CHAPTER II THE EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURE THE GROWTH OF THE GREAT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. THE ARCHITECTURE OF EGYPT, OF ASSYRIA, OF GREECE, OF ROME. BYZANTINE AND ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE IN order to acquire a practical familiarity with the architecture which surrounds us to-day, and to be practically familiar with its forms, it is obviously necessary to acquire some general knowledge of the evolution of architecture through the ages and in the several countries of Europe. It is customary and, indeed, quite proper, to commence a study of the history of architecture with its beginnings in Egypt, although architectural evolution has left no vestige of actual Egyptian detail in modern buildings. The recognisable characteristics of architecture manifest themselves in three principal directions: in the structural character of the building (column construction, arch construction or otherwise); in its general mass, or form (tall and vertical, or low-spreading and horizontal) and in its detail (in the kind of architectural mouldings or ornaments peculiar to each type or nationality). There are, again, three broad divisions in which to consider types of buildings: religious, secular public and secular private buildings. It is essential to consider, instinctively, in which class a given building belongs, because much of the confusion which exists in the consideration of architecture arises from vague classification, or none at all. And classification should 28 always be the basis of comparison, and comparison is the royal road to intelligent and practical comprehension. The importance of these broad divisions, which must come to make themselves felt instinctively, will become increasingly apparent as study progresses. Commencing with the architecture of Egypt, it will be realised subsequently what a complex architectural fabric was gradually built up upon an essentially simple foundation. For the purpose of this book the following history of architectural evolution will be presented in the most concise form possible, with the intention of enlarging upon certain phases of it in subsequent chapters. THE ARCHITECTURE OF EGYPT The type of Egyptian building which played its part in later architectural evolution was not the secular building, either public or private, but the religious building-in this case, the temple. The Egyptian dwelling was, for the most part, a very modest affair, and very perishable, both actually and stylistically. Not only are there no examples preserved in the condition of the Roman villas of Pompeii and Herculaneum, but the Egyptian residence appears to have had little if any influence upon the later evolution of the private house. Some idea of its form has been preserved in elaborate contemporary wall-paintings and bas-reliefs, but since its influence on architectural design did not extend beyond the days of the Pharaohs, it is more profitable to consider the religious, or temple, architecture of ancient Egypt. Essentially, Egyptian architecture was a stone architecture, and structurally it was an architecture based on the column and lintel (a lintel being any horizontal member resting upon two vertical members). Although the arch was known to the Egyptians, their builders appear to have regarded it as a mean and ignoble substitute for the enormous stones which they used to span the distances between their columns. For the most part, it would seem that the Egyptians gauged the merit of their buildings by the size of the stones which they employed. Although they built many of their greater columns, such as those in the great hall at Karnak, of huge cylindrical drums, they thought highly of monolithic columns, hewn from one piece of stone. Theirs was an architecture of sublime proportions, of massive forms and simple lines. Their columns were far heavier than those later developed by the Greeks, and the forms of the capitals or heads of the columns, were inspired by such local flora as palm-leaves and lotus flowers. Egyptian architecture is powerfully illustrative of the influences which social and natural conditions exert upon architectural character. Being essentially a religious country, actually ruled by the priests, the principal form of building was the temple, and being essentially a treeless country, the principal building material was stone. The Egyptians, of course, understood the manufacture and use of bricks, but with their basic passion for building for eternity, their crude bricks doubtless seemed to be perishable, and certainly not so noble as their enormous stone members, so brick played no such part in Egyptian architecture as it later played in the buildings of the Assyrians. Indicative of the Egyptian architectural ideal of "eternity," there are the rock-cut temples, hewn from stone mountain sides, and the usual tomb, which, when not buried beneath the artificial mountain of a pyramid, was cut into the solid rock of the Theban Hills. Thus it is to be inferred that the Egyptians preferred permanency even to the impressive majesty of fine architecture. They were content to rest in a hidden chamber far in the heart of the living rock, rather than in an ornate mausoleum. All Egyptian architectural and monumental remains testify to this predeliction-the Sphinx, hewn from the solid rock, the monolithic obelisks, the great rock-cut temple of Rameses II at Abu-Simbel, the colossal statues and massive pylons-all these are characterised by a strength and immobility which have defied the centuries and the waves of destructive invasion which have swept over Egypt. Yet, for all its qualities of massive form, Egyptian architecture was not sombre, and Egyptian architects. and artists evolved many decorative forms from lotus, palm and papyrus which were essentially graceful and delicate. Nor was the architecture of Egypt by any means devoid of colour. The pictorial bas-relief carvings, the inscriptions and decorative details of the temples and tombs were richly, even garishly, painted in many and bright colours. The erosion of sand and time has dimmed these where they have been exposed, but in the shelter of many tombs and rock-hewn sanctuaries the colours are to be found as intense and vivid as though they had but recently come from the brush of the painter. The transitional step from Egyptian to Greek architecture is generally given as existing in a rock-cut temple at Beni-Hassan, often called the "Proto-Doric Temple," because the form of the columns bears a striking similarity to the Greek Doric column, the first of the great Greek "orders." Of the architectural legacy of Egypt to Greece, more may be appreciated in connection with the consideration of Greek architecture. THE ARCHITECTURE OF ASSYRIA The architecture of ancient Assyria differed quite distinctly from that of Egypt, and its characteristics, like those of Egyptian architecture, were the direct outcome of social and natural conditions. Secular architecture was more prominent, notably in the magnificent palaces of the kings, and, being a race less religious and less dominated by the priesthood, temples were far less conspicuous. And being a country devoid, for the most part, of building stone as well as timber, but abounding in clay, Assyria naturally developed a brick architecture instead of a stone architecture. Structurally, since the brick is a small structural unit, the great lintel construction of the Egyptians was not possible, so the arch was used considerably, both in its true form, and in some other forms. Roofing was often accomplished by the use of wood, though there is considerable dispute on this question among archæologists, and several theories maintaining that textiles were largely used. Of Assyrian buildings only the walls and floors remain, but the area of many of the great rooms could have been spanned only by timbers, on which, perhaps, there was devised a covering of lighter wood, then thatch and clay. Most versions of the form of Assyrian buildings are conjectural, though it is known with certainty that the palaces and temples were of vast size, and were impressively elevated on a series of great terraces, approached by broad flights of steps. And whatever particulars of Assyrian architecture are conjectural, it is certain |