The Englishman's House: A Practical Guide for Selecting and Building a House

by C. J. Richardson

The same author considers that there is not the least certainty of this primitive wooden construction, with its inclined roof, having been the universal model of all nations, but especially in regard to Egypt and China. The peculiarities of the early Chinese style of architecture have been already named, and with the persistent continuity in one course yet prevalent, that style is still preserved. But the Grecian style was evidently founded on the rude model, and the ingenuity of that nation eventually led to the transference of material from wood to stone.

At the present day the Orders of Grecian architecture are fundamental to the principles of modern art in numerous varieties of detail; they have survived the prejudices, fancies, and dicta of various schools of art, although, as already shown, the Gothic and other systems have become formidable competitors, and in many cases, especially in regard to the picturesque, efficient, elegant, and ornamental substitutes. The taste for the latter characteristic has led to an increased adoption, for example, of the Italian style, which in many respects resembles the Grecian, but differs from it especially in lightness of detail, with greater variety. The author just quoted traces the origin of the Doric Order of the Greeks to a primary adaptation of the trunks of trees as external supports of the wooden dwelling, seeing in them the foreshadowing of the column designative of that order. “As trees are of greater circumference at their lower extremities, and diminish in rising, the diminution of the column was suggested by them.... These timbers (as supports) consisting of trunks of trees planted in the ground, offered not as yet the idea of bases and pedestals, as is seen in the Doric Order, which is without base. But in the course of time the inconvenience of this method was perceived, as it exposed the wood to rot, and to remedy this inconvenience pieces of wood were placed under each support to give it a better foundation, and to protect it from humidity. This practice may be traced in some of the ancient edifices in which the columns have no other base than a block of stone. But afterwards, the number of pieces of wood employed for the base was increased, in order to give greater elevation to the supports, or to effect better security against the effects of humidity. From this multiplication of blocks as footings, sprung the torus and other mouldings of the base, an origin far more probable than that of ligaments of iron, as imagined by Scamozzi and others. It is also more conformable to the nature of capitals, in which it is known that the same proceeding was employed. After beginning with a simple abacus, several others were afterwards added, which were enlarged, as they rose, one above another, in such a manner that as the base was to the column a kind of footing on which it rested more solidly, so the capital made a head more capable of receiving and supporting the weight and form of the architrave, a large beam placed horizontally on perpendicular supports, and destined to receive the covering of the whole edifice.”

The author goes on, in a similarly ingenious manner, to prove the derivation, from nature, of the Orders of Grecian architecture. He ascribes the form of the roof as having necessarily suggested that of the pediment. On this point he quotes the remark of Cicero: “It is not to pleasure that we are indebted for the pediment of the Capitol and those of our temples: necessity suggested the form for the better draining off the water; nevertheless, its beauty is so very great, and it is become so necessary for edifices, that if a Capitol were to be built in Olympus, where it was never known to rain, it would, notwithstanding, be necessary to give it a pediment.”

The preceding remarks and ingenious theory amply justify the opinion already suggested, that nature must be the foundation of every true principle of art. Assuming, as we are compelled to do, that the Grecian style as a whole was original, the only perfect model that could have been selected was that afforded by natural objects, in all of which are found the most perfect results, derived from few means but answering an infinity of ends. It will be remembered that the construction of the Eddystone lighthouse was based in regard to durability, and resistance to the force of the waves, on those properties which are possessed by any kind of tree exposed to the full force of the tempest. “Nature ought to be the basis of all imitation.”

Proceeding from the teachings of nature, the Greeks learned gradually to introduce new types, consistent in the main with the original mode, but of great variety in detail. By further refinement of this, but close adherence to the facts or the analogies of nature, the Grecian art became developed in the invention of other Orders, the names of which are sufficiently known to all interested in architecture. Limited space prevents our entering into a class of analyses of the characteristics of each. Little doubt exists of the Doric Order having been the first produced, and following it were the Ionic, Corinthian, Composite, and Tuscan, which constitute the five Orders in general of architecture.

