ITALIAN ARCHITECTURE. 1— I.
ANTIQUITY.
I
TALY has witnessed the passage of many peoples over her territory, the greater part of whom have left but very faint traces of their movements. Of the mysterious Pelasgians we will say nothing; and as for the Etruscans, the historian of their architecture finds only scattered remains to aid him in his work, — a few walls and tombs, but not a single temple; the temple has, however, always proved the most important structure of primitive peoples.
The earliest Etruscan constructions encountered are walls of defence. Some of these belong to the so-called polygonal system (Fiesole and Yolterra), a system possessing certain points in common with that employed at Tiryns. Others are of the rectilineal type, the opus quadratum of the Romans ; examples of these are seen at Sutri and Falerii, at Tarquinii and at Rome, where the older walls of the time of the kings are of this kind. But the Etruscans were not merely wallbuilders ; owing to the character of the country in which they dwelt, they developed great skill in hydraulic engineering. In the ruins of their cities evidence is found of their proficiency in the art of damming streams and constructing canals of derivation,. draining-ditches and sewers ; and these are always works of importance. Every one is familiar with the Cloaca Maxima, the famous drain at Rome, formed by the Tarquins, and which is the most remarkable of the Etruscan constructions that have come down to us.
Before entering on the study of Roman architecture, which was directly engrafted upon the Etruscan, attention should be directed to the development of the architecture which flourished in Sicily and southern Italy. According to the popular idea, the flowering-out of art in lower Italy, or Magna Graecia, and in Sicily, was subordinate to Grecian influence. But it now appears that such was not wholly the fact, and it may therefore not astonish us to be told that certain Doric monuments in Sicily antedate Greek colonization. Signor Despotti-Mospignotti, in a very learned treatise on architectonic rationalism (“ Della Razionulita architettonica” ; Firenze, 1852), attempted several years since to prove that the creation of iloric architecture was effected in Italy, not only previous to the introduction of all Greek influence, but also at a period when the Greeks were still an uncultured and coarse people. The author presents an array of arguments in support of his theory which Signor Taccani likewise warmly defends (see “Storia dell’Architettura in Europa,” Milano, 1855).
It is certain that no examples of Doric architecture are found in Greece as ancient as some in Italy ; nor is its development there logical and in conformity with the common laws of
1 From the French of Alfredo Melani, in Planat’s Encyclopedic de VArchitecture et de la Construction.
reason as it is in Italy. Specimens of the earliest Italo-Doric are seen in the Ortygian temple of Syracuse and in the older temples of Selinus and Agrigentum ; of its more advanced and already more robust character, in those later Sicilian edifices which are in the style of the Syracusan Minervium; of a yet later type, with a tendency to decadence, in the Olympium of Agrigentum and in the Temple of Concord ; of its clearly decadent style, in the altar of Syracuse and in the altars of Acrte, Solonte and Egesta ; and finally, of its completely degraded forms, in still more recent edifices in Sicily. Lastly, Signor Basile, a Sicilian architect, has directed attention to the fact that the so-called Temple of Yesta at Tivoli is in a Corinthian style, which does not exist in Greece and which closely resembles fragments found at Solonte, Pompeii, Palestrina and Lilybasum (see “ La Sicilia artistica e archeologica,” Part I). In this so-called Temple of Vesta, the capital, with the entire order to which it belongs, offers an example of Corinthian art entirely unlike that exhibited in the Temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens (by the Roman architect Cossutius), and also differing totally from that of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates and that of the Tower of the Winds, at Athens; and it has even no points in common with the Italic examples of Roman character.
Certainly the Italic capital as seen in temples dedicated to Italian divinities, and generally found in cities antedating the foundation of Rome, must have passed through a primitive period, a period of maturity, and also a period of decadence. We see, in fact, at Marsala, examples of a coarse and decadent construction ; at Solonte, some of rather remarkable workmanship, and at Tivoli, various specimens of the most exquisite forms. It is my belief that there is recognizable here an Italo- Corinthian type which grew up in Italy in accordance with a natural national evolution. It may be asked how the diversity between the Tuscan-Doric and that of Sicily came about. The capital discovered in the hypogea of Yulci, in 1834, in the tumulus of Cucumella, goes to show that this great diversity was perhaps only partial. The Etruscan order may then have been merely a corruption of the Doric of Southern Italy. The Etruscans always delighted in strength and they found in the forms of the so-called Tuscan-Doric greater virility, and an appearance of greater power and resistance than in the type represented in the capital of the tumulus of Cucumella.
