HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE. INTRODUCTION. A HISTORY of architecture is a record of mans efforts to ui!d eautifu!!".

The erection of structures de#oid of eaut" is mere ui!din$% a trade and not an art. Edifices in &hich stren$th and sta i!it" a!one are sou$ht% and in desi$nin$ &hich on!" uti!itarian considerations ha#e een fo!!o&ed% are 'ro'er!" &or(s of en$ineerin$. On!" &hen the idea of eaut" is added to that of use does a structure ta(e its '!ace amon$ &or(s of architecture. )e ma"% then% define architecture as the art &hich see(s to harmoni*e in a ui!din$ the re+uirements of uti!it" and of eaut". It is the most usefu! of the fine arts and the no !est of the usefu! arts. It touches the !ife of man at e#er" 'oint. It is concerned not on!" in she!terin$ his 'erson and ministerin$ to his comfort% ut a!so in 'ro#idin$ him &ith '!aces for &orshi'% amusement% and usiness, &ith tom s% memoria!s% em e!!ishments for his cities% and other structures for the #aried needs of a com'!e- ci#i!i*ation. It en$a$es the ser#ices of a !ar$er 'ortion of the communit" and in#o!#es $reater out!a"s of mone" than an" other occu'ation e-ce't a$ricu!ture. E#er"one at some 'oint comes in contact &ith the &or( of the architect% and from this uni#ersa! contact architecture deri#es its si$nificance as an inde- of the ci#i!i*ation of an a$e% a race% or a 'eo'!e. --ii It is the function of the historian of architecture to trace the ori$in% $ro&th% and dec!ine of the architectura! st"!es &hich ha#e 're#ai!ed in different !ands and a$es% and to sho& ho& the" ha#e ref!ected the $reat mo#ements of ci#i!i*ation. The mi$rations% the con+uests% the commercia!% socia!% and re!i$ious chan$es amon$ different 'eo'!es ha#e a!! manifested themse!#es in the chan$es of their architecture% and it is the historians function to sho& this. It is a!so his function to e-'!ain the 'rinci'!es of the st"!es% their characteristic forms and decoration% and to descri e the $reat master'ieces of each st"!e and 'eriod. STY.E is a +ua!it", the /historic st"!es0 are 'hases of de#e!o'ment. Style is character e-'ressi#e of definite conce'tions% as of $randeur% $aiet"% or so!emnit". An historic style is the 'articu!ar 'hase% the characteristic manner of desi$n% &hich 're#ai!s at a $i#en time and '!ace. It is not the resu!t of mere accident or ca'rice% ut of inte!!ectua!% mora!% socia!% re!i$ious% and e#en 'o!itica! conditions. 1othic architecture cou!d ne#er ha#e een in#ented " the 1ree(s% nor cou!d the E$"'tian st"!es ha#e $ro&n u' in Ita!". Each st"!e is ased u'on some fundamenta! 'rinci'!e s'rin$in$ from its surroundin$ ci#i!i*ation% &hich under$oes successi#e de#e!o'ments unti! it either reaches 'erfection or its 'ossi i!ities are e-hausted% after &hich a 'eriod of dec!ine usua!!" sets in. This is fo!!o&ed either " a reaction and the introduction of some radica!!" ne& 'rinci'!e !eadin$ to the e#o!ution of a ne& st"!e% or " the fina! deca" and e-tinction of the ci#i!i*ation and its re'!acement " some "oun$er and more #iri!e e!ement. Thus the histor" of architecture a''ears as a connected chain of causes and effects succeedin$ each other &ithout rea(% each st"!e $ro&in$ out of that &hich 'receded it% or s'rin$in$ out of the fecundatin$ contact of a hi$her &ith a !o&er ci#i!i*ation. To stud" architectura! st"!es is therefore to stud" a ranch of the histor" of ci#i!i*ation. --iii Technica!!"% architectura! st"!es are identified " the means the" em'!o" to co#er enc!osed s'aces% " the characteristic forms of the su''orts and other mem ers 2'iers% co!umns% arches% mou!din$s% traceries% etc.3% and " their decoration. The'!an shou!d recei#e s'ecia! attention% since it sho&s the arran$ement of the 'oints of su''ort% and hence the nature of the structura! desi$n. A com'arison% for e-am'!e% of the '!ans of the H"'ost"!e Ha!! at 4arna( 2Fi$. 55% h3 and of the 6asi!ica of Constantine 2Fi$. 783 sho&s at once a radica! difference in constructi#e 'rinci'!e et&een the t&o edifices% and hence a difference of st"!e. STRUCTURA. 9RINCI9.ES. A!! architecture is ased on one or more of three fundamenta! structura! 'rinci'!es, that of the lintel% of the arch or vault% and of the truss. The 'rinci'!e of the !inte! is that of

