in his restoration, shows a flat roof with coffers, so there is probably no exact authority for its form, though it seems to be generally agreed that the centre was not hypæthral.

Footnote 175:

This basilica is generally represented as having an apse at either end; but there is no authority whatever for this, and general analogy would lead us rather to infer that it was not the case. Prof. Middleton, however, is of opinion that an apse existed at both ends, and shows the same in his restoration of the plan of Trajan’s form.— ‘The Remains of Ancient Rome,’ by J. H. Middleton, Fig. 52, vol. ii.

Footnote 176:

One of the pillars of this basilica remained in situ till the year 1614, when it was removed by Carlo Maderno, by order of Paul V., and re-erected in the piazza of St. M. Maggiore, where it now stands as a monumental column, supporting a statue of the Virgin. The column, with its base and capital, is as nearly as may be 60 ft. in height; the whole monument, as it now stands, 140 ft.

Footnote 177:

As it was sunk slightly below the pavement of the peristyle, and drains leading from it were traced by Mr. Ashpitel, it was probably hypæthral.

Footnote 178:

The theatres of Curio and Scaurus were in timber, except the proscenium of the latter, which was partly decorated with marble and mosaics. The Theatre of Pompey, B.C. 54, was in stone, and parts of it still exist (Prof. Middleton). The Theatre of Marcellus was begun by Julius Cæsar, but not completed till 13 B.C., when it was opened by Augustus. It was subsequently restored after a fire by Vespasian, but the purity and simplicity of the architecture, and the refinement of the details, in comparison with those of the Colosseum, 70-80 A.D., are in favour of the earlier date assigned to it. Prof. Middleton quotes another theatre, that of Cornelius Balbus (13 B.C.), built to the north-west of the Theatre of Marcellus.

Footnote 179:

According to Prof. Middleton the Amphitheatre of Sutrium is of Roman origin, and but little earlier than the Colosseum at Rome. “There is really no evidence,” he says (p. 76), “that amphitheatres were built by the Etruscans; and there can be little doubt that they were purely Roman inventions.”

Footnote 180:

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

Footnote 181:

Considerable difference of opinion seems to exist as to the extent of the velaria which sheltered the arena; this was supported by masts fixed outside the upper part of the walls, resting on brackets, 14 ft. below the cornice, which was cut away to allow the mast to fit close against the wall. M. Gérôme suggests, in his well-known picture of the Roman gladiators, that the velaria extended over a portion of the arena only. Prof. Middleton states, “The awning did not, as has been sometimes supposed, cover the whole amphitheatre, a thing which would have been practically impossible, owing to the enormous strain of so long a bearing, far beyond what any ropes could bear. It simply sloped down over the spectators in the cavea, leaving the whole central arena uncovered.” In case of rain, however, this might have been inconvenient, and it would not have protected the spectators from the sun, supposing that the performances lasted the whole day. Besides, there is no reason why the masts should have been carried so high above the wall, as shown in the restoration in Prof. Middleton’s book, p. 70. Mr. Alma Tadema is of opinion that the velarium extended over the whole arena, and was suspended on a principle similar to that of a suspension bridge, the ridge, or highest portion lying between the foci of the ellipse. This accounts in a much more satisfactory way for the height of the masts, and would afford facilities for the draining off of the rain on to the top of the gallery round.

Footnote 182:

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

Footnote 183:

See note on p. 321.

Footnote 184:

These baths have been carefully measured by M. Blouet, who has also published a restoration of them. This is, on the whole, certainly the best account we have of any of these establishments.

Footnote 185:

According to Prof. Middleton this magnificent hall appears to have been what Spartianus calls the cella soliaris, the ceiling of which he says was formed of interlaced bars of gilt bronze. When the excavations in this hall were being made, many tons of fragments of iron girders were found. These were (according to Prof. Aitchison) compound girders, formed of two T bars riveted together, and then cased in bronze. A sort of lattice-work ceiling had been formed with these bronze-cased girders, the panels being probably filled in with concrete made of light pumice-stone, worked with fine stucco reliefs, painted and gilt. Prof. Middleton is of opinion that the central part over the swimming-bath was left open for the admission of light. In the upper part of the walls deep sinkings to receive the ends of the great girders which supported the ceiling are clearly visible.

