My Fine Art Story Book: Volume Eight

My Fine Art Story Book

Volume Eight

Stories of Artists and Fine Art

Pieces for the Young Reader

Compiled by Marlene Peterson

Libraries of Hope

My Fine Art Story Book

Volume Eight

Copyright © 2023 by Libraries of Hope, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. International rights and foreign translations available only through permission of the publisher.

Book Design and Layout: Krystal D’Abarno

Cover Image: The Blessing, by Harry Roseland (c. 1905). In public domain, source Wikimedia Commons.

Clement, Clara Erskine. (1886). An Outline History of Architecture for Beginners and Students. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co.

Libraries of Hope, Inc.

Appomattox, Virginia 24522

Website: www.librariesofhope.com

Email: librariesofhope@gmail.com

Printed in the United States of America

Architecture - Part Oned

Architectural Landscape

Ancient or Heathen Architecture

3000 B.C. to A.D. 328

Architecture seems to me to be the most wonderful of all the arts. We may not love it as much as others, when we are young perhaps we cannot do so, because it is so great and so grand; but at any time of life one can see that in Architecture some of the most marvellous achievements of men are displayed. The principal reason for saying this is that Architecture is not an imitative art, like Painting and Sculpture. The first picture that was ever painted was a portrait or an imitation of something that the painter had seen. So in Sculpture, the first statue or bas-relief was an attempt to reproduce some being or object that the sculptor had seen, or to make a work which combined portions of several things that he had observed; but in Architecture this was not true. No temples or tombs or palaces existed until they had first taken form in the mind and imagination of the builders. and were created out of space and nothingness, so to speak. Thus Painting and Sculpture are imitative arts, but Architecture is a constructive art; and while one may love pictures or statues more than the work of the architect, it seems to me that one must wonder most at the last.

We do not know how long the earth has existed, and in studying the most ancient times of which we have any accurate knowledge, we come upon facts which prove that men must have lived and died long before the dates of which we can speak exactly. The earliest nations of whose Architecture we can give an account are called heathen nations, and their art is called Ancient or Heathen Art, and this comes down to the time when the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, and changed the Roman Capitol from Rome to Constantinople in the year of our Lord 328. The buildings and the ruins which still remain from these ancient times are in Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Judea, Asia Minor, Greece, Etruria, and Rome. Many of these have been excavated or uncovered, as, during the ages that have passed since their erection, they had been buried away from sight by the accumulation of earth about them. These excavations are always going on in various countries, and men are ever striving to learn more about the wonders of ancient days; and we may hope that in the future as marvellous things may be revealed to us as have been shown in the past.

The Pyramids at Gizeh

As we consider the Architecture of Egypt, the Great Pyramid first attracts attention on account of its antiquity and its importance. This was built by Cheops, who is also called Suphis, about 3000 years before Christ. At that distant day the Egyptians seem to have been a nation of pyramid-builders, for even now, after all the years that have rolled between them and us, we know of more than sixty of these mysterious monuments which have been opened and explored. Of all these the three pyramids at Ghizeh are best known, and that of Cheops is the most remarkable among them. Those of you who have studied the history of the wars of Napoleon I will remember that it was near this spot that he fought the so-called Battle of the Pyramids, and that in addressing his soldiers he reminded them that here the ages looked down upon them, thus referring to the many years during which this great pyramid had stood on the border of the desert, as if watching the flight of Time and calmly waiting to see what would happen on the final day of all earthly things.

There have been much speculation and many opinions as to the use for which these pyramids were made, but the most general belief is that they were intended for the tombs of the powerful kings who

reigned in Egypt and caused them to be built. The pyramid of Cheops was four hundred and eighty feet and nine inches high, and its base was seven hundred and sixty-four feet square. It is so difficult to understand the size of anything from mere figures, that I shall try to make it plainer by saying that it covers more than thirteen acres of land, which is more than twice as much as is covered by any building in the world. Its height is as great as that of any cathedral spire in Europe, and more than twice that of the monument on Bunker Hill, which is but two hundred and twenty feet, and yet looks very high. When it was built it was covered with a casing of stone, the different pieces being fitted together and polished to a surface like glass; but this covering has been torn away and the stones used for other purposes, which has left the pyramid in a series of two hundred and three rough and jagged steps, some of them being two feet and a half in height, growing less toward the top, but not diminishing with any regularity. The top is now a platform thirty-two feet and eight inches square. Each traveller who ascends this pyramid has from one to four Fellahs or Arabs, who pull him forward or upward by his arms, or push him and lift him from behind, and finally drag him to the top. When he thinks of all the weary months and days of the twenty years during which it is said that those who built it worked, cutting out the stone in the quarries, moving it to the spot where it was required, and then raising it to the great heights and fitting it all in place, he regards his fatigue in its ascent as a little thing, though at the time it is no joke to him.

Many of the pyramids were encased in stone taken from the Mokattam Mountains, which were somewhat more than half a mile distant; but the pyramid of Cheops was covered with the red Syenite granite, which must have been quarried in the “red mountain,” nearly five hundred miles away, near to Syene, or the modern Assouan. The interior of the pyramid is divided into chambers and passages, which are lined with beautiful slabs of granite and constructed in such a way as to prove that at the remote time in which the pyramids were built

Prussian Egypt Expedition on top of the Great Pyramid

Egyptian architects and workmen were already skilled in planning and executing great works. Of the seventy pyramids known to have existed in those early days, sixty-nine had the entrance on the north side, leaving but a single exception to this rule; all of them were situated on the western side of the River Nile, just on the edge of the desert, beyond the strip of cultivable ground which borders the river.

Near the pyramids there are numerous tombs, which are built somewhat like low houses, having several apartments with but one entrance from the outside. The walls of these apartments are adorned with pictures; they represent the manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians with great exactness.

The tombs at Beni-Hassan are among the most ancient ruins of Egypt, and are very interesting. They were made between 2466 and 2266 B.C. They are on the eastern bank of the Nile, and are hewn out of the solid rock; they are ornamented with sculptures and pictures which are full of interest; it has been said that these tombs were built by the Pharaoh, or king, of Joseph’s time, and one of the paintings is often spoken of as being a representation of the brethren of Joseph; but of this there is no proof. The colors of the pictures are fresh and bright, and they show that many of the customs and amusements of that long, long ago were similar to our own, and in some cases quite the same. The manufactures of glass and linen, cabinet work, gold ornaments, and other artistic objects are pictured there; the games of all, draughts, and morra are shown, while the animals, birds, and fishes of Egypt are all accurately depicted.

The tombs near Thebes which are called the “Tombs of the Kings,” and many other Egyptian tombs, are very interesting, and within a short time some which had not before been observed have been opened, and proved to be rich in decorations, and also to contain valuable ornaments and works of art, as well as papyri, or records of historical value.

The most magnificent of all the Egyptian tombs is that of King Seti I, who began to reign in 1366 B.C. He was fond of splendid build-

ings, and all the architects of his time were very busy in carrying out his plans. His tomb was not discovered until 1817, and was then found by an Italian traveller, whose name, Belzoni, has been given to the tomb. The staircase by which it is entered is twenty-four feet long, and opens into a spacious passage, the walls of which are beautifully ornamented with sculptures and paintings. This is succeeded by other staircases, fine halls, and corridors, all of which extend four hundred and five feet into the mountain in which the tomb is excavated, making also a gradual descent of ninety feet from its entrance. It is a wonderful monument to the skill and taste of the architects who lived and labored more than three thousand years ago.

The two principal cities of ancient Egypt were Memphis and Thebes. The first has been almost literally taken to pieces and carried away, for as other more modern cities have been built up near it, the materials which were first used in the old temples and palaces have been carried here and there, and again utilized in erecting new edifices.

Thebes, on the contrary, has stood alone during all the centuries that have passed since its decline, and there is now no better spot in which to study the ancient Egyptian architecture, because its temples are still so complete that a good idea can be formed from them of what they must have been when they were perfect. The ruins at Thebes are on both banks of the Nile, and no description can do justice to their grandeur, or give a full estimate of their wonders; but I shall try to tell something of the palace-temple of Karnak, which has been called “the noblest effort of architectural magnificence ever produced by the hand of man.”

The word palace-temple has a strange sound to us because we do not now associate the ideas which the two words represent. Many palaces of more modern countries and times have their chapels, but the union of a grand temple and a grand palace is extremely rare, to say the least. Perhaps the Vatican and St. Peter’s at Rome represent the idea and spirit of the Egyptian palace-temples as nearly as any buildings that

are now in existence.

The Egyptian religion controlled all the affairs of the nation. The Pharaoh, or king, was the chief of the religion, as well as of the State. When a king came to the throne he became a priest also, by being made a member of a priestly order. He was instructed in sacred learning; he regulated the service of the temple; on great occasions he offered the sacrifices himself, and, in fact, he was considered not only as a descendant of gods, but as a veritable god. In some sculptures and paintings the gods are represented as attending upon the kings, and after the death of a king the same sort of veneration was paid to him as that given to the gods. This explains the building of the palace and temple together, and shows the reason why the gods and the kings, and the affairs of religion and of government, could not be separated. As we study the arts of different countries we are constantly reminded that the religion of a people is the central point from which the arts spring forth. From its teachings they take their tone, and adapt their forms and uses to its requirements. I refer to this fact from time to time because it is important to remember that it underlies much of the art of the world.

It may be said that all the art of Egypt was devoted to the service of its religion. Of course this is true of that used in the decoration of the temples; it is also true of all that did honor to the kings, because they were regarded as sacred persons, and all their wars and wonderful acts which are represented in sculpture and painting, and by statues and obelisks, are considered as deeds that were performed for the sake of the gods and by their aid.

It was also the religious belief in the immortality of the soul that led the Egyptians to build their tombs with such care, and to provide such splendid places in which to lay the body, which was the house of the spirit.

In the study of Architecture it will also be noted that a country which has no national religion—or one in which the government and the religion have no connection with each other—has no absolutely

national architecture. It will have certain features which depend upon the climate, the building materials at command, and upon the general customs of the people; but here and there will be seen specimens of all existing orders of architecture, and buildings in some degree representing the art of all countries and periods; such architecture is known by the term composite, because it is composed of portions of several different orders, and has no absolutely distinct character.

This palace-temple of Karnak is made up of a collection of courts and halls, and it is very difficult to comprehend the size of all these parts which go to make up the enormous whole. The entire space devoted to it is almost twice as large as the whole area of St. Peter’s at Rome, and four times as great as any of the other cathedrals of Europe; a dozen of the largest American churches could be placed within its limits and there still be room for a few chapels. All this enormous space is not covered by roofs, for there were many courts and passages which were always open to the sky, and one portion was added after another, and by one sovereign and another, until the completion of the whole was made long after the Pharaoh who commenced it had been laid in one of the tombs of the kings.

The most remarkable apartment of all is called the great Hypostyle Hall, which high-sounding name means simply a hall with pillars. This hall and its two pylons, or entrances, cover more space than the great cathedral of Cologne, which is one of the largest and most famous churches of all Europe.

This splendid hall had originally one hundred and thirty-four magnificent columns, of which more than one hundred still remain; they are of colossal size, some of them being sixty feet high without the base or capital, which would increase them to ninety feet, and their diameter is twelve feet. This large number of columns was necessary to uphold the roof, as the Egyptians knew nothing of the arch, and had no way of supporting a covering over a space wider than it was possible to cover by beams. The hall was lighted by making the columns down the

Hall of Columns in the Temple of Karnak

Grand Entrance to the Temple of Luxor

middle half as high again as the others, so that the roof was lifted, and the light came in at the sides, which were left open.

As I must speak often of columns, it is well to say here that the column or pillar usually consists of three parts—the base, the shaft, and the capital. The base is the lowest part on which the shaft rests. Sometimes, as in the Grecian Doric order, the base is left out. The capital is the head of the column, and is usually the most ornamental part, giving the most noticeable characteristics of the different kinds of pillars. The shaft is the body of the pillar, between the base and capital, or all below the capital when the base is omitted.

The Egyptian pillars seem to have grown out of the square stone piers which at first were used for support. The square corners were first cut off, making an eight-sided pier; then some architect carried the cutting farther, and by slicing off each corner once more gave the pillar sixteen sides. ... In the Egyptian pillars it was usual to leave one side unchannelled and ornament it with hieroglyphics. In time the forms of the Egyptian pillars became very varied, and the richest ornaments were used upon them. The columns in the hall at Karnak are very much decorated with painting and sculptures. The capitals represent the fullblown flowers and the buds of the sacred lotus, or water-lily. In other cases the pillars were made to represent bundles of the papyrus plant, and the capitals were often beautifully carved with palm leaves or ornamented with a female head.

The whole impression of grandeur made by the Temple of Karnak was increased by the fact that the Temple of Luxor, which is not far away, is also very impressive and beautiful, and was formerly connected with Karnak by an avenue bordered on each side with a row of sphinxes cut out of stone. These were a kind of statue which belonged to Egyptian art, and originated in an Egyptian idea, although a resemblance to it exists in the art of other ancient countries.

Before the Temple of Luxor stood Colossi, or enormous statues, of Rameses the Great, who built the temple, and not far distant were two

fine obelisks, one of which is now in Paris.

There was much irregularity in the lines and plan of Egyptian palaces and temples. It often happens that the side walls of an apartment or courtyard are not at right angles; the pillars were placed so irregularly and the decorations so little governed by any rule in their arrangement, that it seems as if the Egyptians were intentionally regardless of symmetry and regularity.

The whole effect of the ancient Thebes can scarcely be imagined; its grandeur was much increased by the fact that its splendid buildings were on both banks of the Nile, which river flowed slowly and majestically by, as if it borrowed a sort of dignity from the splendid piles which it reflected, and which those who sailed upon its bosom regarded with awe and admiration. There are many other places on the Nile where one sees wonderful ruins of ancient edifices, but we have not space to describe or even to name them, and Thebes is the most remarkable of all. ...

The obelisks of ancient Egypt have a present interest which is almost personal to everybody, since so many of them have been taken away from the banks of the Nile and so placed that they now overlook the Bosphorus, the Tiber, the Seine, the Thames, and our own Hudson River; in truth, there are twelve obelisks in Rome, which is a larger number than are now standing in all Egypt.

Two such obelisks were known as Cleopatra’s Needles. They have both crossed the seas; one was presented to the British nation by Mehemet Ali, and the other, which now stands in Central Park, was a gift to America from the late Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha.

The obelisks were usually erected by the kings to express their worship of the gods, and stood before the temple bearing dedications of the house to its particular deity; they were covered with the quaint, curious devices which served as letters to the Egyptians, which we call hieroglyphics, and each sovereign thus recorded his praises, and declared his respect for the special gods whom he wished to honor. They

Cleopatra’s Needle in Alexandria of Egypt

The Israelites Leaving Egypt by

were very striking objects, and must have made a fine effect when the temples and statues and avenues of sphinxes, and all the ancient grandeur of the Egyptians was at its height; and these grave stone watchmen looked down upon triumphal processions and gorgeous ceremonials, and kings and queens with their trains of courtiers passed near them on their way to and from the temple-palaces.

It is always interesting to study the houses and homes of a people—domestic architecture, as it is called; but one cannot do that in Egypt. It may almost be said that but one ancient home exists, and as that probably belonged to some royal person, we cannot learn from it how the people lived. There were many very rich Egyptians outside of the royal families, and they dwelt in splendor and luxury; on the other hand, there were multitudes of slaves and very poor people, who had barely enough to eat to keep them alive and enable them to do the work which was set them by their task-masters.

The house of which we speak is at Medinet Habou, on the opposite side of the Nile from Karnak. It has three floors, with three rooms on each floor, and is very irregular in form. But if we have no ancient houses to study in Egypt, we can learn much about them from the paintings which still exist, and we may believe that the cities which surrounded the old temples fully displayed the wealth and taste of the inhabitants. These pictures show the houses in the midst of gardens laid out with arbors, pavilions, artificial lakes, and many beautiful objects, such as we see in the fine gardens of our own day.

After about 1200 B.C. there was a long period of decline in the architecture of Egypt; occasionally some sovereign tried to do as the older kings had done, but no real revival of the arts occurred until the rule of the Ptolemies was established; this was after 332 B.C., when Alexander the Great conquered the Persians, who had ruled in Egypt about one hundred and ninety-five years.

Under the Ptolemies Egypt was as prosperous as she had been under the Pharaohs, but the arts of this later time never reached such purity

and greatness as was shown in the best days of Thebes; the buildings were rich and splendid instead of noble and grand, or, as we might say, “more for show” than was the older style.

It is singular that, though the Egypt of the Ptolemies was under Greek and Roman influence, it still remained essentially Egyptian. It seems as if the country had a sort of converting effect upon the strangers who planned and built the temples of Denderah, and Edfou, and beautiful Philæ, and made them try to work and build as if they were the sons of the pure old Egyptians instead of foreign conquerors. So true is this that before A.D. 1799, when scholars began to read hieroglyphics, the learned men of Europe who studied art believed that these later temples were older than those of Thebes.

Outside of Thebes there is no building now to be seen in Egypt which gives so charming an impression of what Egypt might be as does the lovely temple on the island of Philæ. Others are more sublime and imposing, but none are so varied and beautiful.

There is no more attractive spot in Egypt than this island, and when we know that the priests who served in the Temple of Isis here were never allowed to leave the island, we do not feel as if that was a misfortune to them. It was a pity, however, that none but priests were allowed to go there, and in passing I wish to note the fact that this was the most ancient monastery of which we know; for that it was in simple fact, and the monks lived lives of strict devotion and suffered severe penance. ...

The weakness of Egyptian architecture lay in its monotony or sameness. Not only did it not develop historically, remaining very much the same as long as it lasted, but the same forms are repeated until, even with all their grandeur, they become wearisome. The plan of the temples varies little; the tendency toward the shape of the pyramid appears everywhere; while the powerful influence of the ritual of the Egyptian religion gives a strong likeness among all the places of worship. The Greeks performed the most important parts of their service in the open

air before the temples, and almost all their care was lavished on exteriors; the Egyptians, on the other hand, elaborated the interior with great abundance of ornaments, yet without that power of adaptation which gave so great an air of variety and grace to Grecian art.

A second and even more serious fault in Egyptian architecture is a want of proportion. In natural organized objects there is always a fixed proportion between the parts, so that if a naturalist is given a single bone of an animal he can reproduce with considerable exactness the entire beast. In art it is necessary to follow this principle of adapting one part to another, and without this both grace and refinement are wanting. The Egyptian temples are often too massive, so that they impress by their size simply, and not by any beauty of plan or arrangement. Yet for grandeur and impressiveness no nation has ever excelled the Egyptians as builders. One may prefer the style and the ornamentation of the Greeks, or the forms and arrangement of the Gothic order; but, taken as a whole, the combination of architecture, sculpture, painting, and hieroglyphics which goes to make up an Egyptian temple, with the addition of the obelisks, the avenues of sphinxes and the Colossi, which all seemed to belong together—these, one and all, result in a whole that has never been surpassed in effect during the thirty centuries that have rolled over the earth since Cheops built his magnificent tomb on the great desert of Egypt.

Nineveh

Assyria

Our knowledge of Egyptian history is more exact than that of some other ancient nations, because scholars have been able to read Egyptian hieroglyphics for a much longer time than they have read the cuneiform or arrow-headed inscriptions which are found in Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. But we know a great deal about the ruins of Assyria, and especially of the cities of Nineveh and Khorsabad, where there are wonderful architectural remains.

The walls which surrounded Nineveh are an important part of its ruins. It is said that in the days of the earliest sovereign these walls were one hundred feet high, and so broad that three chariots could drive abreast on their top. This story does not seem unreasonable, for all the years that have passed, and all the dust and deposit of these ages that are collected about the foot of the walls, still leave some places where they are forty-six feet high and from one to two hundred feet wide. The lower portion was of limestone, and the upper of sun-dried bricks; the blocks of stone were neatly hewn out and smoothly polished. The walls surrounded the city, which was so large that one hundred and seventy-five thousand people could live there, and we know that its inhabitants were very numerous. The gates which opened through the walls were surmounted by lofty towers, and it is supposed that shorter towers were built upon the walls between the gateways.

It seems that there were four separate gates, and between them large chambers which may have been used by soldiers or guards. The two outer gates were ornamented by sculptured figures of colossal bulls with human heads and other strange designs; but the inner gates had a plain finish of alabaster slabs. It is thought that arches covered these gateways like some representations of gates which are seen on Assyrian bas-reliefs. Within the gates there is a pavement of large slabs, in which the marks worn by chariot wheels are still plainly seen. We learn that the Assyrians made their religion a prominent part of their lives. The inscriptions of the kings begin and end with praises and prayers to their gods, and on all occasions religious worship is spoken of as a principal duty. We know that the monarchs devoted much care to the temples, and built new ones continually; but it also appears from the excavations that have been made that they devoted the best of their art and the greatest sum of their riches to the palace of their kings. The temple was far less splendid than the palace to which it was attached as a sort of appendage. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the Assyrian kings received more than the monarchs of any other ancient people divine honors while still living; so that the palace was regarded as the actual dwelling of a god. The inner ornamentation of the temples was confined to religious subjects represented on sculptured slabs upon the walls, but no large proportion of the wall was decorated, and the rest was merely plastered and painted in set figures. The gateways and entrances were guarded by sacred figures of colossal bulls, or lions, and covered with inscriptions; there was a similarity between the palace entrances and those of the temples. ...

The principal apartments of the palaces were the courts, the grand halls, and the small, private chambers. The fine palaces had several courts each; they varied from one hundred and twenty by ninety feet, to two hundred and fifty by one hundred and fifty feet in size, and were paved in the same way as the platforms outside.

The grand halls were the finest portions of these splendid edifices; 30

here was the richest ornament, and the walls were lined with sculptured slabs, while colossal bulls, winged genii, and other figures were placed at the entrances. Upon the slabs the principal events in the lives of the monarchs were represented, as well as their portraits, and religious ceremonies, battles, and many incidents of interest to the nation. The smaller chambers surrounded these grand halls, and the number of rooms was very large; in one palace which has been but partially explored there are sixty-eight apartments, and it is not probable that any Assyrian palace had less than forty or fifty rooms on its ground floor. Of all the palaces which have been examined that of Khorsabad is best known and can be most exactly described. It is believed that Sargon, a son of Sennacherib, built it, and it is very splendid. After entering at the great portal one passes through various courts and corridors; these are all adorned with sculptures such as have been described above; at length one reaches the great inner court of the palace, which was a square of about one hundred and fifty feet in size. This court had buildings on two sides, and the other sides extended to the edge of the terrace of the platform on which the palace was built, and commanded broad views of the open country. On one side the buildings contained the less important apartments of the officers of the court; the grand state apartments were on the other side. There were ten of these at Khorsabad; five were large halls, four were smaller chambers, and one a long and narrow room. Three of the large halls were connected with one another, and their decorations were by far the most splendid of any in the palace. In one of them the sculptures represented the king superintending the reception and chastisement of prisoners, and is called the “Hall of Punishment.” The middle hall has no distinguishing feature, but the third opened into the “Temple Court,” on one side of which the small temple was situated. The lower sculptures of the middle and third halls represented the military history of Sargon, who is seen in all sorts of soldier-like positions and occupations; some of the upper sculptures represent religious ceremonies.

On one side of the Temple Court there were several chambers called Priests’ Rooms, but the temple itself and the portions of the palace connected with it are not as well preserved as the other parts, and have nothing about them to interest us in their study.

The palaces of Nineveh are much less perfect than the palace-temples of Thebes, and cannot be described with as much exactness. There is no wall of them still standing more than sixteen feet above the ground, and we do not even know whether they had upper stories or not, or how they were lighted—in a word, nothing is positively known about them above the ground floors, and it is very strange that the sculptures nowhere represent a royal residence. But what we do know of the Assyrians proves that they equalled and perhaps excelled all other Oriental nations as architects and designers, as well as in other departments of art and industry.

This representation [see the painting at the beginning of the chapter] of an Assyrian palace is a restoration, as it is called, being made up by a careful study of the remains and such facts as can be learned from bas-reliefs, and cannot be wholly unlike the dwellings of the king-gods. It is pleasing in general appearance, and for lightness and elegance is even to be preferred to Egyptian architecture, though it is far inferior in dignity and impressiveness. The Assyrians knew the use of both column and arch, but never developed either to any extent. They also employed the obelisk, and it is noticeable that instead of terminating it with a pyramid, as was the case in Egypt, they capped it with the diminishing terraces, which is the fundamental form which underlies all the architecture of the country, as the smooth pyramid is the most prominent element in the architecture of Egypt.

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Babylon

It is probable that Babylon was the largest and finest of all the ancient cities. The walls which surrounded it, together with its hanging gardens, were reckoned among the “seven wonders of the world” by the ancients. Its walls were pierced by a hundred gates and surmounted by two hundred and fifty towers; these towers added much to the grand appearance of the city; they were not very high above the walls, and were probably used as guard-rooms by soldiers.

The River Euphrates ran through the city. Brick walls were built upon its banks, and every street which led to the river had a gateway in these walls which opened to a sloping landing which extended down to the water’s edge; boats were kept at these landings for those who wished to cross the stream. There was also a foot-bridge across the river that could be used only by day, and one writer, Diodorus, declares that a tunnel also existed which joined the two sides of the river, and was fifteen feet wide and twelve feet high in the inside.

The accounts of the “Hanging Gardens” make it seem that they resembled an artificial terraced mountain built upon arches of masonry and covered with earth, in which grew trees, shrubs, and flowers. It is said by some writers that this mountain was at least seventy-five feet high, and occupied a square of four acres; others say that in its highest part it reached three hundred feet; but all agree that it was a wonderful

work and very beautiful.

In the interior of the structure machinery was concealed which raised water from the Euphrates and filled a reservoir at the summit, from which it was taken to moisten the earth and nourish the plants. Flights of steps led up to the top, and on the way there were entrances to fine apartments where one could rest. These rooms, built in the walls which supported the structure, were cool and pleasant, and afforded fine views of the city and its surroundings. The whole effect of the gardens when seen from a distance was that of a wooded pyramid. It seems a pity that it should have been called a ‘’Hanging Garden,’’ since, when one knows how it was built, this name is strangely unsuitable, and carries a certain disappointment with it.

The accounts of the origin of this garden are interesting. One of them says that it was made by Semiramis, a queen who was famous for her prowess as a warrior, for having conquered some cities and built others, for having dammed up the River Euphrates, and performed many marvellous and heroic deeds. It is not probable that any woman ever did all the wonders which are attributed to Semiramis, but we love to read these tales of the old, old time, and it is important for us to know them since they are often referred to in books and in conversation. Another account relates that the gardens were made by Nebuchadnezzar to please his Median queen, Amytis, because the country round about Babylon seemed so barren and desolate to her, and she longed for the lovely scenery of her native land.

What

we have said will show that

the Babylonians were advanced in the science of such works as come more properly under the head of engineering; their palaces were also fine, and their dwelling-houses lofty; they had three or four stories, and were covered by vaulted roofs. But the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, lavished their best art upon their temples. The temple was built in the most prominent position and magnificently adorned. It was usually within a walled inclosure, and the most important temple at Babylon, called that of Belus, is said to have

had an area of thirty acres devoted to it. The chief distinguishing feature of a Babylonish temple was a tower built in stages. The number of the stages varied, eight being the largest. At the summit of the tower there was a chapel or an altar, and the ascent was by steps or an inclined plane which wound around the sides of the tower. The Babylonians were famous astronomers, and it is believed that these towers were used as observatories as well as for places of worship. At the base of the tower there was a chapel for the use of those who could not ascend the height, and near by, in the open air, different altars were placed, for the worship of the Babylonians included the offering of sacrifices.

Very ancient writers describe the riches of the shrines at Babylon as being of a value beyond our belief. They tell of colossal images of the gods of solid gold; of enormous lions in the same precious metal; of serpents of silver, each of thirty talents’ weight (a talent equalled about two thousand dollars of our money), and of golden tables, bowls, and drinking-cups, besides magnificent offerings of many kinds which faithful worshippers had devoted to the gods. These great treasures fell into the hands of the Persians when they conquered Babylon.

The Birs-i-Nimrud has been more fully examined than any other Babylonish ruin, and a description of it can be given with a good degree of correctness. As it now stands, every brick in it bears the name of Nebuchadnezzar; it is believed that he repaired or rebuilt it, but there is no reason to think that he changed its plan. Be this as it may, it is a very interesting ruin. It was a temple raised on a platform and built in seven stages; these stages represented the seven spheres in which the seven planets moved (according to the ancient astronomy), and a particular color was assigned to each planet, and the stages colored according to this idea. That of the sun was golden; the moon, silver; Saturn, black; Jupiter, orange; Mars, red; Venus, pale yellow, and Mercury, deep blue. It is curious to know how the various colors were obtained. The lower stage, representing Saturn, was covered with bitumen; that of

Jupiter was faced with bricks burned to an orange color; that of Mars was made of bricks from a bright red clay and half burned, so that they had a blood-red tint; the stage dedicated to the sun was probably covered with thin plates of gold; that of Venus had pale yellow bricks; that of Mercury was subjected to intense heat after it was erected, and this produced vitrification and gave it a blue color; and the stage of the moon was coated in shining white metals. Thus the tower rose up, all glowing in colors and tints as cunningly arranged as if produced by Nature herself. The silvery, shining band was probably the highest, and had the effect of mingling with the bright sky above. We can scarcely understand how glorious the effect must have been, and when we try to imagine it, and then think of the present wretched condition of these ruins, it gives great force to the prophecies concerning Babylon which foretold that her broad walls should be utterly broken down, her gates burned with fire, and the golden city swept with the besom of destruction.

We know so little of the arrangement of the palaces of Babylon that we cannot speak of them in detail. They differed from those of Assyria in two important points: they are of burnt bricks instead of those dried in the sun which the Assyrians used, and at Babylon in the decoration of the walls, colored pictures upon the brick-work took the place of the alabaster bas-reliefs which were found in the palaces of Nineveh. These paintings represented hunting scenes, battles, and other important events, and were alternated with portions of the wall upon which were inscriptions painted in white on a blue ground, or spaces with a regular pattern of rosettes or some fixed design in geometrical figures. A sufficient number of these decorations have been found in the ruins of Babylon to prove beyond a doubt that this was the customary finish of the walls. We also know that the houses of Babylon were three or four stories in height, but were rudely constructed and indicate an inferior style of domestic architecture.

Palace at Persepolis

Persia

The Persians were the pupils of the Assyrians and Babylonians in Art, Learning, and Science, and they learned their lessons so well that they built magnificent palaces and tombs. Temples seem to have been unimportant to them, and we know nothing of any Persian temple remains that would attract the attention of travellers or scholars.

The four most important Persian palaces of which we have any good degree of knowledge are that of Ecbatana, the ruins of which are very imperfect; a second at Susa, of which the arrangement is known; a third at Persepolis, which is not well enough preserved, for any exact description to be given; and a fourth, the so-called Great Palace, near Persepolis, in which the latest Persian sovereigns lived. This magnificent palace was burned by Alexander the Great before he or his soldier’s had seen its splendor. The story is that he made a feast at which Thais, a beautiful and wicked woman, appeared, and by her arts gained such power over Alexander that he consented to her proposal to fire the palace, and the king, wearing a crown of flowers upon his head, seized a torch and himself executed the dreadful deed, while all the company followed him with acclamations, singing, and wild shouts. At last they surrounded and danced about the dreadful conflagration. ...

Much study and time has been given to the examination of the ruins of Persepolis, and the whole arrangement of the city has been dis-

covered and is made plain to the student of these matters by means of the many charts, plans, and photographs of it which now exist. I shall try to tell you something of the Great Palace of Persepolis, and the other palaces near it and on the platform with it, for the Persians, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, built their palaces upon platforms. The platform was not of the same height in all its parts, and seems to have been in several terraces, three of which can still be seen. The buildings were on the upper terrace, which is about forty-five feet above the plain and very large; it is seven hundred and seventy feet long and four hundred feet wide. The staircases are an important feature of these ruins, and when all the palaces were in perfection these broad steps, with their landings and splendid decorations, must have made a noble and magnificent effect. The ascent of the staircases was so gradual and easy that men went up and down on horseback, and travellers now ascend and descend in this way.

There is little doubt that the staircases of Persepolis were the finest that were ever built in any part of the world, and on some of them ten horsemen could ride abreast. The broadest, or platform staircase, is entirely without ornament; another which leads from the platform up to the central or upper terrace is so elaborately decorated that it appears to be covered with sculptures. There are colossal representations of lions, bulls, Persian guardsmen, rows of trees, and continuous processions of smaller figures. In some parts the sculptures represent various nations bringing tributes to the Persian monarch; in other parts all the different officers of the court and those of the army are seen, and the latter appear to be guarding the stairs.

The Hall of a Hundred Columns was very splendid, but the Chehl Minar, or Great Hall of Audience, which is also called the Hall of Xerxes, was the most remarkable of all these edifices. Its ruins occupy a space of almost three hundred and fifty feet in length and two hundred and forty- six feet in width, and consist principally of four different kinds of columns.

The Great Double Staircase at Persepolis

In the Court of Fat’h Ali the Shah of Persia

We can only regret that, while we know certain things about this hall, there is still much of which we know nothing. However, there are many theories concerning it. Some authorities believe that it was roofed, while others think that it was open and protected only by curtains and hangings, of which the Persians made much use. As we cannot know positively about it, and Persepolis was the spring residence of the Persian kings, it is pleasant to fancy that this splendid pillared hall was a summer throne-room, having beautiful hangings that could be drawn aside at will, admitting all the spicy breezes of that sunny land, and realizing the description of the palace of Shushan in the Book of Esther, which says, “In the court of the garden of the king’s palace; where were white, green, and blue hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble; the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble.”

Here the king could receive all those who sought him; the glorious view of the plains of Susa and Persepolis, the breezes which came to him laden with the odors of the choicest flowers would soothe him to content, and realize his full desire for that deep breath from open air which gives a sense of freedom and power. We know that no Oriental, be he monarch or slave, desires to live beneath a roof or within closed doors.

The tombs of the royal Persians were usually hewn out of the solid rock; the tomb of Cyrus, only, resembles a little house. Seven other tombs have been explored; they are excavations in the sides of the mountains high enough to be prominent objects to the sight, and yet difficult of approach. The fronts of these tombs are much ornamented, and the internal chambers are large; there are recesses for the burial-cases, and these vary in number, some having only space for three bodies. The tomb of Darius had three recesses, in each of which there were three burial-cases; but this was an unusually large number. The tombs near Persepolis are the finest which have yet been

examined.

The most noticeable characteristic of Persian architecture is its regularity. The plans used are simple, and only straight lines occur in them; thus, all the angles are right angles. The columns are regularly placed, and the two sides of an apartment or building correspond to each other. The magnificent staircases, and the abundance of elegant columns which have been called “groves of pillars” by some writers, produced a grand and dignified effect. The huge size of the blocks of stone used by Persian builders gives an impression of great power in those who planned their use, and demands for them the respect of all thoughtful students of these edifices.

The faults of this architecture lay in the narrow doorways, the small number of passages, and the clumsy thickness of the walls. But these faults are insignificant in comparison with its beauties, and it is all the more to be admired that it was invented by the Persians, not copied from other nations, and there is little doubt that the Greeks profited by its study to improve their own style, and through this study substituted lightness and elegance for the clumsy and heavy effect of the earliest Grecian architecture.

Judea

There is so much of religious, historical, romantic, and poetical association with the land of Judea, that it is a disappointment to know that there are no remains of Judean architecture from which to study the early art-history of that country; it is literally true that nothing remains.

The ruins of Jerusalem, Baalbec, Palmyra, Petra, and places beyond the Jordan are not Jewish, but Roman remains. The most interesting remnant is a passage and gateway which belonged to the great temple at Jerusalem. This passage is situated beneath the platform of the temple; it is called “The Gateway Huldah.” The width of it is forty-one feet, and at one point there is a magnificent pillar, called a monolith, because it is cut from a single stone. This pillar supports four arches, which divide the passage into as many compartments, each one of which has a flat dome. On these domes or roofs there were formerly beautiful ornamental designs, one of which remains. Its combination of Oriental and Roman design proves that it cannot be very old, but must have been made after the influence of the Romans had been felt in Judea.

Since the excavations in Assyria, and through the use of the knowledge obtained there and in other ancient countries, and by comparing this with the descriptions of the Bible and the works of Josephus, some

antiquarians have made plans and drawings of what they believe that the temple at Jerusalem must have been at the time of the Crucifixion. The result of this work has little interest, for two reasons: first, because we do not know that it is correct; second, because even at the time to which it is ascribed, it was not the ancient temple of Solomon. That had been destroyed, and after the return of the Jews from the Captivity, was rebuilt; again, it had been changed and restored by the Romans under Herod, so that it had little in reality, or by way of association, to give it the sacred and intense interest for us which would belong to the true, ancient temple at Jerusalem.

“Lost Salem of the Jews, great sepulchre. Of all profane and of all holy things, Where Jew and Turk and Gentile yet concur To make thee what thou art, thy history brings Thoughts mixed of joy and woe. The whole earth rings With the sad truth which He has prophesied, Who would have sheltered with his holy wings Thee and thy children. You his power defied; You scourged him while he lived, and mocked him as he died!

“There is a star in the untroubled sky, That caught the first light which its Maker made,— It led the hymn of other orbs on high;

’Twill shine when all the fires of heaven shall fade. Pilgrims at Salem’s porch, be that your aid! For it has kept its watch on Palestine! Look to its holy light, nor be dismayed. Though broken is each consecrated shrine, Though crushed and ruined all which men have called divine.”

Ancient Greek City of Lebadeia

Greece

The earliest history of Greece is lost in what we may call the Age of Legend. From that period have come to us such marvellous stories of gods and goddesses, and all sorts of wonderful happenings and doings, that even the most serious and wise scholars can learn little about it, and it remains to all alike a kind of delightful fairy-land. Back to that remote age one can send his fancy and imagination to feast upon the tales of wondrous bravery, passionate love, dire revenge, and supernatural occurrences of every sort until he is weary of it all. Then he is glad to come back to his actual life, in which cause and effect are so much more clearly seen, and which, if more matterof-fact, is more comfortable than the haphazard existence of those remarkable beings who were liable to be changed into beasts, or trees, or almost anything else at a moment’s notice, or to be whisked away from the midst of their families and friends and set down to starve in some desolate place where there was nothing to eat, and no one to listen to complaints of sorrow or hunger.

This legendary time in Grecian history begins nobody knows when, and ends about one thousand years before the birth of Christ. Our only knowledge of it comes from the mythology which we have inherited from the past, and the two poems of Homer, called the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey.”

It is believed that Homer wrote about 850 B.C., and after that date we have nothing complete in Greek literature until the time of Herodotus, who is called the “Father of History” and was born in 484 B.C. Thus four centuries between Homer and Herodotus are left with no authoritative writings.

The legendary or first period of Greek history was followed by five hundred years more of which we have no continuous history; but facts have been gathered here and there from the works of various authors which make it possible to give a reliable account of the Greece of that time. For our purpose in this book we go on to a still later time, or third period, which began about 500 B.C., in which the architecture and art which we have in mind, when we use the general term Greek Art, originated.

It is true that before this temples had been erected of which we have some knowledge, and the elegant and ornate articles which Dr. Schliemann has found in his excavations at Troy and Mycenæ prove that the art of that remote time reached a high point of excellence. The temples and other buildings of which we know anything, and which belonged to the second period, were clumsy and rude when compared with the perfection of the time which we propose to study.

Before we speak of any one edifice it is best to understand something of the various orders of Greek architecture, more especially as the terms which belong to it and had their origin in it are now used in speaking of architecture the world over, and from being first applied to Greek art have grown to be general in their application.

In the most ancient days of Greece the royal fortresses were the finest structures, but in later days the temple became the supreme object upon which thought and labor were lavished. The public buildings which served the uses of the whole people were second in consideration, while the private dwellings were of the least importance of all. The Greek temple was built upon a raised structure like those of Assyria and other Oriental nations, but the Greek temple was much smaller,

Departure of Odysseus from the Land of the Phaeacians by

and by a dignified and simple elegance in detail, and a harmony in all its parts, it expressed a more noble religious sentiment than could be conveyed by all the vast piles of massive confusion that had abounded in more Eastern lands. ...

The different orders of ancient Greek architecture are called the Doric, the Ionic, and the Corinthian. The Greeks were very fond of the Doric order, and used it so extensively as to make it almost exclusively their own. The picture of the Parthenon will help you to understand the explanations of the characteristics of the Doric order.

As you see, the pillars had no base, but rested directly on the upper plinth of the foundation of the building. The shaft of the column is cut in flutings, and the number of them varies from sixteen to twenty; the latter number being most frequently used. The capital of the column is divided into two portions; the lower one is called the echinus, and projects beyond the shaft and supports a square tile or block which is called the abacus, and this is the architectural name for the upper member of all capitals to columns. The architrave or principal beam above these columns rests directly on the capitals and runs around the building. This architrave is made of separate blocks of marble or stone, and is finished at the top by a small strip of the same materials, which is called a tenia.

Above the architrave and resting on it is the frieze; this is ornamented with fluted spaces called triglyphs, because they are cut in three flutings. The spaces between the triglyphs are called metopes, and sometimes left plain, and sometimes ornamented with sculptures, as is the case in the frieze of the Parthenon. Under the triglyphs six little blocks, or drops, are placed so that they lay over the architrave. Above the frieze there is another narrow strip, or tenia, like that upon the architrave. Above all this rests the cornice, and underneath the cornice are one or more rows of the small, drop-like blocks such as make the lower finish of the triglyphs; in the lower band of the cornice separate blocks are placed over each triglyph and each metope, with a small space

between. It is important to know that the architrave, frieze, and cornice, all taken together, form what is called the entablature; and the entablature occupies the whole of the broad space between the top of the capitals of the pillars and the lower edge of the roof.

The triangular space formed by the sloping of the roof upon the ends of a building is called the pediment, and, as you will see in the picture of the Parthenon, its pediment was ornamented with elaborate sculptures. It was customary to thus ornament the pediment and to paint the walls of the cella and other portions of the building, so that while the pure Doric style seems at first sight to be stiff and straight in its effect, it becomes rich and ornamental by the use of sculpture and painting, and yet remains solid and stable.

The Doric style may be regarded as a native growth in Greece, as almost every detail of its construction and its ornaments may be traced back to the early wooden buildings of the people, as the architecture of the tombs of Beni-Hassan had been. ...

The next great order was called the Ionic [see Temple of Artemis as an example], and has a close relation with certain forms found in Asia Minor. The order differed from the Doric principally in the ornamentation of its capitals and in the fact that the columns have bases.

The Ionic capital is very easily recognized by its spiral projections, or scrolls, which are called volutes. These are so placed that they present a flat surface on the opposite sides of the capital; sometimes the volutes are finished by a rosette in the centre.

The shaft of the Ionic column is sometimes plain and sometimes fluted; the flutings number twenty-four, and are separated by a narrow, plain band or fillet. In some ancient examples of the Ionic order the entire entablature is left plain, but in many instances there are bands of carvings; in some modern Italian architecture even more ornament has been added. ...

That which is called the Corinthian order differs very little from the Ionic except in the capital, but as this was so prominent a member

Temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus

of the Ionic style, the difference seems greater than it really is. It is therefore not necessary to speak of its parts in detail. The Choragic Monument of Lysicrates at Athens is as good a specimen of the order as remains at this time.

The Corinthian order of architecture [see The Temple of Olympian Zeus as an example] does not belong to the early period of art in Greece. It came after the influence of Oriental architecture had been shown in the Ionic style; and perhaps the beautiful Corinthian capital may have been suggested by the palm-leaf and lotus capitals of Egypt. What has been said of other orders will help you in understanding this; but I shall tell you especially about its capital, as that is its distinguishing feature. The form of the capital may be called bell-shaped, and it is set round with two rows of leaves, eight in each row; above these is a third row of leaves, or of a sort of small twisted husks, which supports eight small volutes. The abacus or top portion of the capital is cut out at the corners so that sharp projections are made, called horns, and one volute comes directly under each horn of the abacus. The four volutes meet on two opposite sides of the capital; sometimes they are interwoven, and a flower, or rosette, or some other ornament is placed above them and lays up over the abacus. Different kinds of leaves are used in making this capital; olive, water plant, and acanthus are all thus employed; there is a very pretty legend as to its origin which makes the acanthus seem to be the only one which belongs to it, and is as follows:

It was the custom in Greece to place a basket upon the new-made graves in which were the viands which those there buried had preferred when in life. About 550 B.C. a lovely virgin died at Corinth, and her nurse arranged the basket with care and covered it with a tile. It happened that the basket was set directly over a young acanthus plant, and the leaves grew up about it in such a manner that the sculptor Callimachus was attracted by its grace and beauty, and conceived the idea of using it as a model for a new capital in architecture. I have always been sorry that it was not named for the beautiful maiden rather than for the

city in which she was buried.

Another feature of Greek architecture is the use of the Caryatid, or a human figure standing upon a base and supporting the capital of a column upon the head, or, to put it more plainly, a human figure serving as the shaft to a column. These figures are usually females, and this picture of one from the Erechtheum at Athens shows how they are placed. Sometimes the figures of giants, called Telamones, were used in the same way.

Having given a general outline of the characteristics of Greek architecture, I will speak of some remarkable edifices which are beautiful in themselves and have an interest for us on account of their associations with the history of the world, as well as with that of art.

The Temple of Diana at Ephesus, of which nothing now remains, was the largest and most splendid of all the Greek temples. It was four hundred and twenty-five feet long by two hundred and twenty wide. The ancients counted this temple as one of the Seven Wonders of the World, and when we know that its pillars were sixty feet high, and that the beams of the architrave which had to be lifted up above the pillars to be put in place were each thirty feet long, we can readily understand that the building of it was a wonderful work.

After its initial destruction, the temple was rebuilt on a most magnificent scale, and was not finished until two hundred and twenty years had passed. Diana was a great and powerful goddess, and all the nations of Asia united in gifts for the adornment of her shrine; the women even gave their personal ornaments to be sold to increase the fund to be spent upon it.

The Temple of Diana was robbed by Nero and burned by the Goths, but its final destruction probably occurred after A.D. 381, when the Emperor Theodosius I issued an edict forbidding all the ceremonies of the pagan worship.

Many beautiful objects were taken away to adorn the mediaeval churches of other religions than that of the Ephesians. Some of its green

Erechtheum: The Porch of Caryatids by Vasily Polenov

Reconstruction of the Acropolis

jasper columns were used to support the dome of St. Sophia at Constantinople, and other parts of it are seen in the cathedrals of Italy. There is scarcely a more desolate spot in the world than is the Ephesus of to-day. No remaining ruins are so preserved as to afford the visitor any satisfaction. The marbles and stone have been used to build other towns, which in their turn have been destroyed. The inhabitants are a handful of poor Greek peasants; wolves and jackals from the neighboring mountains roam about; and though an abundance of myrtle and some lovely groves relieve the gloominess of the scene, it is impossible when there to recreate in imagination the splendid Ephesian city, with its wharves and docks, its temples, theatres, and palaces, which were so famous as to cause it to be spoken of with wonder throughout the ancient world.

We often hear of the glory of the Periclean age at Athens, and it is true that under the leadership of Pericles Athens reached its greatest prosperity. This picture shows the Acropolis as it appeared at that time. In these best days of Athens the whole Acropolis was consecrated to religious worship and ceremonials, and its entire extent was occupied by temples and statues of the gods. The fact that I have before mentioned, that the religion of a country moulds its art, is especially true of the art of Greece; figures of the gods and bas-reliefs of the ceremonies of the Grecian worship form a large and most important part of the work of the Greek artists, and the splendid temples were raised to be the sacred homes of the statues of the great gods, to which the people could come with offerings and prayers.

The Acropolis was also a sort of fortress, because it was an eminence, and its sides of craggy rock allowed of but one ascent; thus it could be easily defended. Then, when all the wonders and riches of art had been collected there, the pure white marble, the sculpture and painting, and the ornaments of shining metals which glistened in the sun, while brilliant colors added their rich effect, it might be called a gorgeous museum, such as has never since been equalled in the history

of the world.

It is important to know that the Athenians worshipped three different goddesses, all called by the one name of Athene or Athena. The most ancient and most sacred of these was Athena Polias, whose statue, made of olive-wood, was believed to have fallen from heaven. The Erechtheum was dedicated to this goddess, and there this holy, heavensent figure was kept, with other sacred objects of which I shall speak in their place.

The Athena next in importance was the goddess of the Parthenon, or the “House of the Virgin,’’ as the word signifies, for this Athena Parthenos is the same as the goddess Minerva, who is said never to have married or known the sentiment of love; she was the goddess of war, prudence, and wisdom. The third Athena was called Promachos, which means the champion. Phidias made of her one of his splendid statues, standing erect, with helmet, spear, and shield.

In describing the Acropolis we shall begin with the Propylæa, or the entrances, which occupy the centre of our picture and to which the steps lead, showing the passage between the pillars, three being left on each side. This magnificent series of entrances—as the whole ascent from the outer gate in the wall, up the steps, and through the passage between the pillars may be called—was erected about 437 B.C., and cost two thousand talents of gold, which is equal to about two millions of our dollars. The fame of the Propylæa was world-wide, and together with the Parthenon it was considered the architectural glory of the Periclean age. The style in which they are built is a splendid example of the combination of the Doric and the Ionic orders, for while the exterior is almost pure Doric, the interior is made more cheerful by the use of the Ionic columns and ornamentation.

High up at the right of the picture stands the Parthenon. Its architecture, which is Doric, has been described. We do not know when this temple was begun, but it is probably on the site of an older one. It was finished 438 B.C., and the general care of its erection was given

to Phidias, the most famous of all sculptors. The marble of which the Parthenon was built was pure Pentelic, and as it rested on a rude basement of limestone the contrast between the two made the marble of the temple seem all the finer. Within and without this temple abounded in magnificent sculptures executed by Phidias himself or under his orders. The Erechtheum was the most sacred temple of Athens. It was the burial-place of Erechtheus, who was regarded not only as the founder of this temple, but also of the religion of Athena in Athens. Beside the heaven-descended statue of Athena Polias which was kept here, there was the sacred olive-tree which Athena had called forth from the earth when she was contending for the possession of Attica; here, too, was the well of salt water which Poseidon (or Neptune) made by striking the spot with his trident, and several other sacred objects. This beautiful temple was built in the Ionic style, and is very interesting because it is so different in form from every other Greek temple of which we know. This is partly due to the fact that it was built where the ground was not level, one portion of it being eight feet higher than another. A second reason for its irregularity may be that it required to be divided into more cells or apartments than other Greek temples in order to arrange the different sacred objects within its walls. A very considerable portion of this temple is still standing. The frieze, of which but little remains, was of black marble, upon which there were figures in white marble. ...

In other Grecian cities the architecture differed but little from that of Athens, and, indeed, the influence of Athenian art and artists was felt all over the Eastern world; it is therefore not necessary for our purpose to speak further of Greek temples.

Next in importance were the municipal buildings, of which we find but few traces at Athens. The monument of Lysicrates is so beautiful that it gives us a most exalted idea of what the taste in such edifices must have been.

This monument was erected in the year 334 B.C. when Lysicrates

was choragus; this officer provided the chorus for the plays represented at Athens for the year. It was expensive to hold this position, and its duties were arduous; the choragus had to find the men for the chorus, bring them together, and have them instructed in the music, and also provide proper food for them while they studied. It was customary to present a tripod to the choragus who provided the finest musical entertainment, and also to build a monument upon which the tripod was placed as a lasting honor to him who had received it. There was a street at Athens called the “Street of the Tripods” because it passed a line of choragic monuments. These monuments were dedicated to different gods; this of Lysicrates was devoted to Bacchus, and was decorated with sculptures representing scenes in the story of that god, who was regarded as the patron of plays and theatres; indeed, the Greek drama originated in the choruses which were sung at his festivals. The ancient Greeks were not tomb-builders, and we know little of their burial-places. However, the Mausoleum built at Halicarnassus by Artemisia, in memory of her husband, Mausolus, was so important as to be numbered among the seven wonders of the world.

Mausolus was the King of Caria, of which country Halicarnassus was the chief city. He died about 353 B.C., and his wife, Artemisia, gradually faded away with sorrow at his death, and survived him but two years. But during this time she had commenced the erection of the Mausoleum, and the artists to whom she intrusted the work were as faithful in completing it as though she had lived, for the sake of their own fame as artists. This magnificent tomb may be described as an example of architecture as a fine art exclusively, for it cannot be said to have been useful, since the body of Mausolus was burned according to custom, and certainly a much smaller tomb would have been sufficient for the remaining ashes.

Writers of the twelfth century speak of the beauty of this tomb, but in A.D. 1402, when the Knights of St. John took possession of Halicarnassus, it no longer remained, and a castle was built upon its site. The

Landscape of Ancient Greece by

tomb had been buried, probably by an earthquake, and the name of the place was then changed to Boodroom.

In the year 1522 some sculptures were found there, but it was not until 1856 that Mr. Newton, an Englishman, discovered that these remains had belonged to the Mausoleum. A large collection of reliefs, statues, and other objects, more or less imperfect, was taken to London and placed in the British Museum, where they are known as the “Halicarnassus Sculptures.’’

As other temples were influenced by the example of the Athenian builders, so many other tombs resembled that of Mausolus in greater or less degree, although none approached it in grandeur and magnificence.

Of the domestic architecture of the Greeks we know very little. Almost all that is said of it is chiefly speculation, as even the descriptions of Grecian palaces and houses which are given by the classic writers are imperfect. The life of the Greek was passed largely in public, at the temple, the theatre, or the baths, or at least in the open air, and comparatively little attention was given to the building of the private houses; but in the ruins of the temples and other monuments which still exist we have sufficient proof that no art has surpassed that of ancient Greece in purity, elegance, and grandeur of style.

Capriccio of Roma n Ruins Canaletto

Rome

In studying Roman architecture one is surprised at the number of uses to which it was applied, for not only do the temples, tombs, theatres, and monuments such as we have found in other countries exist in Rome, but there are also basilicas, baths, palaces, triumphal arches, pillars of victory, fountains, and various other objects suited to the wants of a great people.

No truly pure, national order of architecture existed at Rome. The union of the arch of the Etruscans with the columns of the Greeks enabled the Romans to change the forms of their edifices and to produce a great variety in them. They employed the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders, but they rarely used one of these alone; they united them in endless combinations, and introduced a capital of the order which is called the Composite. It consists of the lower part of the Corinthian and the upper part of the Ionic capital; this was very rich in ornament, but the line where the two orders were joined was always a defect, and it never came into general favor.

The Romans also introduced what is called the Tuscan order, which is usually mentioned with the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite, as being one of the five classic orders of architecture, although it is really little more than a variety of the Doric, as the Composite is of the Corinthian order. ...

A very important advance made by the Romans was the improvement of interior architecture. The halls and portions of edifices to be used were more cared for than ever before; this was sometimes done at the expense of the exteriors, to which the Greeks had devoted all their thought. In fact, many ancient Roman temples were inferior to other edifices which they built. The Pantheon is the only one existing in such a state as to be spoken of with satisfaction. The Pantheon is circular with a porch. Taken separately, the rotunda and the porch are each fine in their own way, but the joining of the circular and angular forms has an effect of unfitness which one cannot forget even when looking at that which we regard with reverent interest. The central portion was at first a part of the Baths of Agrippa, but on account of its great beauty it was changed by Agrippa himself into a temple, by the addition of a row of Corinthian columns around the interior.

Taken all in all, the effect of the Pantheon is that of grandeur and simplicity. When we remember that sixteen hundred and eighty-eight years have passed since it was repaired by Septimius Severus, we wonder at its good preservation, though we know that it has been robbed of its bronze covering and other fine ornaments. An inscription still remaining on its portico states that Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus repaired this temple; history says that Hadrian restored it after a fire, probably about the year 117, and it is even said that Agrippa, who died A.D. 13, added the portico to a rotunda which existed before his time. The objects now in the interior of the Pantheon are so largely modern that they do not belong to this portion of our subject, but there is much interest associated with this spot, and it is dear to all the world as the burial-place of Raphael, Annibale Caracci, and other great artists.

Next to the temples of Rome came the Basilicas, of which there were many before the time of Constantine. The word basilica means the royal house, and these edifices were first intended for a court-room in which the king administered his laws; later they became markets, or

Ruins of the Basilica of Maxentius

places of exchange, where men met for business transactions. The ruins of the Basilicas of Trajan and Maxentius, two of the finest of these edifices, are in such condition that their plans can be understood. They were large, and divided into aisles by rows of columns; at one end there was a semi-circular recess or apse, in which was a raised platform, approached by steps, also semi-circular in form. Upon this platform the king or other exalted officer had his place, while those of lesser rank were on the steps below, on either side. Fronting the apse was an altar upon which sacrifices were offered before commencing any important business.

The principal reason for speaking of basilicas is that by the above cut you may see the great change made in architecture about this time by the use of columns, only half the height of the building, which were united by arches. This was a very important step, and is, in truth, one of the principal features that mark the progress of the change from ancient to Gothic architecture—a change not fully developed until the twelfth century.

I shall not say much of the theatres, amphitheatres, and baths of ancient Rome, because it is not easy to treat them in the simple manner suited to this book; they were magnificent and costly, and made an important part of Roman architecture; they were probably copied from the public buildings of the Etruscans.

Marcus Scaurus built a theatre in 58 B.C. which held eighty thousand spectators; it had rich columns and statues, and was decorated with gold, silver, and ivory. The first stone theatre in Rome was built in 55 B.C., and was only half the size of that of Marcus Scaurus. Parts of the theatre of Marcellus still remain in the present Orsini Palace in Rome, and serve to give an idea of the architecture of the period immediately before the birth of Christ.

The Emperor Augustus boasted that he had found a city of brick and had changed it to one of marble, but after his time architecture suffered a decline, and its second flourishing period may be dated from

A.D. 69. To this time belongs the Colosseum, also called the Flavian Amphitheatre; it covers about five acres of ground, and is sufficiently well preserved for a good idea to be formed of what it must have been when in its best estate. The enormous size of these ancient Roman edifices is almost too much for us to imagine, and the most extensive of them all were the Thermæ, or public baths.

The Baths of Diocletian, built A.D. 303, were the largest of all; they had seats for twenty-four hundred bathers. These baths were in reality a group of spacious halls of varied forms, but all magnificent in size. The great hall of the Baths of Diocletian was three hundred and fifty feet long by eighty feet in width and ninety-six feet high; it was converted into a church by Michael Angelo and is called S. Maria Degli Angeli, or Holy Mary of the Angels. Many splendid pictures which were once in St. Peter’s are now in this church, and copies of them made in mosaic fill the places where they were originally hung.

The Baths of Caracalla were built in A.D. 217, and though they had seats for but sixteen hundred bathers, they were much more splendid than the Baths of Diocletian. They were surrounded by pleasure gardens, porticoes, and a stadium or race-course, where all sorts of games were held. Some beautiful mosaic pavements have been taken from these baths, and are now in the Lateran and the Villa Borghese palaces; there was a Pinacotica, or Fine Art Gallery here, in which were some of the greatest art treasures of the world, such as the Farnese Hercules, the Farnese Bull, the two Gladiators, and other famous statues, besides cameos, bronzes, and sculptures, almost without end. The granite basins in the Piazza Farnese, and some green basalt urns now in the Vatican Museum, were taken from the Baths of Caracalla, and, indeed, all over Rome there are objects of more or less beauty which were found here.

Formerly the site of these baths was like a beautiful Eden where Nature made herself happy in luxuriant growths of all lovely things. The poet Shelley was very fond of going there, and wrote of it, “Among

the flowery glades and thickets of odoriferous blossoming trees, which are extended in ever-winding labyrinths upon its immense platforms and dizzy arches suspended in the air,” by which we know that the ruins were covered with a soil which was fruitful in flowers, vines, and trees; but all these have been torn away in order to make the excavations which were necessary for the exploration of these wonderful baths, and now the parts which remain stand fully exposed to the view of the curious traveller.

The Roman Triumphal Arches were one of the characteristic outgrowths of the Imperial period. These splendid works were designed to perpetuate the fame of the emperors and to recall to the people the important acts of their lives. The arch of Constantine is one of the most famous arches in Rome. It is believed that parts of it were in an arch of Trajan’s time, and some even go so far as to say that it was originally dedicated to the earlier emperor and adopted by Constantine as his own. It is remarkably well preserved, and this is undoubtedly due to the fact of its being dedicated to the first Christian sovereign of Rome. The other most famous arches in the city are that of Titus, which dates from A.D. 81, and that of Septimius Severus, which was erected in honor of him and of his wife, Julia, by the silversmiths and merchants of the Forum Boarium, in which spot the arch was raised. These triumphal arches existed in all the countries where Rome held sway, and, indeed, this is true of all kinds of Roman architectural works.

This Arch of Beneventum was erected in the second century after Christ, by Trajan, when he repaired the Appian Way. It is one of the most graceful and best preserved of all the arches of Italy.

All these arches had originally groups of statuary upon them, for which they served merely as the pedestals. Their taking the form of an arch was due to their being placed in the public way, where it was necessary to leave a passage for the street. Sometimes they were placed where two roads met, and a double arch was then made. Elaborate as the

arches often were, you must keep in mind that they are only a part of the entire design, and that the least important part; the statuary, which has been destroyed by time, being really the more striking feature of the whole.

The tombs of Rome were very numerous, and were an important element in Roman architecture. The tomb of Cecilia Metella is of importance because it is the oldest remaining building of Imperial Rome and the finest tomb which has been preserved.

As you see, the tomb is a round tower. In the thirteenth century it was turned into a fortress, and so much dust has been deposited on its summit in the passing of time that bushes and ivy now grow there.

The tomb of Hadrian, now known as the Castle of St. Angelo, is very interesting, and is one of the most prominent and familiar objects in Rome at the present day. But the tombs called Columbaria were much in use in ancient Rome, and differed essentially from those of which we have spoken, inasmuch as they were usually below the ground, and externally had no architecture. They consisted of oblong or square apartments, the sides of which were filled with small apertures of the proper size to hold an urn which contained the ashes that remained after a body had been burned, according to the Roman custom. Some of these apartments, especially when they belonged to private families, were adorned with pilasters and decorated with colors.

The sepulchres of Rome were gradually enlarged, until, in the days of Constantine, they were frequently built like small temples above the ground, with crypts or vaults beneath them.

So little now remains of the ancient domestic architecture of Rome that one is forced to study this subject from written descriptions collected from the works of various historians, poets, and other writers. But from what we know we may conclude that the villas and country-houses were so constructed as to be full of comfort, and suited to the uses for which they were built, without too much regard to the symmetry of the exteriors. The interior convenience was the chief thing to

be considered, and when finished they must have often resembled a collection of buildings all joined together, of various heights and shapes; but within they were adapted to the different seasons, as some rooms were made for being warm, while others were arranged for coolness; the views from the windows were also an important feature, and, in short, the pleasure of the people living in them was made the first point to be gained, rather than the impression upon the eye of those who saw them from without.

There was great luxury and elegance in the palaces of the noble classes in ancient Rome. The home of Diocletian at Spalatro was one of the most famous Roman palaces, and its ruins show that it was once magnificent. This palace was divided by four streets which ran through it at right angles with each other and met in its centre. Its entrances were called the Golden, Iron, and Brazen Gates. Its exterior architecture was simple and massive, as it was necessary that it should serve as a fortress in case of an attack. Its principal gallery overlooked the sea; it was five hundred and fifteen feet long and twenty-four feet wide, and was famous for its architectural beauty and for the views which it commanded.

African Americans d

The Slave Trade

The Story of African Americans Through the Eyes of the Artist

Our story opens on the coast of West Africa in about 1833, when Auguste François Biard showed the world the horrific cruelty and brutality of capturing innocent fathers, mothers, and children, loading them on ships, and selling them into slavery in the New World. His painting hangs at the entrance to the “From Slavery to Freedom” exhibit at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, OH. * * * * *

Sadly, slavery has been found among all peoples throughout the ages. Around 1787, Josiah Wedgwood created The Kneeling Slave medallion for the Society for the Abolition of Slavery in the United Kingdom to spread their message. The caption under the figure reads, “Am I not a man and a brother?” An unknown artist in England painted a likeness of the Kneeling Slave.

The Kneeling Slave by Unknown Artist

Howard Pyle imagined the first slave auction in New Amsterdam, 1655 in this 1895 illustration.

Many artists in America saw these poor slaves as less than human and often sketched them in ways to mock them, if they were sketched at all.

Other artists did paint African-American subjects, but they were frequently portrayed on the outside looking in, never the center of the painting, as seen in The Power of Music by William Sidney Mount from 1847. While a love of music unites the figures, the two races occupy different spaces. One is inside, the other outside, separated by a barn door symbolizing the divisions in America at the time. * * * * *

Negro Life at the South

Then, in 1859, while the topic of slavery was being hotly debated, Eastman Johnson presented a painting that showed slaves in leisure activities, originally called Negro Life at the South. Those in favor of slavery used it to argue that the figures in the painting are happy. The abolitionists, on the other hand, used it bring attention to their dilapidated buildings and circumstances of poverty.

The scene takes place in the backyard of the slave quarters near Johnson’s father’s house in Washington, D.C., although later it was renamed Old Kentucky Home and was said to be showing plantation life. Notice that the skin color of nearly each figure varies as he invites us to become aware of their mixed racial ancestry.

We see them engaging in the same kinds of activities that all people enjoy—the couple courting, the banjo player making music while an adult woman dances with a child, friends chatting, a pet playing. The young white woman in a refined white dress who is stepping from her world into this one is Johnson’s sister.

The portrayal of slaves in this manner was unheard of at the time and is considered Eastman Johnson’s masterpiece.

Other painters, like Eyre Crowe, showed the reality of slaves waiting to be sold.

Slaves Waiting for Sale in

Many slaves took matters into their own hands, risking their lives for a chance at freedom. During the Civil War Battle of Manassas in 1862, Eastman Johnson personally witnessed such a daring escape, which he captured in his painting, A Ride for Liberty—The Fugitive Slaves. No longer is the African-American on the sidelines. He is placed as the focus of attention. The image speaks clearly in support of the abolition of slavery.

It is presumed this is a family. It is in the early dawn. In the left background, you can see the Union army. This family just needs to make it across the Union lines to secure their freedom. They have no possessions to take with them. The horse appears to have been stolen; no slave could have owned a fine horse like that. The father looks ahead to the promise of the future, the wife looks back to the hardships she is leaving behind and perhaps the fear of being pursued, and the child looks downward, being absorbed in the events of the present moment. * * * * *

A Ride for Liberty — The Fugitive Slaves

Other slaves were helped by brave men and women who risked their own lives to help them escape through the Underground Railroad, as depicted by Charles T. Webber.

At long last, on January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”

Eastman Johnson painted The Lord is My Shepherd soon after the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation. The African-American man is seen reading, the blue jacket next to him suggesting he may have served in the Union Army. The name of the painting suggests he is reading from the 23rd Psalm in the Bible. Reading was seen as the key for advancement from enslavement to freedom. * * * * *

A new era for the African-American had now begun. However, their struggles were not yet over. The Cotton Pickers is an 1876 oil painting by Winslow Homer. The year marked the centennial celebration of our Declaration of Independence. But it also marked the end of the Reconstruction as federal troops withdrew from the South. The War is over, yet these two women are still picking cotton. Has anything really changed?

In Homer’s own words, “Is there any hope in the future for these two free field workers? The woman at left looks down, focused on her task. Cotton surrounds her, as though her world is circumscribed by her work in the fields. Her companion, head up and eyes alert, gazes with determination at what lies beyond. Her sack holds the cotton she has harvested but might easily serve as a sack for her belongings should she dare to step forward into a different life.”

The

In 1881, artist Richard Norris Brooke depicted a dramatic social change among the African-Americans that he had observed first hand in his celebrated painting, A Pastoral Visit. In earlier years, he had copied other artists in illustrating African-Americans as shabby, cruel and even comical. Now, they may still be poor, but there is a quiet dignity found even in their humble surroundings. The scene includes details that would have been found in any modest home of the day, such as a ginger jar, a coffee grinder, and an iron. A kitten is drinking milk from a dish. All the members of the family have been scrubbed clean for this special occasion—a visit from their pastor. The pastor, out of respect, is fed first, and then the father would open the cigar box and draw from it the parishioners’ weekly offerings. A banjo sits nearby, ready to end the evening with a song.

Later the same year, he released another painting wherein he still treats his subjects with dignity, though in a more relaxed setting. The first painting shows the family in their Sunday best while A Dog Swap shows what activities might engage them in their day-to-day life. Notice how relaxed every figure is, but also notice how every figure is leaning or resting on something or someone else. *

A Visit From the Old Mistress

We now return to the paintings of Winslow Homer. He had been an eyewitness to and had painted many scenes from the Civil War. In the 1870s, he returned to Virginia to observe what changes were taking place in the aftermath of the war and the freeing of the slaves. We see various events inlcuding: the awkward visit of newly freed slaves and their former mistress in A Visit from the Old Mistress; spending a quiet and relaxed Sunday Morning in Virginia with family members; a woman standing in her doorway in Near Andersonville; a family enjoying an outing to The Carnival; and children playing in the yard of a cottage home in Sketch of a Cottage Yard. * * * * * 113

The Carnival

mof a Cottage Yard

A Flower for the Teacher by Winslow Homer

All of these paintings we have seen here have been created through the eyes of the White man. We now look to the perspective of an artist who was born to an enslaved mother who escaped to freedom via the Underground Railroad. Henry Ossawa Tanner experienced rejection because of the color of his skin, yet he became one of the first African-American artists to achieve international recognition. He spent most of his life in Paris, explaining, “In America, I’m Henry Tanner, Negro artist, but in France, I’m ‘Monsieur Tanner, l’artiste américaine.’”

He returned to the United States for a few years to recover from a serious illness. During his stay, he witnessed the poverty and hardships of his people during the time of the Reconstruction.

He wrote, although referring to himself in the third person, “To his mind many of the artists who have represented Negro life have … lacked sympathy with and appreciation for the warm big heart that dwells within such a rough exterior.”

It is “the warm big heart” that he captures in the following two paintings. And perhaps he is sending a message of hope to his race—life lessons he understood well.

The Banjo Lesson, painted in 1893, offers Life Lesson #1. It speaks of the importance of the older generation passing along their cultural heritage and wisdom to the young. The center of the painting is a young boy. He represents the hope for the future. His grandfather has wrapped his arms around him and is supporting the instrument just enough to allow the young boy to try and play the instrument himself. But he is close by, ready to offer instruction and guidance.

The grandfather and the boy are portrayed as intelligent, noble and graceful people who are engaged in the intimate act of sharing their hearts, one with another. The setting is peaceful, relaxed and calm. Notice the soft glow of the hearth fire on the white tablecloth.

The banjo is symbolic of the cultural heritage brought from their homeland in Africa. In Africa, they played on instruments made from gourds which inspired the design of the banjo. The Africans loved music. Music, to the enslaved, was like a healing balm to the miseries forced upon them.

The Thankful Poor

Life Lesson #2: Always give thanks. The Thankful Poor, painted in 1894, shows an older Black man and a young Black boy pausing for prayer before eating their humble meal. Notice they are offering a prayer of gratitude before they have dished up their plates. Although Tanner’s father was a preacher and religion was an important part of his life, at this time he had undergone a personal time of spiritual awakening. After this painting, he returned to Paris and spent the rest of his life painting scenes from the Bible.

Breezing Up (A Fair Wind) by Homer

As we come to the end of our story, Winslow Homer, who was a man of few written words, gives us something to think about. In 1873, he painted a scene of young boys enjoying an outing on a small boat. The boys are White. There is a fair breeze and a sail that is carrying them along. The sun is shining on their backs. They appear to be enjoying the ride.

In sharp contrast, in 1899 and then revised again in 1906, Homer gives us another scene. Here is a solitary Black man in a small boat. He appears to be chained to it. He is surrounded by sharks. The winds and the waves billow around him and threaten to swallow him up in the deep. There are no sails, no rudder. It would appear there is no hope; no way out.

Perhaps he is suggesting a message of helplessness and hopelessness in the story of the African-American.

But it is more likely that he is reminding us of something much grander, inspired by the words of another formerly enslaved man, Frederick Douglass, who wrote: “You are not judged by the height you have risen but from the depths you have climbed.”

The story of the African-American is not over. It is still being written. All of humanity is inspired and lifted by their stories of “rising from the depths” of adversity.

It is a story that must never be forgotten. Who will be the artists who will continue to capture the story for us? Is it you?