was awarded, died shortly afterwards, and other causes, partly financial, led to the postponement of the scheme, though it is understood that there is still an intention of carrying out Brentano’s design under the direction of the official architectural department of the city.
In summing up the present position of modern architecture, it may be said that architecture is now a more cosmopolitan art than it has been at any previous period. The separate development of a national style has become in the present day almost an impossibility. Increased Conclusion.means of communication have brought all civilized nations into close touch with each other’s tastes and ideas, with the natural consequence that the treatment of a special class of building in any one country will not differ very materially from its treatment in another; though there are nuances of local taste in detail, in manner of execution, in the materials used. And the civilized countries have almost with one consent returned, in the main, to the adoption of a school of architecture based on classic types. The taste for medievalism is dying out even in Great Britain, which has been its chief stronghold.
What course the future of modern architecture will take it is not easy to prophesy. What is quite certain is that it is now an individual art, each important building being the production, not of an unconsciously pursued national style, but of a personal designer. As far as there is a ruling consensus in architectural taste, this will tend to become, like dress and manners, more and more cosmopolitan; and it seems probable that it will be based more or less on the types left us by Classic and Renaissance architecture. There are, however, two influences which may have a definite effect on the architecture of the near future. One of these is the possible greater rapprochement between architecture and engineering, of which there are already some signs to be seen; architects will learn more of the kind of structural problems which are now almost the exclusive province of the engineer, and there will be a demand that engineering works shall be treated, as they well may be, with some of the refinement and expression of architecture. The other influence lies in the closer connexion, which is already taking place, between architecture and the allied arts, so that an important building will be regarded and treated as a field for the application of decorative sculpture and painting of the highest class, and as being incomplete without these. It is in this closer union of architecture with the other arts that there lies the best hope for the architecture of the future.
Authorities.—The literature of architecture as a modern art is limited, the most important publications of recent times being mainly devoted to the study and illustration of ancient architecture. The following, however, may be named:—James Fergusson, History of Modern Architecture (2nd ed., London, 1873); T. G. Jackson, Modern Gothic Architecture (London, 1873); J. T. Micklethwaite, Modern Parish Churches (London, 1874); E. R. Robson, School Architecture (London, 1874); J. J. Stevenson, House Architecture (London, 1880); E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, How to Build a House (London, 1874); Lectures on Architecture (London, 1881); H. C. Burdett, Hospitals and Asylums of the World (London, 1892–1893); Professor Oswald Kuhn, Krankenhäuser (Stuttgart, 1897); E. O. Sachs, Modern Opera-Houses and Theatres (London, 1897–1899); E. Wyndham Tarn, The Mechanics of Architecture (London, 1893); R. Norman Shaw, R.A., T. G. Jackson, R.A., and others, Architecture, a Profession or an Art (London, 1892); W. H. White, The Architect and his Artists (London, 1892); Architecture and Public Buildings in Paris and London (London, 1884); H. H. Statham, Architecture for General Readers (London, 1895); Modern Architecture (London, 1898); Herrmann Muthesius, Die englische Baukunst der Gegenwart (Berlin and Leipzig, 1900); Der Architekten Verein zu Berlin, Berlin und Seine Bauten (Berlin, 1896). The real literature of modern architecture, however, is to be found mainly in the articles and illustrations in the best periodical architectural publications of various countries. Among these Italy has none worth mention, and France, with all her architectural enthusiasm, has had no first-class architectural periodical since the extinction, about 1890, of the Revue générale de l’architecture, conducted for more than fifty years by the late César Daly, and in its day the first periodical of its class in the world. Among the best periodical publications are: The Architectural Record (quarterly), (New York); The Architectural Review (monthly), (Boston); the Allgemeine Bauzeitung (quarterly), (Vienna); the Berlin Architekturwelt (monthly), (Berlin); The Builder (weekly), (London); La Construction moderne (weekly), (Paris). (H. H. S.)
ARCHITRAVE (from Lat. arcus, an arch, and trabs, trabem, a beam), an architectural term for the chief beam which carries the superstructure and rests immediately on the columns. In the ordinary entablature it is the lowest of the three divisions, the other two being the frieze and the cornice (see Order). The term is also applied to the moulded frame of a doorway.
ARCHIVE (Lat. archivum, a transliteration of Gr. ἀρχεῖον, an official building), a term (generally used in the plural “archives”), properly denoting the building in which are kept the records, charters and other papers belonging to any state, community or family, but now generally applied to the documents themselves (see Record).
ARCHIVOLT (from Lat. arcus, an arch, and volta, a vault), an architectural term applied to the mouldings of an architrave, when carried round an arched opening.
ARCHON (ἄρχων, ruler), the title of the highest magistrate in many ancient Greek states. It is only in Athens that we have any detailed knowledge of the office, and even in this one case the evidence presents problems of the first importance which are incapable of decisive solution. There is no doubt that the archons represented the ancient kings, whose absolutism, under conditions which we can only infer, yielded in process of time to the power of the noble families, supported no doubt by the fighting force of the state. As to the process by which this change was effected there are two accounts. Traditionally, the monarchy after the death of Codrus (? 1068 B.C.) gave place to the life archon whose tenure of office was limited afterwards to ten years and then to one year. Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens (q.v.) speaks of five stages: (1) the institution of the polemarch who took over the military duties of the king; (2) the institution of the archon to relieve the king of his civil duties; (3) the tenure of office was reduced to ten years (? 752 B.C.); (4) the office was taken from the “royal” clan and thrown open to all Eupatridae (? 712 B.C.); (5) office was made annual, and to the existing three offices were added the six thesmothetae whose duty it was to record judicial decisions. The value of this latter account is, of course, debatable, but it is at least compatible with the general trend of development from hereditary absolutism, civil, military and religious, in the person of the “king,” to a constitutional oligarchy. The change was clearly effected by the devolution of the military and civil powers of the king to the polemarch and the archon, while the archon basileus (or king) retained control of state religion. It is equally clear that owing to the predominating importance of civil affairs, the archon became the chief state official and gave his name to the year (hence archon eponymus). It should be noticed that the analogy which has often been suggested between the early history of the archonship at Athens, and such cases as the mayors of the palace in French history, or the tycoon (shogun) and mikado in Japanese history, is misleading. In these cases it is the old royal house that retains the royal title and the semblance of power, while the real authority passes into new hands. In Athens, the new civil office is vested in the old royal family, while the old title along with its religious functions is transferred. The early history of the thesmothetae is not clear, but this much is certain that there is no adequate reason for supposing, as many historians do, that in early times, they, with the three chief archons, constituted a collective or collegiate magistracy. It is true Thucydides (i. 126) states that, in the time of the Cylonian conspiracy (? 632 B.C.), “the nine archons were (i.e. collectively) the principal officials,” but at the same time the responsibility for the action then taken attached to the Alcmaeonidae alone, because one of their number, Megacles, was at that time the archon (i.e. responsibility was personal, not collective). Again, the Constitution of Athens says that down to Solon’s time the archons had no official residence, but that afterwards they used the Thesmotheteion. It is a reasonable inference from this statement that the thesmothetae had previously sat together apart from the superior archons and that it was only after Solon that collegiate responsibility began.
Evolution of the Office.—The history of the democratization of the archonship is beset with equal difficulty. In the early days,