Footnote 186:

St. George’s Hall at Liverpool is the most exact copy in modern times of a part of these baths. The Hall itself is a reproduction both in scale and design of the central hall of Caracalla’s baths, but improved in detail and design, having five bays instead of only three. With the two courts at each end, it makes up a suite of apartments very similar to those found in the Roman examples. The whole building, however, is less than one-fourth of the size of the central mass of a Roman bath, and therefore gives but little idea of the magnificence of the whole.

Footnote 187:

The left-hand wing of this arch has since been restored by M. Viollet-le-Duc, and the right-hand wing cleared of the square building in front of it.

Footnote 188:

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

Footnote 189:

Professor Middleton states: “This building appears to be a nymphæum, or a part of some baths of about the time of Gallienus (263-268 A.D.).” It was known in the Middle Ages as the “Terme de Gallucio.” The site of the real Temple of Minerva Medica was discovered in 1887 (according to the same authority) between the new Via Macchiavelli and the Via Buonarroti, about 7 ft. below the present ground-level.

Footnote 190:

See p. 114, and Woodcut 15.

Footnote 191:

M. de Saulcy has recently attempted to prove that these tombs are those of the kings of Judah from David downwards. Their architecture is undoubtedly as late as the Christian era, and the cover of the sarcophagus which is now in the Louvre under the title of that of David is probably of the same date as these tombs, or if anything more modern.

Footnote 192:

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

Footnote 193:

Though the dates of all these tombs at Cyrene are so uncertain, there seems little doubt that if any one thoroughly versed in the style were to visit the place, he could fix the age of all of them with approximate correctness. The one difficulty is, that a chronometric scale taken from the buildings at Rome, or even in Syria, will not suffice. Local peculiarities must be taken into account and allowed for, and this requires both time and judgment.

Footnote 194:

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

Footnote 195:

It is understood that it too has been explored, but no account of the result has yet reached this country, and such rumours as have reached are too vague to be quoted. Even its dimensions are not known.

Footnote 196:

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

Footnote 197:

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

Footnote 198:

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

Footnote 199:

See p. 323.

Footnote 200:

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

Footnote 201:

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

Footnote 202:

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

Footnote 203:

These inscriptions were all copied by Consul Taylor, and brought home to this country. I never could learn, however, that they were translated. I feel certain they were never published, and cannot find out what has become of them.

Footnote 204:

These are expedients for filling up the corners of square lower storeys on which it is intended to place a circular superstructure. They somewhat resemble very large brackets or great coves placed in an angle. Examples of them are shown on page 434 when speaking of Byzantine architecture, and others will be found in the chapter on Mahomedan Architecture in India, in vol. iii.

Footnote 205:

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

Serbistan A.D. 350 Firouzabad 450 Ctesiphon 550

To which we may now add

Mashita 620

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

Footnote 206:

‘The Land of Moab,’ by H. B. Tristram, M. A., &c. Murray, 1873. As all the information respecting the palace is contained in that book, pp. 195 to 215, all the illustrations here used are taken from it, it will not be necessary to refer to it again. For further information on the subject the reader is referred to that work.

Footnote 207:

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

Footnote 208:

The plan made by Dr. Tristram’s party, which is all we yet have, was only a hurried sketch, and cannot be depended upon for minute details.

Footnote 209:

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

Footnote 210:

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

Footnote 211:

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

Footnote 212:

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

Footnote 213:

In the Museum at Pesth are a number of objects of Egyptian art, said to have been found in this quarter. Is it too much to assume the pre-existence of a Phœnician or Egyptian colony here before the Roman times?

Footnote 214:

As a matter of fact, 12th century would be more exact; nearly all the chief problems of pointed arch construction in intersecting vaulting having been worked out before the close of that century.

Footnote 215:

Footnote 216:

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

Footnote 217:

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

Footnote 218:

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

Footnote 219:

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

Footnote 220:

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

Footnote 221:

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

Footnote 222:

A great deal of very irrelevant matter has been written about these “giant cities of Bashan,” as if their age were a matter of doubt. There is nothing in the Hauran which can by any possibility date before the time of Roman supremacy in the country. The very earliest now existing are probably subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

Footnote 223:

The constructive dimensions of the porch at Chillambaram (p. 353. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 1876.) are very similar to those of this church: both have flat stone roofs, but in the Indian, though a much more modern example, there is no arch.