Perhaps the best epoch of ancient architecture was that during which, subsequent to the battle of Marathon, the Greeks commenced to rebuild the remains of Persian buildings, and to re-construct Athens. The ruins of this period yet with us, attest the advance which Grecian architectural art had attained. The ingenuity and refinement of Greek art gradually spread to Rome, the Romans adopting the Doric Order under the modification known as the Tuscan. The art having been introduced into Etruria by the Pelasgi, under the celebrated Augustus, Rome attained that magnificence which has ever since rendered its name famous as a seat of the arts. Amongst the great erections of this period was the Pantheon, one of the grandest efforts of genius that the world has yet known. Under subsequent emperors architecture also progressed, and the name of Trajan is identified with the erection of triumphal arches, &c., the ruins of which still receive the admiration of every qualified judge in art.

The removal of the seat of Roman government to Byzantium led to the decadence of art at Rome, which was completed by the incursions of the Visigoths. Eventually the Gothic style arose, phœnix-like, from the ruins of Grecian and Roman art, and obtained a place that has rendered it ever since one of the most favourite styles of architecture.

Just as under the heathens, the art had been chiefly promoted by erections for religious purposes, so when the Christians began to obtain the ascendancy, the erection of churches led to a similar result. From the fourth to the seventh century some magnificent buildings of this kind were erected. At the commencement of the eleventh century the church of St. Mark at Venice attested the wonderful progress which architecture had made, and it continued to progress during the next two or three centuries, being confined chiefly, however, to Italy. But the Gothic style, suited to a northern clime, never obtained full hold there; Italy cannot boast of a single pure Gothic edifice. Gradually the new style spread over Europe. The Cathedral at Strasbourg, the Louvre at Paris, suggested improvements in our own country at Windsor Castle, Oxford, &c., all indicated the rapid extension of the Gothic style or its modifications. But in numerous instances the taste that was exhibited showed a decadence from the simplicity and grandeur of the Grecian and Latin styles. In respect to the latter, indeed, the materials of the new erections were obtained from the ruins of the ancient edifices, the columns, &c. there found, being pressed into the service, in any manner, of the new school of architects.

Towards the middle of the fifteenth century a revival in architectural art took place, especially under Brunelleschi. The patronage of the Medici added a stimulus to the progress thus initiated. Improvements were introduced in the erection of private residences in most parts of Western Europe, the art having in its best form been chiefly till then directed to building edifices for religious purposes alone. In the sixteenth century architecture in Rome attained a perfection nearly equal to that it had formerly enjoyed under the Cæsars, especially during the Augustan age. Private and public buildings were erected of great magnificence, yet of simplicity of form combined with grandeur. Under Vignola architecture attained great excellence. Michael Angelo was appointed architect of St. Peter’s at Rome about the middle of the sixteenth century, and the mention of his name alone is sufficient to call to mind the extent and value of his labours in the art. In the seventeenth century, about the year 1620, Inigo Jones was engaged in repairing St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, and subsequently produced designs for the Royal Palace at Whitehall in the reign of Charles I. Greenwich and Chelsea Hospitals, and other noted buildings, were designed about this period. In France and other continental countries architecture attained great perfection at this period, both in respect to public and private buildings. Among the most eminent architects of a period somewhat nearer to our own time, was Sir Christopher Wren, whose St. Paul’s Cathedral serves as a monument to the great genius of that eminent man. This era may, comparatively speaking, be considered as the commencement of the modern style of English church architecture, inasmuch as several productions of Wren are still used for the purposes to which they were first applied, having undergone little or no change since their completion.

Such is a brief, and necessarily very imperfect resumé of the progress of architecture. The styles of Eastern Europe, ancient Mexico, and many others, have not been described, because unnecessary, in this Introduction, which has only for its object to call general attention to the causes which have led to the present state of the art. Like all others it has been the subject of alternating prosperity and adversity. At one time fostered by men eminent in their profession, and by those whose means permitted them to lavish riches on magnificent piles, fountains, villas, &c.; and at others, degraded by its students, and neglected by those who should have been its patrons.