The character of this sketch makes it impossible to push investigations in this line farther, and we therefore turn to Rome.
Roman architecture, as has already been said, was directly engrafted upon the Etruscan before being subjected to any Italo-Greek or Greek influences. But this remark suggests the double source of Roman art. The Romans occupying the centre of Italy, between the Etruscans and the Italo-Greeks, did, in fact, build up their architecture out of elements derived from both these sources. Down to the third century before our era their temples were the work of Etruscan architects ; but after the Persian wars Rome was brought under the sway of Greek art.
This is not the proper place to discuss in detail the anatomy of Roman architecture. However, I must recall, in a general way, the fact that the Romans developed on a broad scale the system of arches and vaults; and that, among the orders which they adopted, the Corinthian was most in favor during the Empire. The Roman colonnades and porticos are Corinthian, with a few exceptions.
Roman art reached its highest stage of growth at Rome, although the power of this mighty people was so wide-spread. Setting aside the aqueducts, triumphal arches, temples and baths, which do not properly come within the scope of this sketch, I will content myself with pointing out the sumptuous structural and decorative development of Roman architecture ; it maintained its vitality in Italy, not only after the fall of Rome, but even in the midst of Greek influences. I do not refer to its revival there in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, after the brief reign of Gothic art. But I do desire to emphasize the fact from the outset that Roman architecture has always found the warmest support all through Italy; the study of it opened up the most brilliant period of Italian architecture and formed the basis of its style.
THE MIDDLE AGES.
The Roman- Christian Style, the Byzantine, the Lombard and the Gothic. — Christian architecture had its birth in the catacombs. The catacombs served as burial places for the early
From a House in Leyden, Holland. From Architektonische Rundschau.
ANTIQUITY.
I
TALY has witnessed the passage of many peoples over her territory, the greater part of whom have left but very faint traces of their movements. Of the mysterious Pelasgians we will say nothing; and as for the Etruscans, the historian of their architecture finds only scattered remains to aid him in his work, — a few walls and tombs, but not a single temple; the temple has, however, always proved the most important structure of primitive peoples.
The earliest Etruscan constructions encountered are walls of defence. Some of these belong to the so-called polygonal system (Fiesole and Yolterra), a system possessing certain points in common with that employed at Tiryns. Others are of the rectilineal type, the opus quadratum of the Romans ; examples of these are seen at Sutri and Falerii, at Tarquinii and at Rome, where the older walls of the time of the kings are of this kind. But the Etruscans were not merely wallbuilders ; owing to the character of the country in which they dwelt, they developed great skill in hydraulic engineering. In the ruins of their cities evidence is found of their proficiency in the art of damming streams and constructing canals of derivation,. draining-ditches and sewers ; and these are always works of importance. Every one is familiar with the Cloaca Maxima, the famous drain at Rome, formed by the Tarquins, and which is the most remarkable of the Etruscan constructions that have come down to us.
Before entering on the study of Roman architecture, which was directly engrafted upon the Etruscan, attention should be directed to the development of the architecture which flourished in Sicily and southern Italy. According to the popular idea, the flowering-out of art in lower Italy, or Magna Graecia, and in Sicily, was subordinate to Grecian influence. But it now appears that such was not wholly the fact, and it may therefore not astonish us to be told that certain Doric monuments in Sicily antedate Greek colonization. Signor Despotti-Mospignotti, in a very learned treatise on architectonic rationalism (“ Della Razionulita architettonica” ; Firenze, 1852), attempted several years since to prove that the creation of iloric architecture was effected in Italy, not only previous to the introduction of all Greek influence, but also at a period when the Greeks were still an uncultured and coarse people. The author presents an array of arguments in support of his theory which Signor Taccani likewise warmly defends (see “Storia dell’Architettura in Europa,” Milano, 1855).
It is certain that no examples of Doric architecture are found in Greece as ancient as some in Italy ; nor is its development there logical and in conformity with the common laws of
1 From the French of Alfredo Melani, in Planat’s Encyclopedic de VArchitecture et de la Construction.
reason as it is in Italy. Specimens of the earliest Italo-Doric are seen in the Ortygian temple of Syracuse and in the older temples of Selinus and Agrigentum ; of its more advanced and already more robust character, in those later Sicilian edifices which are in the style of the Syracusan Minervium; of a yet later type, with a tendency to decadence, in the Olympium of Agrigentum and in the Temple of Concord ; of its clearly decadent style, in the altar of Syracuse and in the altars of Acrte, Solonte and Egesta ; and finally, of its completely degraded forms, in still more recent edifices in Sicily. Lastly, Signor Basile, a Sicilian architect, has directed attention to the fact that the so-called Temple of Yesta at Tivoli is in a Corinthian style, which does not exist in Greece and which closely resembles fragments found at Solonte, Pompeii, Palestrina and Lilybasum (see “ La Sicilia artistica e archeologica,” Part I). In this so-called Temple of Vesta, the capital, with the entire order to which it belongs, offers an example of Corinthian art entirely unlike that exhibited in the Temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens (by the Roman architect Cossutius), and also differing totally from that of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates and that of the Tower of the Winds, at Athens; and it has even no points in common with the Italic examples of Roman character.
Certainly the Italic capital as seen in temples dedicated to Italian divinities, and generally found in cities antedating the foundation of Rome, must have passed through a primitive period, a period of maturity, and also a period of decadence. We see, in fact, at Marsala, examples of a coarse and decadent construction ; at Solonte, some of rather remarkable workmanship, and at Tivoli, various specimens of the most exquisite forms. It is my belief that there is recognizable here an Italo- Corinthian type which grew up in Italy in accordance with a natural national evolution. It may be asked how the diversity between the Tuscan-Doric and that of Sicily came about. The capital discovered in the hypogea of Yulci, in 1834, in the tumulus of Cucumella, goes to show that this great diversity was perhaps only partial. The Etruscan order may then have been merely a corruption of the Doric of Southern Italy. The Etruscans always delighted in strength and they found in the forms of the so-called Tuscan-Doric greater virility, and an appearance of greater power and resistance than in the type represented in the capital of the tumulus of Cucumella.
The character of this sketch makes it impossible to push investigations in this line farther, and we therefore turn to Rome.
Roman architecture, as has already been said, was directly engrafted upon the Etruscan before being subjected to any Italo-Greek or Greek influences. But this remark suggests the double source of Roman art. The Romans occupying the centre of Italy, between the Etruscans and the Italo-Greeks, did, in fact, build up their architecture out of elements derived from both these sources. Down to the third century before our era their temples were the work of Etruscan architects ; but after the Persian wars Rome was brought under the sway of Greek art.
This is not the proper place to discuss in detail the anatomy of Roman architecture. However, I must recall, in a general way, the fact that the Romans developed on a broad scale the system of arches and vaults; and that, among the orders which they adopted, the Corinthian was most in favor during the Empire. The Roman colonnades and porticos are Corinthian, with a few exceptions.
Roman art reached its highest stage of growth at Rome, although the power of this mighty people was so wide-spread. Setting aside the aqueducts, triumphal arches, temples and baths, which do not properly come within the scope of this sketch, I will content myself with pointing out the sumptuous structural and decorative development of Roman architecture ; it maintained its vitality in Italy, not only after the fall of Rome, but even in the midst of Greek influences. I do not refer to its revival there in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, after the brief reign of Gothic art. But I do desire to emphasize the fact from the outset that Roman architecture has always found the warmest support all through Italy; the study of it opened up the most brilliant period of Italian architecture and formed the basis of its style.
THE MIDDLE AGES.
The Roman- Christian Style, the Byzantine, the Lombard and the Gothic. — Christian architecture had its birth in the catacombs. The catacombs served as burial places for the early
From a House in Leyden, Holland. From Architektonische Rundschau.