resistance to trans#erse strains% and a''ears in a!! construction in &hich a cross:'iece or eam rests on t&o or more #ertica! su''orts. The arch or #au!tma(es use of se#era! 'ieces to s'an an o'enin$ et&een t&o su''orts. These 'ieces are in com'ression and e-ert !atera! 'ressures or thrusts &hich are transmitted to the su''orts or a utments. The thrust must e resisted either " the massi#eness of the a utments or " the o''osition to it of counter:thrusts from other arches or #au!ts. Roman ui!ders used the first% 1othic ui!ders the second of these means of resistance. The truss is a frame&or( so com'osed of se#era! 'ieces of &ood or meta! that each sha!! est resist the 'articu!ar strain% &hether of tension or com'ression% to &hich it is su ;ected% the &ho!e formin$ a com'ound eam or arch. It is es'ecia!!" a''!ica !e to #er" &ide s'ans% and is the most characteristic feature of modern construction. Ho& the ado'tion of one or another of these 'rinci'!es affected the forms and e#en the decoration of the #arious st"!es% &i!! e sho&n in the succeedin$ cha'ters. HISTORIC DE<E.O9=ENT. 1eo$ra'hica!!" and chrono!o$ica!!"% architecture a''ears to ha#e ori$inated in the Ni!e --i##a!!e". A second centre of de#e!o'ment is found in the #a!!e" of the Ti$ris and Eu'hrates% not uninf!uenced " the o!der E$"'tian art. Throu$h #arious channe!s the 1ree(s inherited from oth E$"'tian and Ass"rian art% the t&o inf!uences ein$ discerni !e e#en throu$h the stron$!" ori$ina! as'ect of 1ree( architecture. The Romans in turn% ado'tin$ the e-terna! detai!s of 1ree( architecture% transformed its su stance " su stitutin$ the Etruscan arch for the 1ree( construction of co!umns and !inte!s. The" de#e!o'ed a com'!ete and ori$ina! s"stem of construction and decoration and s'read it o#er the ci#i!i*ed &or!d% &hich has ne#er &ho!!" out$ro&n or a andoned it. )ith the fa!! of Rome and the rise of Constantino'!e these forms under&ent in the East another transformation% ca!!ed the 6"*antine% in the de#e!o'ment of Christian domica! church architecture. In the North and )est% mean&hi!e% under the $ro&in$ institutions of the 'a'ac" and of the monastic orders and the emer$ence of a feuda! ci#i!i*ation out of the chaos of the Dar( A$es% the constant 'reoccu'ation of architecture &as to e#o!#e from the asi!ica t"'e of church a #au!ted structure% and to adorn it throu$hout &ith an a''ro'riate dress of constructi#e and s"m o!ic ornament. 1othic architecture &as the outcome of this 'reoccu'ation% and it 're#ai!ed throu$hout northern and &estern Euro'e unti! near!" or +uite the c!ose of the fifteenth centur". Durin$ this fifteenth centur" the Renaissance st"!e matured in Ita!"% &here it s'eedi!" trium'hed o#er 1othic fashions and 'roduced a mar#e!!ous series of ci#ic monuments% 'a!aces% and churches% adorned &ith forms orro&ed or imitated from c!assic Roman art. This inf!uence s'read throu$h Euro'e in the si-teenth centur"% and ran a course of t&o centuries% after &hich a 'eriod of ser#i!e c!assicism &as fo!!o&ed " a ra'id dec!ine in taste. To this succeeded the ec!ecticism and confusion of the nineteenth centur"% to --#&hich the ra'id $ro&th of ne& re+uirements and de#e!o'ment of ne& resources ha#e !ar$e!" contri uted. In Eastern !ands three $reat schoo!s of architecture ha#e $ro&n u' contem'oraneous!" &ith the a o#e 'hases of )estern art, one under the inf!uence of =ohammedan ci#i!i*ation% another in the 6rahman and 6uddhist architecture of India% and the third in China and >a'an. The first of these is the richest and most im'ortant. 9rimari!" ins'ired from 6"*antine art% a!&a"s stron$er on the decorati#e than on the constructi#e side% it has $i#en to the &or!d the mos+ues and 'a!aces of Northern Africa% =oorish S'ain% 9ersia% Tur(e"% and India. The other t&o schoo!s seem to e &ho!!" unre!ated to the first% and ha#e no affinit" &ith the architecture of )estern !ands. Of =e-ican% Centra! American% and South American architecture so !itt!e is (no&n% and that !itt!e is so remote in histor" and s'irit from the st"!es a o#e enumerated% that it e!on$s rather to arch?o!o$" than to architectura! histor"% and &i!! not e considered in this &or(