Footnote 224:

These are all given in colours in Texier and Pullan’s beautiful work on Byzantine architecture, from which all the particulars regarding this church are taken.

Footnote 225:

A wayside retreat or shelter.

Footnote 226:

A restoration of the church from Procopius’s description, ‘De Ædificiis,’ lib. i. ch. iv., will be found in Hübsch, ‘Altchristliche Baukunst,’ pls. xxxii. and xxxiii.

Footnote 227:

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

Footnote 228:

The Renaissance dome which fits best to the church on which it is placed is that of Sta. Maria at Florence; but, strange to say, it is neither the one originally designed for the place, nor probably at all like it. All the others were erected as designed by the architects who built the churches, and none fit so well.

Footnote 229:

Footnote 230:

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

Footnote 231:

The two eastern cupolas have been raised in Arab times, and a cylindrical drum inserted with windows pierced in them to give more light to the interior.

Footnote 232:

There are numerous examples of this class of structure in North Syria, but whether they are memorials or tombs is not known. See ‘Reisen Kleinasien und Nord Syria’ by Karl Humann and Otto Puchstein.

Footnote 233:

Footnote 234:

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

Footnote 235:

Footnote 236:

Footnote 237:

‘Die Kunst in den Athos Kirchen,’ Leipzig, 1890.

Footnote 238:

‘Athos; or, the Mountain of the Monks,’ by Athelstan Riley, M.A., 1887.

Footnote 239:

See the photogravure of the interior of the Catholicon at Dochiariu.

Footnote 240:

‘Églises Byzantines en Grèce.’

Footnote 241:

‘Expédition scientifique de la Morée.’

Footnote 242:

There would seem however to have been a revival in the 11th century, possibly a reflex of that which was taking place in West Europe. And it was during this period that the churches of St. Luke in Phoeis, the church at Daphné and the churches of St. Nicodemus and St. Theodore in Athens were erected.

Footnote 243:

C. Texier, ‘Arménie et la Perse.’ 2 vols. folio. Paris.

Footnote 244:

Dubois de Montpereux, ‘Voyage autour du Caucase.’ 6 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1839, 1841.

Footnote 245:

Brosset, ‘Voyage Archéologique dans la Georgie et l’Arménie.’ St. Pétersbourg, 1849.

Footnote 246:

D. Grimm, ‘Monuments d’Architecture en Georgie et Arménie.’ St. Pétersbourg, 1864.

Footnote 247:

Texier gives three dates to this church. In the ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ p. 174, it is said to be of the 7th, and at p. 4, of the 9th century. In the ‘L’Arménie et la Perse,’ at p. 120, the date is given as 1243. My conviction is that the first is correct.

Footnote 248:

Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ pls. 214, 215.

Footnote 249:

Texier and Pullan, ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ pp. lix., lx.

Footnote 250:

I am a little doubtful regarding the scales of these two buildings. They are correctly reduced from M. Brosset’s plates. But are these to be depended upon?

Footnote 251:

Even if it should be asserted that this is no proof that the inhabitants of these countries were Buddhists in those days, it seems tolerably certain that they were tree-worshippers, which is very nearly the same thing. Procopius tells us that “even in his day these barbarians worshipped forests and groves, and in their barbarous simplicity placed the trees among their gods.” (‘De Bello Gotico,’ Bonn, 1833, ii. 471.)

Footnote 252:

The principal part of the information regarding these excavations is to be found in the work of Dubois de Montpereux, passim.

Footnote 253:

Footnote 254:

All the plans and information regarding the churches at Kief are obtained from a Russian work devoted to the subject, procured for me on the spot by Mr. Vignoles, C.E.

Footnote 255:

The first bay, as shown on plan (Woodcut No. 382), is the narthex; the five domes come beyond it.

Footnote 256:

The particulars and illustrations of this church are taken from a paper by Heinrich Keissenberger, in the ‘Jahrbuch der K. K. Commission für Enthaltung der Baudenkmale,’ 1860. A model of it, full size, was exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1867.

