How to Study Architecture, Charles H. Caffin [best manga ereader .TXT] 📗

is composed of Ionic columns and cornices. In the older examples the entrance is surmounted by a gable, which frequently takes the curves of the beehive.

Intermediate between these Lycian Tombs and the Minoan structures are certain rock-cut tombs in Phrygia which recall the Lion Gate. The façade comprises a cornice supported by columns, above which is a gable, occupied by colossal lions. At Arslan, one of these pediments shows two lions, in this instance not rampant, which support a central pillar. Inside, however, two rampant lions flank a nude human figure.

At Mycenæ are earlier tombs than that of Atreus, which consist simply of a deep shaft lowered into the rock. These are situated just inside the Lion Gate, the area which they occupy being enclosed by two concentric circles of thin slabs, set up on end with others laid across the top of them. It is a feature that in its attenuated form seems to recall Stonehenge. Dr. Schliemann reached the conclusion that these were the graves which were shown to Pausanias, as being those of Agamemnon, Cassandra, and her companions.

On the summit of the Acropolis at Mycenæ are the remains of a palace, similar to, but less extensive than, that of Tiryns, which we may therefore examine in preference.

Tiryns.—The palace of Tiryns, which probably dates to a period between the fourteenth and twelfth centuries B.C., seems to have combined the luxuriousness of the residence of an Oriental king with the feudal state of a mediæval baron and his crowd of retainers. The acropolis is of oval shape, with its long axis north and south, surrounded by immense ramparts of Cyclopean masonry, from 30 to 40 feet in thickness, while the outside height was about 50 feet and that of the inside 10 feet from the level of the ground. In certain parts chambers were embedded in the thickness of the wall, and round its inner side ran a colonnade, supported by wooden posts.

The area thus enclosed was divided into three successive levels, of which the highest was excavated by Schliemann and Dörpfeld, 1884-1885. The plan shows the entrance situated on the west side, away from the sea, which probably was once fitted with a gateway similar to that at Mycenæ. The approach passes between massive walls to another gate, whence it proceeds to a propylæa, with rooms for the guard. This opens into a forecourt, from which another propylæa gives approach to the actual palace.

The first feature of the Palace is a court bounded on three sides by a post-supported colonnade. An altar or sacrificial pit is in the same position as that occupied by the altar of Zeus in a later Greek house. It may be possible in this connection to see evidence that the principal deity on the mainland of Greece was already, unlike that of Crete, a male; perhaps a terrible prototype of the later benignant Zeus, to whom human sacrifices were made, as to the hideous Mexican divinity, Huitzilopochtli.

On the north side of the court a portico, succeeded by a vestibule, gives access to the Megaron. In the centre of this is the hearth, a feature not needed in the warmer climate of Crete and therefore not found in the palaces of that island. Four columns supported the roof, the centre of which may have been raised to allow openings for light and smoke escape. Adjoining the sleeping chambers on the west side of this hall is a bathroom, about 12 feet by 10 feet, the floor of which is composed of a single slab of stone, sloped so that the water drained out through a pipe in the wall.

Another group of buildings, supposed, though without authority, to be the women’s quarters, lies to the east of the great hall, from which, however, it is completely cut off by a solid wall; it is entered by two circuitous passages, one leading from the first propylæa, the other from a postern gate in the western rampart. Here again the plan shows an open court, without an altar, from which a vestibule admits to a smaller megaron.

The floors of the megara are of stucco, incised with a series of lines, coloured blue and red, while the walls are decorated with frescoes as in the palace at Cnossus, one of the best preserved paintings showing a bull-fight scene. On the other hand, the palace of Tiryns shows part of a frieze of alabaster, sculptured in relief with rosettes and interlacing patterns and studded with jewel-like pieces of blue glass or enamel.

The walls to a height of about three feet above ground were of stone, above which they were continued with sun-dried bricks; the upper story being probably of wood, with roofs of stamped earth. The doorways, though sometimes of wood, were more usually constructed of monoliths. Bronze cup-like sockets, let into the stone thresholds, show that the doors revolved upon a pivot.

It is agreed that while the palace of Tiryns represents the general character of a royal house, as it is pictured in the Homeric poems, it is a mistake to look in it for an explanation of details of arrangement.

BOOK III

CLASSIC PERIOD

 

 

CHAPTER I

HELLENIC CIVILISATION

The use of the term Hellenic can be traced back to the seventh century B.C. It was the name under which the various streams of migration—Achæan, Æolian, Dorian, and Ionian—merged their differences in the proud recognition of a common race.

The date and extent of these migrations are clouded with obscurity; but certain points are clear. The Ionians came from Armenia and settled in Asia Minor and the adjacent islands, while the other three penetrated into Greece from the shores of the Baltic. The Achæan was the first to arrive and had maintained a long civilisation before the later migration of Æolians and Dorians. The Dorian invasion seems to have been especially aggressive and after fastening a hold upon the mainland of Greece extended to the Ægean Archipelago, overrunning Crete and wresting supremacy of the Mediterranean from the Minoan Sea-Kings about 1000 B.C.

Hellenic, however, never implied a national bond. The Hellenes were never united as one people under one government. Hellas was a congeries of independent states which even allowed their colonies, from the first, complete self-government. The bond which loosely held them together was the common sense of superiority to all other races; and as their civilisation developed, a common pride in its glory, not that this was sufficient to prevent continuous rivalry and frequent warfare between states and cities. Consequently, there is properly speaking no such thing as Greek history; nor would it be profitable for our purpose to trace the rise and decline of the several states. It is better to consider Hellenism as a principle, the more or less common ideal of a people, not confined to Hellas, but spread over the littoral of the Mediterranean; wherever Hellenes settled—a race of mariners and merchants, thinkers and artists, who lifted themselves to so high a pitch of civilisation, that it became a source of inspiration to all subsequent culture.

In the Minoan and Mycenæan Age the political system was a monarchy that combined the functions of high priest and commander-in-chief. In the Homeric Age there were still kings who led their armies and acted as the intermediaries of the gods, but their power was controlled by a Boule, or consulting assembly. With the Dorians the rule of kings passed to that of oligarchies, chosen from one or more of the noble classes whose claim to government was founded on birth and the ownership of land. They were associated with a Boule, representative of the privileged classes, while the priestly functions were exercised by magistrates, who, however, were drawn from the aristocracy.

In many parts of Hellas the oligarchies gave way to “tyrannoi.” These are not to be understood in the sense that our word “tyrant” has. They were a step in the evolution of popular government, inasmuch as they were a means of breaking up the exclusive authority of the privileged classes. To consolidate their own power, the tyrannoi sought the favour of the populace and made concessions in the direction of popular government. Accordingly, while some of the tyrannoi were succeeded by a return to the oligarchies, in more cases they prepared the way for a democratic form of government.

In order to take religion out of the exclusive domain of the aristocracy, the tyrants established popular cults. Peisistrates, for example, tyrant of Athens, is thought to have established the Great Dionysiac festival and raised the Panathenæa to the position of the chief national festival of the Athenian State. Everywhere the tyrants were the patrons of literature and the arts. To Peisistrates is attributed the first critical edition of the text of Homer, while under the encouragement of himself and his successors (the Peisistratids) which lasted from 560-511 B.C. architecture and sculpture also progressed to a degree that made possible their grandeur in the “Great Age.” He is also said to have encouraged Thespes, the Attic poet, to impersonate characters and thus convert the narrative poem into dramatic form, laying the foundation of Greek drama.

Peisistrates also gave the people a constitution, extended the power of Athens by alliances, and increased its commerce. With the fall of the Peisistratids the rule of the many (hoi polloi) was assured. The government of Athens became democratic.

It is to be noted that while there were various forms of democratic government in Hellas, all differed from our modern conception of democracy. The latter is based upon the principle of doing away with privilege, while the Greek form implied privilege, although it enlarged its area. No foreigner could acquire citizenship, which also was denied to native-born inhabitants who were of foreign extraction, on either the father’s or the mother’s side. Furthermore, the Greeks regarded labour as a disqualification for political rights, and almost all unskilled labour and most of the skilled was performed by slaves. The latter, however, were well treated and not only enjoyed personal liberty but also the opportunity of becoming prosperous.

Again, the government under the Hellenic democracy was not representative. The citizen body was so small that all could meet in the Ecclesia and register their vote directly on any question. Appointment to office was by lot and not election, and accordingly the number of citizens who held at one time or another big or little offices included a great majority of the whole body. The result of this was an intimacy on the part of all the citizen body with the machinery of government and the pros and cons of every question as it arose. They voted with intelligence and their votes counted directly; a system which helped immensely to cultivate their intellectual keenness.

The two Persian invasions, the first under Datis and Artaphernes (490 B.C.) in the reign of Darius I, the second by Xerxes in person (480-479 B.C.), had proved the need of closer co-operation among the Hellenic States, and the Delian League was formed under the leadership of Athens and with Athens as the “predominant partner.” An annual tribute was paid by all the member-states for the maintenance of a fleet. Athens was the treasurer and the fleet was mainly Athenian, while the commanders were entirely so. The power thus concentrated in Athens gave her so marked a supremacy that Pericles used the League to form an Athenian Empire. This lasted about thirty years (461-430 B.C.), during which period Athens reached the culmination not only of her power but also of her magnificence. For Pericles spent the money, contributed by the allies for common defence, in beautifying the Acropolis; the excuse being that in doing so he was giving glory to Athena, who was the patron goddess of the League. Pericles also encouraged literature and counted among his friends three of the greatest Greek writers—Sophocles, Herodotus, and Thucydides.

But