the windows which flank the doorway in the Persian palace. But they are decorative only, and are too shallow to serve any purpose.
|
| From Dieulafoy’s L’Art Antique by permission of Morel et Cie. Fig. 24.—The Great Hall at Ctesiphon. |
If there has been some difficulty in determining the exact date of Firuzabad, that of the third great palace, at Ctesiphon, on the borders of the Tigris, is known to have been built by Chosroes I. in A.D. 550. Owing probably to its proximity to Bagdad, from which it lies about 25 m. distant, it is much better known than the other examples we have quoted; but while they are constructed in rubble masonry, Ctesiphon is built of brick, because we have now returned to the alluvial plain where no stone could be procured. The only portion of the palace which still exists is that which was built in burnt brick, and this far exceeds in dimensions Serbistan and Firuzabad. Its main front measured 312 ft.; its height was about 115 ft.; and its depth 175 ft. The plan is very simple, and consisted of an aiwan or immense hall, 86 ft. in width and 163 ft. long, covered with an elliptical barrel vault, the thrust of which is counteracted by five long halls on each side, also covered with barrel vaults and probably used as guard chambers or stores. The great hall was open in the front, and constituted an immense portal, 83 ft. wide and 95 ft. to the crown of the arch. The springing of the vault is 40 ft. from the ground, but up to about 26 ft. above the springing the walls are built in horizontal courses projecting inwards as they rise, so that the actual width of the vaulted portion (fig. 24) has been diminished one-sixth and measures only about 71 ft. The crown of the vault is 9 ft. thick, the walls at the base being 23 ft. The bricks or tiles of which the vault is built are, like those at Thebes, laid flat-wise, and there is also a similar inclination of the rings of brick-work, which are about 10° out of the vertical. This leads to the conclusion that this immense vault was built without centreing, as the tenacious quality of the mortar would probably be sufficient to hold each tile in its position until the ring was complete. In the building of the arch of the great portal other precautions were taken; bond timbers 23 ft. long and in five rows, one above the other, were carried through the wall from front to back. The lower portion of the arch (5 ft. in height) was built with bricks placed flat-wise; the upper portion (4 ft. in height) in the usual way, viz. right angles to the face. The reason for this change was probably that the upper portions might be carved, as they have been, with a series of semi-circular cusps.
The decoration of the flanks of this great central portal is of the most bewildering description. There has evidently been a desire to give a monumental character to the main front. With this idea in view they would seem to have attempted to reproduce Roman features, such as are found decorating the fronts of the various amphitheatres of the Empire. But the semi-circular shafts which form the decoration do not come one over the other on the several storeys, and there is a reckless employment of blank arcades distributed over the surface.
There are remains of two other palaces at Imamzade and Tag Iran, and in Moab a small example, the Hall of Rabboth Ammon, supposed to have been erected for Chosroes II. during the subjugation of Palestine, which is richly decorated with carving, probably by Syrio-Greek artists, with a mixture of Greek, Jewish and Sassanian details. At Takibostan and Behistun (Bisutun), some 200 m. north-east of Ctesiphon, are some remarkable Sassanian capitals and panels (published in Flandin and Coste’s Voyage en Perse, 1851, Paris). (R. P. S.)
Etruscan Architecture
Although our acquaintance with Etruscan architecture is confined chiefly to the entrance gateways and the walls of towns, and to tombs, it forms a very important link between the East and the West. Though little is known of the history of Etruria (q.v.), the influence which her people exerted on Roman architecture, lasting down to the period when Greece was overrun and plundered of her treasures, was so great that it would be difficult to follow the origin of Roman architecture without some inquiry into the work of its immediate predecessor. The theory put forward by Fergusson, as to the migration of the Etruscans from Asia Minor in the 12th or 11th century B.C., is substantiated by the resemblance of the tumuli in the latter country, such as those at Tantalais, on the northern shore of the gulf of Smyrna, and that of Alyattes near Sardis, as compared with the Regulini Galeassi tomb at Cervetri and the Cucumella tomb at Vulci, in all cases consisting of a sepulchral chamber buried under an immense mound surrounded by a podium in stone. The chamber was covered over with masonry, laid in horizontal courses, each stone projecting slightly over the one below. The same system of construction prevailed in the bee-hive tombs of Greece, except that the latter were always circular on plan, whilst these cited above were rectangular. Similar methods of construction are found at Tusculum and in a gateway at Arpino. In all these cases the projecting courses were worked off on the completion of the tomb, in Greece and at Tusculum and Arpino following a curve, and in the Regulini Galeassi tomb a raking line.
The earliest example known of the arched vault, with regular voussoirs in stone, is found in the canal of the Marta near Graviscae, ascribed to the 7th century. The vault is 14 ft. in span, with voussoirs from 5 to 6 ft. in depth. In the tomb of Pythagoras near Cortona, with a span of about 10 ft., only four voussoirs were employed. In the Cloaca Maxima at Rome the vault (now ascribed by Commendatore Boni to the 1st century B.C.) is built with three concentric rings of voussoirs. In all these cases the thrust of the arch was amply resisted as they were constructed under ground, and in the entrance gateways at Volterra, Perugia and Falerii a similar resistance was given by the immense walls in which they were built.
We have already referred to one class of tomb in which the sepulchral chamber, built above the ground, was covered over with a mound of earth; there is a second class, carved out of the solid rock, in which we find the same treatment as that described in connexion with Egypt. The tomb represents, in its internal arrangements and in its decorations, the earthly dwelling of the defunct (compare the Egyptian “soul-houses”). The ceilings are carved in imitation of the horizontal beams and slanting rafters of the roof, the former carried by square piers with capitals; one well-known tomb at Corneto (fig. 25) represents the atrium of an Etruscan house, which corresponds with the description given by Vitruvius of the cavaedia displuviata, in which there was a small opening at the top, known as the compluvium, the roof sloping down on all four sides.
The paintings which decorate these tombs have very much the same character as those which are found on what were thought to have been Etruscan, but are now generally considered as Greek vases, the principal difference being that instead of allegorical subjects, domestic scenes recalling the life of the deceased are represented. In a tomb at Cervetri the walls and piers were carved with representations of the helmets, swords and other accoutrements of a soldier, and also the mirrors and jewelry of his wife, even the kitchen utensils being included, so as to give the complete fittings of the house they occupied. In two examples at Castel D’Asso the rock has been cut away on all sides, leaving a rectangular block, crowned with reverse mouldings.
Scarcely any remains in situ of Etruscan temples have been found, and the description given by Vitruvius is very scanty. Of late years, however, in the British Museum and in the museums at Florence and Rome, a large amount of material has been brought together, from which it is possible to make some kind of conjectural restoration. This has been facilitated by the discoveries made at Olympia, Delphi and elsewhere in Greece, showing the important function which terra-cotta served in the protection and decoration of the timber roofs of the Greek temples and treasuries. The cornices, antefixae, pendant slabs and other decorative features in terra-cotta, found on the sites of the Etruscan temples, show that the timber construction of their roofs was protected in the same way; and although Vitruvius (bk. iii. ch. 2) considered the temple of Ceres at Rome to be clumsy and heavy, and its roofs low and wide, in comparison with the purer examples of Greek architecture, the remains of terra-cotta found at Civita Castellana (the ancient