Footnote 257:

Mr. Scott is even inclined to assign an earlier and more independent origin for the basilican form. According to his theory the germ of the Christian basilica was a simple oblong aisleless room divided by a cross arch, beyond which lay an altar detached from the wall. This germ was developed by the addition of side aisles, and sometimes an aisle returned across the entrance, and over these upper aisles were next constructed and transepts added, together with the oratories or chapels in various parts of the building. Mr. Butler, in his work on ‘The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt,’ accepts this theory, as the churches of Egypt are rich in evidence that favours it. At the same time, the first great basilica erected by Constantine, viz., the Vatican (St. Peter’s), and the Lateran, (St. John Lateran), are of too great importance to warrant the suggestion that their origin should be sought for in the very small though possibly earlier examples in Egypt or the East.—ED.]

Footnote 258:

This probably refers to its foundation, for M. Cattaneo, in his work ‘L’architecture en Italie, 1890,’ judging by its ornamental detail, places the church in the second half of the seventh century.

Footnote 259:

‘Antiquités,’ vol. i. pl. 97.

Footnote 260:

Eodem, vol. iv. pl. 67.

Footnote 261:

Mr. Alfred J. Butler’s work, already referred to, has thrown considerable light on the subject, though, as he was unable to visit any of the Coptic churches up the Nile, we are still left in doubt as to the age of the convent near Siout and other buildings. From comparison of the plans and descriptions given in Denon, Curzon and Pococke of these buildings, with those in Cairo and Old Cairo, Mr. Butler ascribes them to the fourth century, that which in fact is claimed for them as having been founded by Sta. Helena. On this subject he says, p. 365: “Were there no more of evidence besides to determine the truth of this tradition, the plan of the Haikal (the central of the three chapels in a Coptic church) would decide it beyond question. The persistence with which certain churches are ascribed to Sta. Helena by a people utterly ignorant of history and architecture is in itself remarkable, and it is still more remarkable to find that these churches are always marked by a particular form of Haikal. Indeed, so regular is the coincidence, that a deep apsidal haikal with recesses all round it and columns close against the wall may be almost infallibly dated from the age of Sta. Helena.”

Footnote 262:

The older church has been so altered and ruined by the subsequent rebuildings that it is extremely difficult to make out its history. It seems, however, to have been built originally above the site of an old Mithraic temple, which has recently been cleared out, and probably before the time of Gregory the Great. It was apparently rebuilt, or nearly so, by Adrian I., 772, and burnt by Robert Guiscard, 1084. The upper church seems to have been erected by Paschal, 1099-1118. The question is, to what age do the frescoes found on the walls of the older church belong? Some of the heads and single figures may, I fancy, be anterior even to the time of Adrian; but the bulk of the paintings seem certainly to have been added between his age and 1084, and nearer the latter than the former date. If it had not been entirely ruined in 1084 Paschal would not have so completely obliterated it a century afterwards. A considerable quantity of the materials of the old church were used in the new, which tends further to confuse the chronology.

Footnote 263:

Gutensohn and Knapp, ‘Die Basiliken des Christlichen Roms.’

Footnote 264:

Cicero de Legg., ii. 24; Festus, s. v.; Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Classical Antiquities.’

Footnote 265:

The dates here given generally refer to the building now existing or known, and not always to the original foundation.

The exact orientation of the sanctuary in each case has been added to the list.—ED.]

Footnote 266:

‘Il Vaticano discritto da Pistolesi,’ vol. ii. pls. xxiv. xxv.

Footnote 267:

The new church which superseded this one is described in the History of the Modern Styles of Architecture, vol. i., page 111, woodcut 45.

Footnote 268:

It should be observed that the dosseret is first found in Italy in the Church of St. Stefano Rotondo, built 468-482, and is there of similar design to examples in Thessalonica.

Footnote 269:

‘L’architecture en Italie du vie au xi^e siècle.’ Venice, 1891.

Footnote 270:

‘Altchristlichen Kirchen nach Baudenkmalen und alteren Beschreibungen,’ von D. Hubsch. Carlsruhe, 1862.

Footnote 271:

These piers were built in the 12th century, taking the place of the columns of the original Basilican church of the 9th century, and the arches date from the same period (Cattaneo).

Footnote 272:

It is now called S. Martino in Cielo d’Oro, from its having been decided in the twelfth century that the other church in Classe possessed the true body of the saint to which both churches were dedicated.

Footnote 273:

A. F. von Quast, ‘Die Altchristlichen Bauwerke von Ravenna.’

Footnote 274:

The basilica Pudenziana at Rome has similar arcades externally.

