CHAPTER VI

.

PARTHIAN AND SASSANIAN ARCHITECTURE.

CONTENTS.

Historical notice—Palaces of Al Hadhr and Diarbekr—Domes—Palaces of Serbistan—Firouzabad—Tâk Kesra—Mashita—Rabbath Ammon.

CHRONOLOGY.

Parthians subject to Persia B.C. 554 Seleucus Nicator 301 Arsaces 250 Mithridates 163-140 Mithridates II 124-89 Palace of Al Hadhr built (about) A.D. 200 End of Parthian Empire 227 ---------- Ardeshir, or Artaxerxes, establishes Sassanian dynasty 226 Tiridates 286-342 Serbistan (about) 350 Bahram Gaur begins to reign 420 Firouzabad (about) 450 Khosru Nushirvan begins to reign 531 Khosru Nushirvan builds palace at Ctesiphon (about) 550 Khosru Purviz Chosroes 591 Palace at Mashita 614-627 Battle of Cadesia 636

There still remains one other style to be described before leaving the domain of Heathendom to venture into the wide realms of Christian and Saracenic art with which the remainder of these two volumes is mainly occupied. Unfortunately it is not one that was of great importance while it existed, and it is one of which we know very little at present. This arises partly from the fact that all the principal buildings of the Sassanian kings were situated on or near the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and were therefore built either of sun-burnt or imperfectly baked bricks, which consequently crumbled to dust, or, where erected with more durable materials, these have been quarried by the succeeding inhabitants of these fertile regions. Partly also it arises from the Sassanians not being essentially a building race. Their religion required no temples and their customs repudiated the splendour of the sepulchre, so that their buildings were mainly palaces. One of these, that at Dustagird, is described by all contemporary historians[200] as one of the most gorgeous palaces of the East, but its glories were ephemeral: gold and silver and precious hangings rich in colour and embroidery made up a splendour in which the more stable arts of architecture had but little part, and all perished in an hour when invaded by the victorious soldiers of Heraclius, or the more destructive hosts of Arabian invaders a few years afterwards. Whatever the cause however, never was destruction more complete. Two or three ruined palaces still exist in Persia and Mesopotamia. A fragment known as the Tâk Kesra still remains to indicate the spot where Ctesiphon once stood, but the site of Dustagird is still a matter of dispute. So little in fact remains that we should hardly be able to form an idea of what the style really was, but for the fortunate discovery of a palace at Mashita in Moab, which seems undoubtedly to have been erected by the last great king of this dynasty, and which is yet unsurpassed for beauty of detail and richness of ornament by any building of its class and age.

As nearly as may be, one thousand years had elapsed since the completion of the palaces at Persepolis and Susa and the commencement of this building, and for the great part of that period the history of Persian or Central Asian architecture is a blank. The Seleucidæ built nothing that has come down to our times. The Parthians, too, have left us little, so that it is practically only after a hiatus of nearly six centuries, that we again begin to feel that the art had not entirely perished in the populous countries of Central Asia; but even then our history recommences so timidly and with buildings of such uncertain dates as to be very far from satisfactory.

[Illustration: 253. Plan of Palace at Al Hadhr. (From a Sketch by Mr. Layard.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

One of the oldest buildings known as belonging to the new school is the palace of Al Hadhr, situated in the plain, about thirty miles from the Tigris, nearly west from the ruins of Kaleh Shergat.

The city itself is circular in plan, nearly an English mile in diameter, and surrounded by a stone wall with towers at intervals, in the centre of which stands a walled enclosure, nearly square in plan, about 700 ft. by 800. This is again subdivided into an outer and inner court by a wall across its centre. The outer court is unencumbered by buildings, the inner nearly filled with them.[201] The principal of these is that represented in plan on Woodcut No. 253. It consists of three large and four smaller halls placed side by side, with various smaller apartments in the rear. All these halls are roofed by semicircular tunnel-vaults, without ribs or other ornament, and they are all entirely open in front, all the light and air being admitted from the one end.

There can be little doubt that these halls are copies, or intended to be so, of the halls of the old Assyrian palaces; but the customs and requirements of the period have led the architect on to a new class of arrangements which renders the resemblance by no means apparent at first sight.

[Illustration: 254. Elevation of part of the Palace of Al Hadhr. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

The old halls had almost invariably their entrances on the longer side, which with a vault required very thick external walls as abutments. This was obviated in Al Hadhr by using the halls as abutments the one to the other like the arches of a bridge; so that, if the two external arches were firm, all the rest were safe. This was provided for by making the outer halls smaller, as shown in the elevation (Woodcut No. 254), or by strengthening the outer wall. But even then the architect seems to have shrunk from weakening the intermediate walls by making too many openings in them. Those which do exist are small and infrequent; so that there is generally only one entrance to each apartment, and that so narrow as to seem incongruous with the size of the room to which it leads.

The square apartment at the back would seem to have been a temple, as the lintel over the entrance doorway (which faces the east) is carved with the sun, the moon, and other religious emblems; and the double wall round may have contained a stair or inclined plane leading to an upper storey, or to rooms which certainly existed over the smaller halls at least.

All the details of the building are copied from the Roman—the archivolts and pilasters almost literally so, but still so rudely executed as to prove that it was not done under the direct superintendence of a Roman artist. This is even more evident with regard to the griffins and scroll-work, and the acanthus-leaves which ornament the capitals and friezes. The most peculiar ornament, however, is the range of masks carried round all the archivolts of the smaller arches. Of the nineteen voussoirs of the larger arches, seven of them, according to Ross and Ainsworth, had figures carved on them in relief of angels, or females, apparently in the air, and with feet crossed and robes flying loose, possibly emblematic of the seven planets. Even tradition is silent regarding the date of these remarkable ruins; the town was besieged unsuccessfully by Trajan in 116 A.D., and it is recorded to have been a walled town containing a temple of the sun noted for its rich offerings. This is probably the square building at the back of the great hall on the left of the palace, and the existence of the carved religious emblems on the lintel suggest that the palace was erected in front at a later period. Professor Rawlinson, in his notes on the great monarchies,[202] suggests about 200 A.D. as the probable date, and ascribes its erection to the monarchs of the Parthian dynasty. There is no doubt that the execution of the masonry with its fine joints is of a totally different character from that which is found in Sassanian buildings, which comes more under the head of rubble masonry, and was entirely hidden, in the interior at least, by stucco. The ornament also is of a rich character, Roman in its design, but debased Greek in its execution. Mr. Loftus, during his researches in Chaldea, discovered at Wurka (the ancient Erech in Mesopotamia), a large number of ornamental details, in stone and in plaster, of precisely the same character as those found at Al Hadhr. Among these remains he found a griffin resembling those carved on the lintel of the square temple before referred to, and quantities of Parthian coins, so that it is fair to assume that Al Hadhr belongs to that dynasty.

[Illustration: 255. Plan of Mosque at Diarbekr.]

Another building which merits more attention than has hitherto been bestowed upon it, is now used as the great mosque at Diarbekr. The ancient portions consist of the façades only of two palaces, the north and the south, which face one another at a distance of some 400 feet, and form the boundaries of the great court (Woodcut No. 255). They are apparently erected with materials taken from some more ancient building, and whilst the capitals and friezes are of debased Roman character, the carved shafts of the north palace (Woodcut No. 257) resemble in the plaster design ornaments found at Wurka.

As will be seen in Woodcut No. 256, which represents the façade of the South Palace, the openings of the ground storey are spanned by arches of two different forms; and those of the upper storey by lintels carried on corbels with relieving arch over; the latter a Byzantine treatment; the former of a very much later date, and probably Saracenic: above the openings and under the frieze are Cufic inscriptions. On the whole there seems little doubt that the building we now see was erected, as it now stands, at the age of the Cufic inscriptions,[203] whatever they may be, but that the remains of some more ancient edifice was most skilfully worked up in the new. Till, however, the building is carefully examined by some thoroughly competent person, this must remain doubtful. The building is rich, and so interesting that it is to be hoped that its history and peculiarities will before long be investigated.

[Illustration: 256. Façade of South Palace at Diarbekr.]

With the accession of the Sassanians, A.D. 223, Persia regained much of that power and stability to which she had been so long a stranger. The capture of the Roman Emperor Valerian by the 2nd king of the race, A.D. 260, the Conquest of Armenia and victories over Galerius by the 7th (A.D. 296), and the exploits of the 14th King, Bahram Gaur, his visit to India and his alliance with its kings, all point to extended power abroad; while the improvement in the fine arts at home indicates returning prosperity and a degree of security unknown since the fall of the Achæmenidæ.

These kings seem to have been of native race, and claimed descent from the older dynasties: at all events they restored the ancient religion and many of the habits and customs with which we are familiar as existing before the time of Alexander the Great.

[Illustration: 257. View in the Court of the Great Mosque at Diarbekr.]

As before remarked, fire-worship does not admit of temples, and we consequently miss that class of buildings which in all ages best illustrates the beauties of architecture; and it is only in a few scattered remains of palaces that we are able to trace the progress of the style. Such as they are, they indicate considerable originality and power, but at the same time point to a state of society when attention to security hardly allowed the architect the free exercise of the more delicate ornaments of his art.

The Sassanians took up the style where it was left by the builders of Al Hadhr; but we only find it after a long interval of time, during which changes had taken place which altered it to a considerable extent, and made it in fact into a new and complete style.

They retained the great tunnel-like halls of Al Hadhr, but only as entrances. They cut bold arches through the dividing walls, so as to form them into lateral suites. But, above all, they learnt to place domes on the intersections of their halls, not resting on drums, but on pendentives,[204] and did not even attempt to bring down simulated lines of support to the ground. Besides all these constructive peculiarities, they lost all trace of Roman detail, and adopted a system of long reed-like pilasters, extending from the ground to the cornice, below which they were joined by small semicircular arches. They in short adopted all the peculiarities which are found in the Byzantine style as carried out at a later age in Armenia and the East. We must know more of this style, and be able to ascribe authentic dates to such examples as we are acquainted with, before we can decide whether the Sassanians borrowed the style from the Eastern Romans, or whether they themselves were in fact the inventors from whom the architects of the more western nations took the hints which they afterwards so much improved upon.

The various steps by which the Romans advanced from the construction of buildings like the Pantheon to that of the church of Sta. Sophia at Constantinople are so consecutive and so easily traced as to be intelligible in themselves without the necessity of seeking for any foreign element which may have affected them. If it really was so, and the architecture of Constantinople was not influenced from the East, we must admit that the Sassanian was an independent and simultaneous invention, possessing characteristics well worthy of study. It is quite certain too that this style had a direct influence on the Christian and Moslem styles of Asia, which exhibit many features not derivable from any of the more Western styles.

[Illustration: 258. Plan of Palace at Serbistan. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 259. Section on line A B of Palace at Serbistan. (From Dieulafoy.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

A few examples will render this clearer than it can be made in words. The plan and section (Woodcuts Nos. 258 and 259) of a small but interesting palace at Serbistan will explain most of the peculiarities of the style. The entrances, it will be observed, are deep tunnel-like arches, but the centre is covered by a dome resting on pendentives. In the palace of Firouzabad these are constructed by throwing a series of arches across the angles, one recessed behind the other, the lower ones serving as centres for those above, until a circular base for the dome has been obtained; but here in Serbistan they do not seem to have known this expedient: the lower courses run through to the angle, and the upper ones are brought forward in so irregular and unscientific a way as to suggest that for their support they placed their reliance almost entirely on the tenacious qualities of the mortar. That which, however, would have formed the outer arch of the pendentive is wrought on the stone down almost to the springing, as if the builder of Serbistan had seen regular arched pendentives of some kind, but did not know how to build them. This is the more remarkable because, as we shall see later on, they knew how to construct semi-domes over their recesses or square niches, and in regular coursed masonry; if they had applied these to the angles, they would have invented the squinch, a kind of pendentive employed in Romanesque work in the south of France. The dome is elliptical, as are also the barrel vaults over the entrances, the recesses in the central hall, and the vaults over the lateral halls. In these lateral halls piers are built within the walls, forming a series of recesses; these either have transverse arches thrown across them where the lofty doorways come, or are covered with semidomes in regular coursed masonry, the angles being filled in below them with small arches. The lower portions of the piers consist of circular columns about six feet high, behind which a passage is formed. The builders thus obtained the means of counteracting the thrust of the vault, without breaking the external outline by buttresses and without occupying much room on the floor, while at the same time these projections added considerably to the architectural effect of the interior. The date of the building is not correctly known, but it most probably belongs to the age of Shapour, in the middle of the fourth century.

The palace at Firouzabad is probably a century more modern, and is erected on a far more magnificent scale, being in fact the typical building of the style, so far at least as we at present know.

[Illustration: 260. Plan of Palace at Firouzabad. (From Dieulafoy.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 261. Doorway at Firouzabad. (From Flandin and Coste.)]

As will be seen in the plan, the great central entrance opens laterally into two side chambers, and the inner of these into a suite of three splendid domed apartments, occupying the whole width of the building. Beyond this is an inner court, surrounded by apartments all opening upon it.

As will be perceived from Woodcut No. 261, representing one of the doorways in the domed halls, the details have nothing Roman about them, but are borrowed directly from Persepolis, with so little change that the style, so far as we can now judge, is almost an exact reproduction, except that the work is only surface ornament in plaster, and is an irregular and a degraded copy of the original stone features at Persepolis. The opening also is spanned by a circular arch under the lintel of the Persian example, the former being the real constructive feature, the latter a decorative imitation. The portion of the exterior represented in Woodcut No. 262 tells the same tale, though for its prototype we must go back still further to the ruins at Wurka—the building called Wuswus at that place (see p. 165) being a palace arranged very similarly to these, and adorned externally by panellings and reeded pilasters, differing from these buildings only in detail and arrangement, but in all essentials so like them as to prove that the Sassanians borrowed most of their peculiarities from earlier native examples.

The building itself is a perfectly regular parallelogram, 332 ft. by 180, without a single break, or even an opening of any sort, except the one great arch of the entrance; and externally it has no ornament but the repetition of the tall pilasters and narrow arches represented in Woodcut No. 262. Its aspect is thus simple and severe, but more like a gigantic Bastile than the palace of a gay, pavilion-loving people, like the Persians.

Internally the arrangement of the halls is simple and appropriate, and, though somewhat too formal, is dignified and capable of considerable architectural display. On the whole, however, its formality is perhaps less pleasing than the more picturesque arrangements of the palace at Serbistan last described.

[Illustration: 262. Part of External Wall, Firouzabad. No scale.]

Another century probably elapsed before Khosru (Nushirvan) commenced the most daring, though certainly not the most beautiful ever attempted by any of his race; for to him we must ascribe the well-known Tâk Kesra (Woodcuts Nos. 263, 264), the only important ruin that now marks the site of the Ctesiphon of the Greeks—the great Modain of the Arabian conquerors.

As it is, it is only a fragment of a palace, a façade similar in arrangement to that at Firouzabad, but on a much larger scale, its width being 312 ft., its height 105 to 110, and the depth of the remaining block 170 ft. In the centre is a magnificent portal, the Aiwan, or Throne room of the palace, vaulted over with an elliptical barrel vault and similar to the smaller vestibules of Serbistan and Firouzabad; the lower portion of the arch, the springing of which is about 40 ft. from the ground, is built in horizontal courses up to 63 ft. above the ground, above which comes the portion arched with regular voussoirs; by this method not only was an enormous centering saved, but the thrust of that portion built with voussoirs was brought well within the thickness of the side walls. It is probable that the front portion of the arch, about 20 ft. in depth, was built on walls erected temporarily for that purpose; the remainder of the vault, however, was possibly erected without centres, the bricks being placed flatwise and the rings being inclined at an angle of about 10° towards the back of the front arch. The tenacious quality of the mortar was probably sufficient to hold the bricks in their places till the arch ring was complete, so that the centering was virtually a template only, giving the correct form of the ellipse, and constructed with small timbers so as to save expense. A similar method of construction was found by Sir Henry Layard in the drain vaults at Nimroud, and it exists in the granaries built by Rameses II. in the rear of the Rameseum at Thebes. The lower or inner portion of the great arch is built in four rings of bricks or tiles laid flatwise, two of which are carried down to the springing of the whole arch: above these in the upper portion of the arch comes a ring 3 feet in height, regularly built in voussoir-shaped bricks breaking joint, on the surface of which are cut a series of seventeen foils, the whole being crowned by a slightly projecting moulding. These have nothing to do with the construction, and are simply a novel method of decoration carved after the arch was built.

[Illustration: 263. Plan of Tâk Kesra at Ctesiphon. (From Flandin and Coste.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 264. Elevation of Great Arch of Tâk Kesra at Ctesiphon. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

The wall flanking the great arch on either side is decorated with buttress shafts and blind arches, which are partially constructive, and intended to support and strengthen those portions of the wall which were simply screens, or to resist the thrust of the walls of the vaulted chambers behind, consisting of one storey only. Decoratively they divide up the front and were apparently introduced in imitation of the great Roman amphitheatres. The position occupied by these semi-detached shafts on the first storey (resting on the ledge left by the greater thickness of wall of the lower storey), which are not in the axes of those below, proves that the Sassanian architect thought more of their constructive value as buttresses, than of their architectural value as superimposed features.

[Illustration: 265. Sketch Plan of Palace at Mashita.]

Though it may not perhaps be beautiful, there is certainly something grand in a great vaulted entrance, 72 ft. wide by 85 ft. in height and 115 in depth, though it makes the doorway at the inner end and all the adjoining parts look extremely small. It would have required the rest of the palace to be carried out on an unheard-of scale to compensate for this defect. The Saracenic architects got over the difficulty by making the great portal a semidome, and by cutting it up with ornaments and details, so that the doorway looked as large as was required for the space left for it. Here, in the parent form, all is perfectly plain in the interior, and painting alone could have been employed to relieve its nakedness, which, however, it never would have done effectually.[205]

The ornaments in these and in all the other buildings of the Sassanians having been executed in plaster, we should hardly be able to form an idea of the richness of detail they once possessed but for the fortunate discovery of a palace erected in Moab by Khosru Purviz, the last great monarch of this line.[206]

As will be seen from the woodcut (No. 265), the whole building is a square, measuring above 500 ft. each way, but only the inner portion of it, about 170 ft. square, marked E E, has been ever finished or inhabited. It was apparently originally erected as a hunting-box on the edge of the desert for the use of the Persian king, and preserves all the features we are familiar with in Sassanian palaces. It is wholly in brick, and contains in the centre a triapsal hall, once surmounted by a dome on pendentives like those at Serbistan or Firouzabad. On either side were eight vaulted halls with intermediate courts almost identical with those found at Eski Bagdad[207] or at Firouzabad. So far there is nothing either remarkable or interesting, except the peculiarity of finding a Persian building in such a situation, and in the fact that the capitals of the pillars are of that full-curved shape which are first found in the works of Justinian, which so far helps to fix the date of the building.

It seems, however, that at a time when Chosroes possessed all Asia and part of Africa, from the Indus to the Nile, and maintained a camp for ten years on the shores of the Bosphorus, in sight of Constantinople, that this modest abode no longer sufficed for the greatest monarch of the day. He consequently determined to add to it the enclosure above described, and to ornament it with a portal which should exceed in richness anything of the sort to be found in Syria. Unfortunately for the history of art, this design was never carried out. When the walls were raised to the height of about twenty feet, the workmen were called off, most probably in consequence of the result of the battle of Nineveh in 627; and the stones remain half hewn, the ornament unfinished, and the whole exactly as if left in a panic, never to be resumed.

[Illustration: 266. Interior of ruined triapsal Hall of Palace.]

The length of the façade—marked A A in plan, Woodcut No. 265—between the plain towers, which are the same all round, is about 170 ft.,[208] the centre of which was occupied by a square-headed portal flanked by two octagonal towers. Each face of these towers was ornamented by an equilateral triangular pediment, filled with the richest sculpture. In that shown in Woodcut No. 267, two large animals are represented facing one another on the opposite sides of a vase, on which are two doves, and out of which springs a vine which spreads over the whole surface of the triangle, interspersed with birds and bunches of grapes. In another panel one of the lions is represented with wings, evidently the last lineal descendant of those found at Nineveh and Persepolis, and in all are curious hexagonal rosettes, carved with a richness far exceeding anything found in Gothic architecture, but which are found repeated with very little variation in the Jaina temples of western India.

[Illustration: 267. One Compartment of Western Octagon Tower of the Persian Palace at Mashita.]

The wing walls of the façade are almost more beautiful than the central

## part itself. As on the towers, the ornamentation consists of a series of

triangles filled with incised decorations and with rosettes in their centres; while, as will be observed in Woodcut No. 265, the decoration in each panel is varied, and all are unfinished. The cornice only exists at one angle, and the mortice stones never were inserted that were meant to keep it in its place. Enough however remains to enable us to see that, as a surface decoration, it is nearly unrivalled in beauty and appropriateness. As an external form I know nothing like it. It is only matched by that between the arches of the interior of Sta. Sophia at Constantinople, which is so near it in age that they may be considered as belonging to the same school of art.

[Illustration: 268. Part of West Wing Wall of External Façade of Palace at Mashita. (From a Photograph.)]

[Illustration: 269. Elevation of External Façade of the Mashita, as restored by the Author.]

Notwithstanding the incomplete state in which this façade was left, there does not seem much difficulty in restoring it within very narrow limits of certainty. The elevation cannot have differed greatly from that shown in Woodcut No. 269, on the preceding page. In the first place there must have been a great arch over the entrance doorway—this is _de rigueur_ in Sassanian art, and this must have been stilted or horse-shoed, as without that it could not be made to fit on to the cornice in the towers, and all the arches in the interior take, as I am informed, that shape. Besides this there is at Takt-i-Gero[209] a Sassanian arch of nearly the same age and equally classical in design, which is, like this one, horse-shoed to the extent of one-tenth of its diameter; and at Urgub, in Asia Minor, all the rock-cut excavations which are of this or an earlier age have this peculiarity in a marked degree.[210]

Above this, the third storey, is a repetition of the lowest, on half its scale—as in the Tâk Kesra,—but with this difference, that here the angular form admits of its being carried constructively over the great arch, so that it becomes a facsimile of an apse at Murano near Venice,[211] which is adorned with the spoils of some desecrated building of the same age, probably of Antioch or some city of Syria destroyed by the Saracens. Above this the elevation is more open to conjecture, but it is evident that the whole façade could not have been less than 90 ft. in height, from the fact that the mouldings at the base (Woodcut No. 265) are the mouldings of a Corinthian column of that height, and no architect with a knowledge of the style would have used such mouldings four and a half feet in height, unless he intended his building to be of a height equal at least to that proportion. The domes are those of Serbistan or of Amrith (Woodcut No. 122); but such domes are frequent in Syria before this age, and became more so afterwards.

The great defect of the palace at Mashita as an illustration of Sassanian art arises from the fact that, as a matter of course, Chosroes did not bring with him architects or sculptors to erect this building. He employed the artists of Antioch or Damascus, or those of Syria, as he found them. He traced the form and design of what he wanted, and left them to execute it, and they introduced the vine—which had been the principal “motif” in such designs from the time of Herod till the Moslem invasion—and other details of the Byzantine art with which Justinian had made them familiar from his buildings at Jerusalem, Antioch, and elsewhere. Exactly the same thing happened in India six centuries later. When the Moslems conquered that country in the beginning of the thirteenth century they built mosques at Delhi and Ajmere which are still among the most beautiful to be found anywhere. The design and outline are purely Saracenic, but every detail is Hindu, but, just as in this case, more exquisite than anything the Moslems ever did afterwards in that country.

Though it thus stands almost alone, the discovery of this palace fills a gap in our history such as no other building occupies up to the present time. And when more, and more correct, details have been procured, it will be well worthy of a monograph, which can hardly be attempted now from the scanty materials available. Its greatest interest, however, lies in the fact that all the Persian and Indian mosques were derived from buildings of this class. The African mosques were enlargements of the _atria_ of Christian basilicas, and this form is never found there, but it is the key to all that was afterwards erected to the eastward.

[Illustration: 270. Plan, Rabbath Ammon.]

The palace of Rabbath Ammon (Woodcuts Nos. 270, 271), also in Moab, consists of a central court open to the sky, and four recesses or transepts, one on each face; two of these are covered with elliptical barrel vaults, and two with semidomes carried on pendentives. The decoration of this palace is similar to that found at Mashita, but not so rich in design or so good in its execution.

[Illustration: 271. Section through Palace of Rabbath Ammon.]

The remains of two other palaces have been found in Persia, one at Imumzade, which consists of a dome on pendentives, and a second, called the Tag Eiran, made known to us by M. Dieulafoy, and published in his work on the ancient art of Persia.[212] The latter is probably a late example, for it shows a considerable advance in construction, and is lighted by clerestory windows between the brick transverse arches which span the hall. The plan consisted of a central hall, covered over by a dome carried on pendentives, and two wings; of the original building, only one of these wings remains, and two sides of the central hall, in both cases up to the springing of the real arch, the lower courses being horizontal as in the arch at Ctesiphon.

[Illustration: 272. Arch of Chosroes at Takt-i-Bostan. (From Flandin and Coste.)]

In the dearth of Sassanian buildings there is one other monument that it is worth while quoting before closing this chapter. It is an archway or grotto, which the same Chosroes cut in the rock at Takt-i-Bostan, near Kermanshah (Woodcut No. 272). Though so far removed from Byzantine influence it is nearly as classical as the palace at Mashita. The flying figures over the arch are evident copies of those adorning the triumphal arches of the Romans, the mouldings are equally classical, and though the costumes of the principal personages, and of those engaged in the hunting scenes on either hand, partake more of Assyria than of Rome, the whole betrays the influence of his early education and the diffusion of Western arts at that time more than any other monument we know of. The statue of Chosroes on his favourite black steed “Shubz diz,” is original and interesting, and, with many of the details of this monument, it has been introduced into the restoration of Mashita.

This, it must be confessed, is but a meagre account of the architecture of a great people. Perhaps it may be that the materials do not exist for making it more complete; but what is more likely is that they have not yet been looked for, but will be found when attention is fairly directed to the subject. In the meanwhile what has been said regarding it will be much clearer and better understood when we come to speak of the Byzantine style, which overlapped the Sassanian, and was to some extent contemporary with it.

## PART II.

CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE.

INTRODUCTORY.

If a line were drawn north and south from Memel on the shores of the Baltic to Spalato on the Adriatic, it would divide Europe into nearly equal halves. All that part lying to the west of the line would be found to be inhabited by nations of Celtic or Teutonic races, and all those to the eastward of it by nations of Sclavonic origin, if—as we must do—we exclude from present consideration those fragments of the effete Turanian races which still linger to the westward, as well as the intrusive hordes of the same family which temporarily occupy some fair portions to the eastward of the line so drawn.

This line is not of course quite straight, for it follows the boundary between Germany on the one hand, and Russia and Poland on the other as far as Cracow, while it crosses Hungary by the line of the Raab and separates Dalmatia from Turkey. Though Sclavonic influences may be detected to the westward of the boundary, they are faint and underlie the Teutonic element; but to the eastward, the little province of Siebenburgen, in the north-east corner of Hungary, forms the only little oasis of Gothic art in the desert of Panslavic indifference to architectural expression. Originally it was a Roman, afterwards a German, colony, and maintained its Gothic style throughout the Middle Ages.[213]

From Spalato the line crosses the Adriatic to Fermo, and then following very closely the 43rd parallel of latitude, divides Italy into two nearly equal halves. Barbarian tribes settled to a certain extent to the northward of this boundary and influenced the style of architecture in some degree; while to the southward of it, their presence can with difficulty be detected, except in a few exceptional cases, and for a very limited time.

Architecturally all the styles of art practised during the Middle Ages to the westward and northward of this boundary may be correctly and graphically described as the Gothic style, using this term in a broad sense. All those to the eastward may with equal propriety be designated as the Byzantine style of art.

Anterior, however, to the former there existed a transitional style known as Romanesque, but which was virtually at first nothing more than debased Roman. It was, in fact, a modification of the classical Roman form which was introduced between the reigns of Constantine and Justinian, and was avowedly an attempt to adapt classical forms to Christian purposes. At first the materials of ancient buildings sufficed for its wants, and if after the 4th century the style did not lapse into absolute barbarism it was due to the influence which the Proto-Byzantine style began to exert and to the magnificent works erected by Greek artists at Parenzo and Grado in Dalmatia, at Ravenna, Milan, and even in Rome herself. To the eastward of the line of demarcation the transition was perfected under the reign of Justinian (A.D. 527 to 564), when it became properly entitled to the name of Byzantine. To the westward, in Italy and the south of France, this first phase of the Romanesque continued to be practised till the 6th or 7th centuries; but about that time occurs an hiatus in the architectural history of Western Europe, owing to the troubles which arose on the dissolution of the Roman Empire and the irruption of the Barbarian hordes. When the art again reappeared, it was strongly tinctured by Barbarian influences, and might with propriety be designated the _Gothic style_, the essential characteristic being that it is the architecture of a people differing from the Romans or Italians in blood, and, it need hardly be added, differing from them in a like ratio in their architectural conceptions.

The term “Gothic,” however, is so generally adopted throughout Europe to designate the style in which the intersecting vault with pointed arches is the main characteristic, that to depart from it, even when subdivided into round arched and pointed arched Gothic, would only lead to confusion. It would therefore seem better to retain the nomenclature usually employed in modern architectural works, and to class all the phases of the transitional style between the Roman and the Gothic periods under the broad title of Romanesque. This would include what we have termed Early Christian——Lombardi——Rhenish——those phases of the style which in Italy and France are influenced by Byzantine detail——the pure Romanesque or Romance of the south of France——the Norman style in Italy, Sicily, and the North of France, and——Saxon and Norman in our own country. The attempt to restrict the term Romanesque within the confines of the 6th and 7th centuries, which was formerly attempted, has proved to be illusory, as it has never been recognised by any student of architecture. At the same time it is not necessary to insist on the term when describing its various phases, and when they are better known under other terms. It is, however, of importance, when writing a general history of all styles, to keep strictly to some definite system, and not to adopt the nomenclature which has in some cases been given by persons writing monographs of the style of their own particular country. The Germans, for instance, are inclined to call the architecture of such cathedrals as Spires, Worms, etc., by the absurd name of Byzantine, though no features in them have ever been borrowed from the Eastern capital, nor do they resemble the buildings of that part of Europe.

The title Gothic, which was originally invented as a term of reproach, and which was applied to the imaginary work of the western Barbarians who at one time overthrew the western Empire and settled within its limits, has no architectural or ethnological value, it being impossible to point out any features, much less buildings, which the Goths introduced, and which are not to be more correctly attributed to Roman or Byzantine artists. If we except the tomb of Theodoric, all the works in Ravenna are scarcely to be distinguished from the basilicas of the Eastern Empire, and only embody such modifications as the material of the country and a certain influence of debased Roman architecture in Italy would naturally exert. The churches and thermæ which Theodoric is said to have restored in Rome have no characteristics which are not found in other buildings of the same class before his reign, and even in Spain and the south of France, which was occupied more or less continuously by the Visigoths for more than two centuries, there are no features which they could claim to have invented.

The term Gothic, therefore, is misplaced, but inasmuch as the Goths never invented any style, there is not likely, if this fact is recognised, to be any confusion in its adoption.

The chief difficulty which presents itself in any attempt to classify the work of the Romanesque and the Gothic styles is that of drawing a line of demarcation between the two. It is not sufficient to take the pointed arch, for in France a pointed arched barrel vault preceded the round arched vault; and in the East, as we know, the pointed arch made its appearance at a much earlier period: that characteristic, therefore, must not be too rigidly insisted upon.

Beyond this general classification, the use of local names, when available, will always be found most convenient. First, the country, or architectural province, in which an example is found should be ascertained, so that its locality may be marked, and if possible with the addition of a dynastic or regal name to point out its epoch. When the outline is sufficiently marked, it may be convenient, as the French do, to speak of the style of the 13th century[214] as applied to their own country. The terms they use always seem to be better than 1st, or 2nd, Middle Pointed, or even “Geometric,” “Decorated,” or “Perpendicular,” or such general names as neither tell the country nor the age, nor even accurately describe the style, though when they have become general it may seem pedantic to refuse to use them. The system of using local, combined, and dynastic names has been followed in describing all the styles hitherto enumerated in this volume, and will be followed in speaking of those which remain to be described; and as it is generally found to be so convenient, whenever it is possible it will be adhered to.

In order to carry out these principles, the division proposed for this part of the subject is—

1st. To begin the history of Christian Art by tracing up the successive developments of the earliest perfected style, the Byzantine, in the countries lying to the eastward of the boundary line already defined. Owing to the greater uniformity of race, the thread of the narrative is far more easily followed to the eastward than we shall find to the westward of the line. The Byzantine empire remained one and undivided during the Middle Ages; and from that we pass by an easy gradation to Russia, where the style continued to be practised till Peter the Great superseded it by introducing the styles of Western Europe.

2nd. To treat of the early Christian style as it prevailed in Italy, down to the age of Charlemagne, so long, in fact, as it remained a debased Roman style influenced only by its connection with the Eastern Empire. Continuing our description of the various phases of the style as practised in Italy and in Istria and Dalmatia (the two countries with which she was so intimately connected) down to the revival of classic architecture: subdividing it into those sections which are suggested by the predominant influence of Lombardic, Byzantine, or Gothic art, and keeping as far as possible to a chronological sequence.

3rd. To take up the Romanesque style in France, and to follow it through its various phases whilst it was being gradually absorbed in the predominant impetus given to its successor, the Gothic style, by the adoption of the pointed arch in intersecting vaulting during the 12th century, and then its subsequent development in succeeding centuries, till it perished under Francis I.

If this arrangement is not quite logical, it is certainly convenient, as it enables us to grasp the complete history of the style in the country where most of the more important features were invented and perfected. Having once mastered the history of Gothic art in the country of its birth, the sequence in which the other branches of the style are followed become comparatively unimportant. The difficulty of arranging them does not lie so much in the sequence as in the determination of what divisions shall be considered as separate architectural provinces. In a handbook, subdivision could hardly be carried too far; in a history, a wider view ought to be taken. On the whole, perhaps, the following will best meet the true exigencies of the case:—

4th. Belgium and Holland should be taken up after France as a separate province during the Middle Ages, while at the same time forming an intermediate link between that country and Germany.

5th. Though not without important ethnographical distinctions, it will be convenient to treat all the German-speaking countries from the Alps to the Baltic as one province. If Germany were taken up before France, such a mode of treatment would be inadmissible; but following the history of the art in that country, it may be done without either confusion or needless repetition.

6th. Scandinavia follows naturally as a subordinate, and, unfortunately, not very important, architectural subdivision.

7th. From this we pass by an easy gradation to the British Islands, which in themselves contain three tolerably well-defined varieties of style, popularly known as the Saxon, the Norman, or round-arched, and the Gothic, or pointed-arched style of Architecture.

8th. Spain might have been made to follow France, as most of its architectural peculiarities were borrowed from that country; but some too own a German origin, while on the whole the new lessons to be learned from a study of her art are so few, that it is comparatively unimportant in what sequence the country is taken, and therefore it has been found more convenient to place her last.

## BOOK I.

BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

##