How to Study Architecture by Charles H. Caffin (free reads .txt) 📕

noble example of the earlier Mogul style is the Mosque of Akbar at Futtehpore-Sikri. Especially noteworthy are the southern and western gateways. They tower up with emphatic assertion and yet with a finely proportioned relation to the flanking arcades. This is due in a great measure to the arches of the arcades being repeated with more elaborate detail in the recess of the gateway, where also an upper tier of arches balances the architrave of the arcades. These tiers of arches, leading up to the semi-dome of the ceiling give a contrast of grace to the sterner lines of the exterior arch, and introduce gradations of refinement into its monumental scale.

The later example, Taj Mahal, Agra, erected by Shah Jehan (1627-1658) is distinguished by less force and a greater delicacy and refinement. Though it is said to have been designed by a French or Italian architect, it is regarded as the last word of beauty in Indian-Muhammedan architecture and one of the most beautiful architectural monuments in the world.

This royal tomb, used as a ceremonial hall during its founder’s lifetime, stands upon a marble platform, 18 feet high and 313 feet square, at the corners of which spire up minarets of circular, that is to say, of Persian design. The building occupies a square plan of 181 feet, from which the corners have been removed; the façades being composed of two tiers of deeply recessed arches, interrupted by four monumental portals, which correspond, though with greater refinements of proportion and detail, to those of the Mosque of Futtehpore-Sikri. The central dome of bulb-form rises upon a lofty drum to a height of 80 feet with 58 feet diameter, and is balanced by four small domes, supported on columns. The material of the whole is white marble, enriched with carvings and inlays of jasper, bloodstone, and agate. The Taj Mahal, as exquisite as it is imposing, is set like an immense jewel in an enchanting scheme of garden-planning that includes terraces, lakes, fountains, and foliage.

CHAPTER V

EARLY MEDIÆVAL CIVILISATION

The period of architecture to which this chapter forms an introduction is from A.D. 1000 to 1200. It is usually known as the Romanesque period because the architecture in certain structural particulars represented a return to Roman methods. But the application of the principles varied in different parts of what had been the Roman Empire under the influence of local conditions; according as the locality was Northern Italy, or Northern or Southern France, or England, or the Rhine Provinces of Germany.

On the other hand, when we come to consider the social and political conditions, the word Romanesque is too narrow. It was, it is true, a period of gradual reconstruction of order upon the ruins of the Roman Empire and one of the forces that made for order was the partial revival by Charlemagne of Roman Law. The latter became a model by which the slow process of organising society anew could shape itself. So far, at least, the social tendency of the period was Romanesque. But after all, this was only a detail of the new order, and by no means the most significant.

Indeed the attempt to revive an empire was in itself reactionary and opposed to the spirit of the time. For the latter was groping toward the organising of independent nationalities. The millions who had overwhelmed the Roman Empire possessed a certain kinship of race and language; but they were divided into tribal units which clung to their separate identities, the more so as the difference of localities in which they settled increased their separateness. Thus the movement of the time was a slow change from tribal to national unity, and the gradual construction of a social and political order, suited to their racial instinct of independent freedom. The advance was much more rapid in social than in political order. For centuries the independent and adventurous spirit of the various peoples was to keep them embroiled in constant warfare, postponing the settlement of national landmarks. Back of this political chaos, however, was a steady and sure growth in social order, which, indeed, was largely assisted by the necessity of self-preservation.

While popes, emperors, kings, dukes, and counts were fighting in colossal or petty rivalries, the “honest man,” as the saying is, “came into his own.” The merchants grew in importance, the craft-gilds consolidated their strength, and the cities became oases of comparative order. It was an age distinguished by the growth of “communes”; that is to say, of burgs, boroughs, and cities, possessing certain rights of self-government and immunity from indiscriminate taxation. Not that these privileges escaped infringement. The fight for them had to be perpetually maintained and the fortunes of the commune varied from time to time. Yet the seed of self-government was sown, to stay in the soil of every Teutonic nation.

The rise of the commune was partly due to the Feudal system, which had its origin in the “fee” or tenure in land. As the system came to be worked out, the tenant held in fief from an overlord, who in turn held from some more powerful overlord and so on up to the King. When the latter went to war, the word was passed down and each overlord had to bring his quota of men, which he made up from the levies of the overlords below him. It thus became an automatic method of raising an army, of which the lowest knight with his few followers was the unit. On the other hand, the ease with which the method could be put in operation and the need of constant preparation for it, maintained a condition of warlike feeling, that in the absence of a great war broke out in jealousy and strife among the several constituent parts of the system.

It was to guard against the inevitable miseries of this constant turmoil that the merchants and artisans built their homes and shops around some burg or castle, to the lord of which they looked for protection, walls of defence being gradually built around the city, until it became fortified with the castle as a citadel. The benefits were mutual. Commerce and trade could be pursued in comparative peace, while the lord in return for his protection would receive a portion of the profits to finance his various expeditions or intrigues. To consolidate their influence the merchants formed themselves into merchant gilds, while the citizens established craft-gilds in the various trades.

Thus gradually both commerce and trade spun a network of peaceful activity and comparative stability over the otherwise troubled world, knitting together its remotest parts. For while the agricultural population was tied to the soil, and passed with its transfer from one owner to another, the condition of commerce and to some extent of trade was fluent. Merchants travelled and had their agents in distant countries; and even the artisan might move from place to place and enroll himself for the time being in the local gild of his craft. And the merchants became also the bankers of their time: those of Lombardy, for example, loaning money to kings as well as to other merchants; the memory of which is preserved in “Lombard Street,” in London’s financial centre.

These merchants had become wealthy by trading in the merchandise from the East and increased their wealth by distributing the merchandise throughout the West. Milan, therefore, speedily grew in importance because she commanded the roads leading over the passes of the Alps. Thence the chief stream of commerce led at first through Provence. Later, German cities like Augsburg and Nuremburg, became powerful and prosperous on the road to such northern ports as Lübeck and Hamburg, while the Rhine became the highway of commerce to Bruges, Ghent, and Brussels.

The gilds perpetuated what came to be called the “mystery” of their crafts by organisations which combined a system of apprenticeship with what we know to-day as a trade-union. One of these was the gild of masons from which Freemasonry derived. It included various grades from the ordinary worker of stone and marble, through the men skilled in carved work, up to the few who were capable of designing and supervising the construction. And although the tradition that these mason-gilds travelled from place to place has been discredited, it is still allowed that some of these master-masons or architects, as we call them to-day, must have acquired a fame which caused them to be engaged by other cities than their own.

Meanwhile, there was another great influence operating in the interests of social order—that of the Church. Many bishops occupied positions corresponding to that of a feudal lord and some even went to war at the head of their troops. The cathedrals, like the castles, became the nuclei of cities. Moreover, the Religious Orders were increasing in numbers and in influence, both spiritual and temporal. There had been a widely held expectation that the end of the world was to come in 1000 B.C. After the fateful date had passed, people breathed more freely with a fresh zest of life and thankfulness to Heaven; and the Church generally and, in particular, the Religious Orders, put themselves at the head of this great revival. They became the leaders of a great popular religious and civic enthusiasm that found expression especially in church and cathedral building.

The earliest Order, the Benedictine, had been founded by S. Benedict in the sixth century and spread through the west of Europe, obtaining firm hold in England. The Cluniac Order, with its headquarters in the Abbey of Cluny in the Department of Saone et Loire, France, was established in 909 and in 1080 S. Bruno founded the Carthusian Order, whose chief monastery in France was the Grande Chartreuse, near Grenoble. A little later came the Cistercians, and the Augustinian Orders, while the twelfth century saw the founding of the Dominican Order of Preaching Friars and the following century the establishment of the mendicant order of Franciscans. Nor does this summary complete the list. The orders rivalled one another in the number and efficiency of their monasteries, which were the centres not only of religion but also of learning, art, and economic life, affording guest-houses for travellers and serving as hospitals, schools, and colleges.

The monastery was usually erected around a square enclosure still called in England a “close,” surrounded by cloisters. On one side of it adjoined the Church or Minster which, if it were cruciform, extended its transept along one side of the cloister, while the nave occupied another. Along the opposite side of the enclosure ran the refectory, or common feeding-room of the brotherhood, while the fourth side was occupied with dormitories. Grouped around this plan were the abbot’s lodging, guestrooms, school, and dispensary, the bake-house and granaries, fishponds, gardens, and orchards. And in some quiet room where the light was favourable, certain of the brothers plied the task of scribes and illuminators. Happy the monastery that could boast a master-miniaturist or one who was of surpassing merit as a master-mason. Down to the thirteenth century “Architecture was practised largely by the clergy and regarded as a sacred science.”

The influence of monkish architects may have had much to do with the change of the cathedral or church plan from basilica to cruciform, which is characteristic of this period. The clergy continued to be separated from the laity and the extra accommodation needed for the monks of a large monastery caused the apse to be replaced by a chancel, which was raised by several steps from the level of the nave. It contained the stalls for the monks and was divided from the nave by a screen (cancellus), which was surmounted by a gallery or loft, in which the rood (cross) stood.

This rood-loft could be utilised for sacred tableaux which were given for the edification of the people at certain festivals. At Christmas, for example, the choirboys, playing the