Footnote 275:

The twenty-four marble columns are said to have been brought over from Constantinople, but they were probably obtained from Greek quarries.

Footnote 276:

Footnote 277:

“La basilica di San Marco in Venezia,” by Cattaneo, continued by Boito. Venezia, 1890.

Footnote 278:

Probably owing to its having been utilized to receive the relics of St. Mark, which were temporarily hidden there.

Footnote 279:

This church, built by Justinian, no longer exists, having been pulled down in 1464 by Mohammed II. to make way for his mosque. From the description of it, however, given by Procopius, the plan was similar to that adopted in St. Mark, being that of a Greek Cross with central and four other domes. Procopius speaks of the church being surrounded within by columns placed both above and below, probably referring to galleries similar to those in St. Sophia of Constantinople. In St. Mark’s the columns exist in one storey only, and the main wall is carried up at the back of the aisles to give increased size inside.

Footnote 280:

Originally, according to M. Cattaneo, his was the vestibule to the atrium from the south, but it is now blocked up by an altar.

Footnote 281:

Footnote 282:

‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, M.A. Oxford, 1887.

Footnote 283:

In support of this statement he points out that twice during Christian times it had been found necessary to raise the floor of the church. The nave floor, which in 1857 was two steps below that of the aisles, was raised in 1881 to the same level; but two feet nine inches below the nave floor before it was raised there existed, according to Prof. Eitelberger, another mosaic pavement, which must have been the floor of the first basilica erected, and which was pulled down by Bishop Euphrasius in 543. This lower pavement extended also under the three chapels of the confessio, which suggests that these are part of the first basilica.

Footnote 284:

The same polygonal form is found in the apses of St. Agatha, St. Apollinare in Classe, St. Apollinare in Nuovo, St. Spirito, and St. Vitale, all in Ravenna, and St. Fosca, Torcello.

Footnote 285:

The apses of two churches, of the 4th and 6th century respectively, in the island of Paros, are similarly fitted with marble seats: in the 6th century church there are eight rows, so that the apse looks like a small amphitheatre.

Footnote 286:

That is on the supposition that the word kirk is derived from the Latin word “circus,” “circular,” as the French term it, “cirque.” My own conviction is that this is certainly the case. The word is only used by the Barbarians as applied to a form of buildings they derived from the Romans. Why the Germans should employ κυρίου οἶκος, when neither the Greeks nor the Latins used that name, is a mystery which those who insist on these very improbable names have as yet failed to explain.

Footnote 287:

The Tholos at Epidaurus seems to be an exception to this rule.

Footnote 288:

Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ plates 26 and 27.

Footnote 289:

M. Cattaneo states that it was built by Pope St. Simplice, 468-482.

Footnote 290:

Above the capitals are impost blocks or dosserets, the earliest known examples of that feature in Italy.

Footnote 291:

Prof. Middleton points out also the existence of rings of earthen pots in the vault of the tomb of Sta. Helena (Woodcut No. 227), and also in the vaults of the Circus of Maxentius, on the Via Appia.—ED.]

Footnote 292:

In this building they now show a sarcophagus of ancient date, said to be that of Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius. She, however, was certainly buried at Ravenna; but it may be of her time, and in these ages it is impossible to distinguish between baptisteries and tombs.

Footnote 293:

Frederick Von Osten, ‘Bauwerke in der Lombardei.’ Darmstadt, 1852.

Footnote 294:

By an oversight of the engraver, the vault of the nave, which ought to be made hexapartite, is drawn as quadripartite. [The nave was so completely restored in the 14th century as to render doubtful the original existence of a vault.—ED.]

Footnote 295:

Étude de l’Architecture Lombarde,’ par F. de Dartein. Paris, 1878.

Footnote 296:

These are incorrectly shown on woodcut. The central pier is nearly 4 feet wide and carried a transverse rib of the same size and of two orders.

Footnote 297:

Ferrario, ‘Monumenti Sacri e Profani dell’ I. R. Basilica di S. Ambrogio,’ Milan, 1824.

Footnote 298:

“Quid dicamus columnarum junceam proceritatem? Moles illas sublimissimas quasi quibusdam erectis hastilibus contineri substantiæ qualitate concavis canalibus excavatas vel magis ipsas æstimes esse transfusas. Ceris judices factum quod metallis durissimis videas expolitum. Marmorum juncturas venas dicas esse genitales, ubi dum falluntur oculi laus probatur crevisse miraculis.” In the above, metallum does not seem to mean metal as we now use the word, but any hard substance dug out of the ground. (Cassiodorus, Variorum, lib. vii. ch. 15.)

Footnote 299:

See vol. i. p. 372.

Footnote 300:

‘The Land of Moab,’ by Dr. Tristram (Murray, 1873), pp. 376 et seqq. [The small triangular marble panels referred to in Murano are of a very elementary character in their carving, and have scarcely the importance attached to them by Mr. Fergusson. Besides, the same wall decoration in brickwork is found in the apse of St. Fosca, Torcello (c. 1008), where, however, the triangular recesses are simply covered with stucco and painted; being closer to the eye in Murano, they filled the spaces with incised marble slabs: in other words, it seems more probable that the slabs were made for the triangular panels than the converse, which is suggested by Mr. Fergusson.—ED.]

Footnote 301:

The typical example of this class is the San Giorgio at Venice, though it is not by any means the one most like St. Pietro; many attempts were made before it became so essentially classical as this (see Woodcut No. 39, Vol. I. in the ‘History of Modern Architecture’).

Footnote 302:

From the boldness of the construction, M. Cattaneo is induced to place the erection of the building at the end of the 11th or beginning of the 12th century.

Footnote 303:

The four square towers of San Lorenzo, Milan, and the circular campanile by the side of the cathedral of Ravenna, are the earliest examples known, the latter dating from the commencement of the 5th century.

Footnote 304:

Footnote 305:

‘History of Medieval Art,’ by Dr. F. M. Reber, translated by J. T. Clarke. New York, 1887.

Footnote 306:

‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, A.R.A. Oxford, 1887.

Footnote 307:

Schultz, ‘Denkmäler der Kunst der Mittelalters in Unter-Italien.’ Folio, 1860.

Footnote 308:

The polygonal form given to the apse externally shows the direct influence of Byzantine art.

Footnote 309:

The cornice projects 1 ft. 10 in., and consequently overhangs the base by 13 ft.

Footnote 310:

The present cathedral is only a portion, viz. the transept of a much vaster edifice which was never completed; but the beautiful unfinished south front and portions of the gigantic nave and aisles still exist on the western side of the present cathedral, and the drawings of it are preserved in the archives of the Duomo.

Footnote 311:

Footnote 312:

If we may trust Wiebeking, the first two bays of the nave from the front were vaulted in 1588, but the work was suspended till 1647, and completed only in 1659. Yet no difference can be perceived in the details of the design.

Footnote 313:

The plan and section being taken from two different writers, there is a slight discrepancy between the scales. I believe the plan to be the more correct of the two, though I have no means of being quite certain on the point.

Footnote 314:

‘Dispareri d’Architettura.’

Footnote 315:

Within the last few years a façade has been added to Sta. Croce, but about which the less said the better. It is wretched in design.

Footnote 316:

Similar buildings at Bergamo, Brescia, and Monza are illustrated in Mr. Street’s beautiful work on the architecture of the North of Italy, from which the two last illustrations are borrowed.

Footnote 317:

In the Bodleian in Oxford is a MS. of the 14th century containing a view of the Piazzetta, engraved in Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ Introduction, p. xlviii., in which the outer wall of the building is shown resting on the inner wall of the arcade. This would suggest either that in Ziani’s building the upper wall was set back or that some subsequent changes were made in the two parts, of which, however, there is no record.

Footnote 318:

So called from its having been, according to Signor Boni (see Transactions R.I.B.A., vol. iii., new series, 1887), richly decorated with colour and gilding.

Footnote 319:

The same drawing shows that a calle or small street existed on the west, or left-hand side, as well as on the east, and the enriched work carved by Giovanni Bon, stonecutter (the architect of the Porta delle Carta of the Ducal Palace), was to extend along the whole front facing the Grand Canal and ten feet at each end down the two streets.

Footnote 320:

‘Architecture Moderne de la Sicile,’ fol. Paris, 1826-30.

Footnote 321:

‘Del Duomo di Monreale e di altre Chiese Siculo-Normane,’ fol. Palermo, 1838.

Footnote 322:

‘Normans in Sicily,’ 8vo. text, fol. plates, London, 1838.

Footnote 323: