The Brochure Series
OF ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATION.
| Vol. I. | APRIL, 1895. | No. 4. |
BYZANTINE-ROMANESQUE WINDOWS IN
SOUTHERN ITALY.
The collection of photographs from
which the plates in this and the
February number were selected
was only recently made under the
direction of Signor Boni, an official of
the Italian government, charged with the
care and restoration of historic monuments.
The province of Apulia has been so
little invaded by the march of modern
improvement, and its present inhabitants
are, as a rule, so poor, that it is
difficult to travel here except on the line
of a few main thoroughfares, and strangers
seldom visit more than one or two of the
principal towns on the coast. Bari and
Brindisi are known to tourists, as they are
in the line of travel to and from Greece,
but the inland towns are isolated in a
barren priest-ridden country in which
strangers are not welcome. The hardships
which it is necessary to face deter
all but the most adventurous even of the
Italians, familiar with the language and
manners of the people. Architects seldom
visit this neighborhood, and little is
known of its rich treasure of mediæval
buildings, except through the few published
works treating of it. Signor Boni
expressed himself as surprised at the
great amount of beautiful work scattered
through this region, of which he previously
had no knowledge. The opinion of Fergusson
has already been quoted in the
preceding article.
The mixture in the work here illustrated
of Byzantine and Romanesque elements
has also been referred to in the
preceding article, but the special characteristics
of each style were not particularly
pointed out. In the present consideration
the peculiarities of detail and
ornament are all that need be taken up,
as the views given furnish no opportunity
for the study of plan or general design.
The derivation of the Byzantine style was
indicated in the March number of The
Brochure Series in describing the Ravenna
capitals there illustrated.
Byzantine conventional ornament appears
to be of two types,—the one usually
used in mosaics, of thin scrolls, terminating
in flowers or symbols, displayed upon
a ground which is much greater in quantity
than is the ornament; the other,
usually confined to sculpture, an intricate
interlace of ribbon lines with spaces
filled with Byzantine acanthus, the ornament
much greater in proportion than
the ground, which only shows in small
separate pieces. Apart from these are
the borders, occasionally of overlapping
leaves, often of small repeated units, such
as Greek crosses and squares and diamonds,
or else meanders or guilloches.
The guilloche takes a new form in Byzantine
design, and instead of being a
continuous succession of small circles
enclosed in an interlacing ribbon, it
assumes the form of alternating small[53]
and large circles, or of small circles alternating
with large squares, and often progressing
in both directions at once,
horizontally and perpendicularly, and
thus forming an all-over pattern. The
roses of ornament are often incorporated
into this form of guilloche. Sculpture of
the human form becomes more and more
feeble and crude. The acanthus, however,
went steadily through successive
variation until it attained the virile form
seen in the best Byzantine work. It is no
longer the olive type of the Romans, or
the heavy, stupid leaf of the earlier centuries
of the Christian era, but has again
turned towards the sharp-pointed, vigorous
leaf of the Greeks. Its lobes are divided
into three or five tines, each sharp
at the tip; its centre lines, radiating from
a central stem, bend like flames; its surfaces
are concave, with deep V cutting,
and it has one very marked peculiarity,
that is, that as far as possible no tine is
left displayed alone on the ground, but
the tip of each is made to touch either
the tip of a neighboring tine or the ribbon
or moulding bounding the space in
which the ornament occurs. The tines
are of nearly equal size throughout, and
the spaces of ground left by the ornament
are also of comparatively equal
size, and if possible symmetrically
grouped. The one almost universal
moulding is decorated with acanthus
units, and the capitals have acanthus
leaves around their bells. These caps
are of two types. One, that is manifestly
an adaptation of a classic cap, is a
union of an Ionic and a Corinthian, or
at other times of a Roman Doric and a
Corinthian capital. The other is peculiar
to Byzantine work, and is that shown
in Plates XXI. to XXIV. in the last number.
This cap, as at S. Vitale, is often
supplemented by another plainer cap
above. The lower cap has its faces
decorated with scrolls, acanthus wreaths,
etc., and usually the corners are strengthened
with a decorative unit, leaf or other
motive.
The difference between the Byzantine
and the Romanesque arises from the
differences of the races and their environments.
The art of seaport towns, when
Commerce was most largely carried on by
sea, much more nearly resembled the art
of some great commercial centre on the
seaboard than it did that of its own neighbors
inland.
The art of the seaboard cities in
Europe was, then, for many years a borrowed
art from the East, as their people
were to great extent Eastern colonists.
It was carried on with a full knowledge
of constructive methods, and a facility in
obtaining materials that the inland towns
did not possess; and in consequence it
is along the seaboard that is to be found
the persistence of the Byzantine influence.
On the other hand, the interior
was peopled by descendants of Ostrogothic
tribes mingling with numberless
local peoples. Whatever they touch is
necessarily crude at first, but constantly
gaining as they gain facility in working.
A precedent of some kind they must
have, and they find it close at hand in
the Roman basilicas. Uncertain, from
the result of woful experiments, of arches
of great span, they pack their columns
close together and surmount them with
sturdy little arches that have scarcely any
thrust. This arcade of heavy columns
carrying absurdly disproportionate arches
is their only motive, and applied inside
between aisles and nave, and outside in
successive stories rising one above
another. As the masons begin better to
understand their art, the span of the arch
increases, though a large arch for some
time does duty merely as a discharging
arch, and has smaller arches beneath and
within it. The capitals, at first crude
imitations of classic prototypes, soon
become the field for the grotesque imagination
of the workmen, and each
differs from the other and is a mass
of light and shade shot with all sorts
of uncouth fancies. Wherever, for
some constructive reason, a column
is omitted against a wall, the capital
becomes a corbel, carrying the arches.
In many cases the corbels alone are
used, and an arcaded corbel course
becomes the favorite termination of a
wall in the place of a classic entablature.
Finally the arches are omitted, and the
corbels alone support the eaves.
It will be noticed that while the Byzantine
decorated the interior of the
churches, the Romanesque builder
merely constructed the interior and
wrought out the most of his design upon
the facade. As a large arch was to him for[55]
a long time a tour de force, he naturally
beautified the necessarily large entrance,
and the beginning of the development
of the beautiful Gothic portals is seen in
the early Romanesque churches.
The Romanesque is an architecture of
inertia, with arches heavily weighted by
great masses of wall, and with broadly
contrasting masses of light and shade.
It does not depend for its effect upon
intellectual quality beyond a rigorous
sense of simplicity, or upon refinement of
conception or detail, but rather upon
size, picturesque mass, and staccato light
and shade. The proportion of capital to
column in quantity of surface was very
slight. The proportion of voussoirs to
arches naturally depended upon the size
of the arch,—large voussoirs to large
arches, small voussoirs to small arches.
Columns were only grouped around piers
and on either side of openings; and
lastly, the natural development of the
column in Romanesque work was toward
attenuation,—the later and the better
the work, the more slender became the
columns, until at last they were merged
into the Gothic multiple-columned
piers. The carving upon the arch-mouldings
is, to a great extent, geometric,
consisting of numerous facets cut in
the stone, lozenges, etc.; the so-called
dogtooth moulding is a very favorite form
of decoration. All these carved mouldings
were picked out in color, usually in
red and green. The acanthus in the
Romanesque has lost much of its vigor,
is flat, heavy-tipped, round-edged, and
scratched with V-cuts, and the vine is
the leaf preferred by designers. Frequently
masses of wall are cut in geometric
diaper patterns, also touched with
color. Borders are not broad; and
circular forms, except in the arches, are
seldom used. Romanesque was a barbaric
art at the best, and has the usual
virtue of the barbarian,—a directness
of attack at the problem in hand and a
simplicity in treating it which is invigorating
to see.
XXV. and XXVI.
WINDOWS IN THE CHURCH OF S. TERESIA,
TRANI, ITALY.
These two windows have very little to
suggest Byzantine influence in their
design. The form and detail are essentially
Romanesque, although there is a
certain crispness and piquancy of treatment
in the first (Plate XXV.) which belongs
to the Byzantine work.
XXVII.
WINDOW IN THE FACADE OF THE BASILICA
AT ALTAMURA, ITALY.
The employment of grotesque beasts
supporting the columns at each side of
this window is a very common device
in the Italian Romanesque work. The
use of a reversed capital in place of a
base for the centre column is also a
peculiar treatment frequently found in
Romanesque work.
XXVIII.
WINDOWS IN THE FACADE OF S. GREGORIO,
BARI, ITALY.
XXIX.
TRIFORIUM WINDOW IN THE CHURCH OF S. GREGORIO,
BARI, ITALY.
The Byzantine architects used pierced
stonework with great effect both in exterior
and interior detail. The examples
here shown are rather crude, but effective
in the relative scale of parts.
XXX.
WINDOW IN THE APSE OF THE CATHEDRAL,
BARI, ITALY.
The ornament about this window,
especially that in the long panel below it
and upon the cyma of the soffit above, is
Byzantine in character, while the columns,
with the exception of the capital of the
one at the left, are much more Romanesque.
XXXI.
A WINDOW IN BITTONTO, ITALY.
This is not an especially beautiful
example, but is an illustration of the direct
and vigorous treatment of the early
barbarian Romanesque builders.
XXXII.
WINDOW IN THE APSE OF THE CATHEDRAL,
BITTONTO, ITALY.
In this case the beautiful and delicate
Byzantine leafage can be seen on the
mouldings of the arch above the window.
As in several of the preceding
examples, there is a curious mixture of
the two styles.[57]
The Brochure Series
of Architectural Illustration.
PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY
BATES & GUILD,
6 BEACON STREET, BOSTON, MASS.
| Subscription Rates per year | 50 cents, in advance. |
| Special Club Rate for five subscriptions | $2.00. |
| Entered at the Boston Post Office as Second-class Matter. | |
Several weeks ago the stock of back
numbers of The Brochure Series held
to fill subscription orders was exhausted,
and in future all subscriptions will have
to be dated from the number current at
the time the subscription is placed. All
who wish to have the remaining numbers
of this year should subscribe at once, as
no back numbers will be kept in stock.
The edition has been increased to 7,000
copies, and if the present rate of growth
in the subscription department holds will
shortly have to be doubled.
The judges in the recent competition
for the Rotch Travelling Scholarship,
Messrs. Cass Gilbert, George B. Post, and
Frank Miles Day, have awarded the
scholarship to William S. Aldrich. Mr.
Aldrich has taken the examinations this
year for the first time, although several of
his unsuccessful rivals for the honor have
entered before in years past. He has
been for some time in the office of Mr.
C. H. Blackall, and has been engaged
upon important work, such as the new
Tremont Temple, which is now approaching
completion.
In 1884 he entered the Department of
Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, and completed the
two years’ special course in 1887, and
then went to the office of Mr. John Calvin
Stevens in Portland, Me. He afterwards
worked in the Boston office of McKim,
Mead & White, and in the office
of Peabody & Stearns, where he was engaged
upon the drawings for the buildings
at the World’s Fair. As will be seen, he
has had a varied experience and is well
equipped to make the best use of his opportunities
for the next two years.
It has been the custom in recent years
with the winners of the scholarship to delay
their departure until midsummer or
early fall, but Mr. Aldrich proposes to
start in June. His plan of work has not
yet been entirely fixed, but he will probably
spend a large part of his time in
Italy, working in conjunction with the
American atelier at Rome.
The three other scholarships in which
the same problem in design was employed
have also been awarded. For the
McKim Fellowship of Columbia College
ten designs were submitted. The award
was made to Mr. John Russell Pope of
New York, a graduate from the school in
the class of 1894. The Roman Scholarship
was also awarded to Mr. Pope. In
the competition for the latter twenty-three
designs were entered, and besides
the first award honorable mention was
given to Mr. Henry E. Emery of Nyack,
N. Y., Mr. Fellows of Chicago, and Mr.
Bossange and Mr. Ayres of New York,
graduates of Columbia College, and to
Mr. Percy Ash of Philadelphia.
In the University of Pennsylvania
Scholarship in Architecture there were
six competitors, and the award was made
to Mr. Percy Ash, a graduate of the University.
Mr. Ash has also had several
years’ practical experience in the best offices
of Philadelphia, such as those of
Cope & Stewardson and Frank Miles Day
& Bro.
Mr. H. L. Duhring, Jr., of the Senior
class in the University, was given second
place.
The American Architect, in an interesting
notice of the recent exhibition of the
Boston Society of Architects and Boston
Architectural Club, takes the occasion to
comment unfavorably upon the disfigurement
of the catalogue by advertisements,
which it says are “most excellent things
in their proper place, but wholly out of
place in an exhibition catalogue.” Why
this is so it is hard to see, unless the Architect
believes that there is not advertising
enough to go round, and that it should
all be reserved for the trade and professional
papers. At all events this is
“kicking against the pricks,” for it is
well known that the expenses of such exhibitions
cannot be met without some[59]
outside assistance, and the most feasible
plan that has been found for making
both ends meet is to interest the dealers
in materials used in the buildings represented
in the exhibitions. As these dealers
are seldom named on the drawings
exhibited, it seems proper that some return
should be made for their most valuable
assistance, without which the exhibition
would not be possible.
The Architect further says: “The
position taken by the St. Louis Chapter
A. I. A. was the proper and dignified
one, and it ought to be followed elsewhere.
The catalogue of their recent
exhibition, although a much more costly
one than either the Boston or the League
catalogue, contains not a line of advertising
matter.” This is certainly an amusing
misstatement. Instead of “not a
line,” this catalogue has more space devoted
to advertising than any of the others
mentioned. What it would have been
without its sixty-four pages of advertising,
yielding an income of at least $50 a
page, we leave others to figure out.
Some of these pages we should prefer to
see treated differently, as they do detract
from the illustrations which they face, and
they are sprinkled full of water-closets,
radiators, bath-tubs, and various other
building appliances not especially artistic
in their suggestiveness. Still there is
considerable taste and care evinced in
the arrangement of many of the pages,
and they are well printed on good paper.
Possibly this accounts for the failure of
the Architect to recognize them as advertisements.
The dignified course, it seems to us,
is that followed by the committee of the
Boston exhibition. In this case a certain
number of pages was reserved in the
catalogue to be devoted to advertising,
and the houses to be represented were
given to understand that all would be
treated alike. No cuts would be used,
and the pages would all be set in type of
uniform style, thus insuring a desirable
ensemble. We think that the advertising
when well presented adds to, rather than
detracts from, the interest of a catalogue.
Our only desire is to see it done in good
taste. The display of plumbing apparatus
and all manner of building appliances
we do not consider in good taste
in this place.
The secretaries of a number of the
architectural clubs have very kindly responded
to our request for notices and reports
of their meetings and proceedings,
and we are pleased to be able to give
short reports of such occurrences as
are of general interest. There are
some clubs, however, from whom we have
not yet heard, and we would suggest that
it will be a help to all concerned if the
secretaries of all the architectural clubs
will furnish us with short accounts of their
regular meetings and of any other occasions
of importance. We shall be pleased
also to publish any correspondence which
will in any way further the interests of
these organizations. We shall be glad to
have The Brochure Series considered as
the organ of communication between the
various clubs, and will place our services
at their command.
Books.
Examples of Colonial Architecture in
Charleston, S. C., and Savannah, Ga.
Compiled, photographed, and published
by Edward A. Crane and E. E. Soderholtz,
Boston Architectural Club, Boston.
50 plates, 11 x 14. $12.50.
How much the revival of the classic
influence of the early colonial and the
immediately succeeding period is going
to prevail in the establishment of a distinctive
American style of architecture it
is now difficult or indeed impossible to
determine; but at all events the reaction
from the Queen Anne vagaries of ten
years ago to the more severe mass and
chaste detail of the recent so-called colonial
houses is a step in the right direction,
and we have much to be thankful
for in the improvement which this tendency
has wrought in our recent domestic
architecture. Beautiful and admirable
as some of the recent examples of this
work are, very few show the subtle appreciation
of design to be found in many of
the older buildings which until the last
year or two have been looked upon as
merely the outgrown and cast-off work of
an age much less refined than our own.
With the very general adoption of this
style there has been an increased interest[61]
in the few remaining fine old examples
which are scattered over the Eastern and
Middle States, and the best of these are
now familiar to architects.
Few, however, know anything of the
development of this style in the Southern
States, and the work now before us will
be a revelation to those who have not
visited the neighborhood of Charleston
and Savannah.
A large proportion of the plates is devoted
to Charleston, which owes its wealth
and in fact the greater part of its existence
to the prosperous planters of
former days, who made the city a winter
resort.
The most notable house illustrated in
the work is the William Bull Pringle
house, built by Miles Brewton in 1760. It
has long been famous as one of the finest
houses in the country. Josiah Quincy,
who was entertained by its first owner,
speaks in enthusiastic terms of its beauty
and the charm of its surroundings. Fourteen
plates are devoted to illustrating its
various features. The two-story portico
with a Doric order below and Ionic
above, relieved against the brick front laid
in Flemish bond, the simple but well-designed
iron fence, flanked on either side
by a wall with massive brick posts covered
with plaster, and all overgrown with a
tangle of foliage, make up a fascinating
picture. The view of the side gateway
and a group of darky boys is wonderfully
picturesque, besides being very suggestive
as an architectural fragment.
The detail is delicate and refined, but
as a rule lacks the force and vitality of
the Northern work of the same period.
The interior detail shows a marked
French influence, especially in the ceilings,
mantels, and stairway. The drawing-room,
of which a double plate is given,
is probably without doubt the finest colonial
room in the country, and is certainly
a fine piece of design all through.
One feature in planning which seems
to be peculiar to this region, as it is not
found in the houses at the North, is the
location of the drawing-room, which is
here on the second floor, usually extending
entirely across the front of the house.
There is seldom, however, any indication
of this in the facade by a distinctive
treatment of the second story. But the
effect is seen in the interior by the greater
importance naturally given to the staircase
hall.
The Gibbs house, built in 1752, which
is shown by several plates, is also very attractive.
The two interior doorways
shown on one plate are among the most
refined that we can remember.
The entrance and staircase hall of the
Gov. Bennett house will bear comparison
with anything of its class to be found, and
the plates showing it will be of especial
value for interior work.
The Bull house is of a type apparently
common in the older work of this region.
It is square and covered with a hip roof.
The front is divided into three bays, the
centre and wider one crowned with a low
gable or pediment. The main floor is
high, leaving a basement below and no
cellar; and the front door, an illustration
of which we give herewith, is reached by
a double flight of steps protected by an
iron railing. Many of the houses are
provided with high fences and massive
gateposts. A number of the plates give
fine examples of these and several very
interesting pieces of iron work.
Doorway to the Bull House, Charleston.
Of the churches, St. Michael’s and St.
Philip’s in Charleston are selected. The
former was built in 1760, and is attributed
to the English architect, Gibbs, who is
also credited with the old Archdale
house, with how good authority we do
not know.[63]
On the whole, the choice of material is
excellent. There is a large number of
plates of detail which for architects’ use
are always the most valuable, and the
work of the photographer and printer has
been done unusually well.
Catalogue of the Joint Exhibition of the
Boston Society of Architects and the
Boston Architectural Club, April 15 to
21, 1895. Boston: Published for the
exhibition by Bates & Guild. 96 pp.,
36 illustrations. 35 cents.
A continuation of the general subject
of exhibition catalogues touched upon in
our last issue as far as it relates to the
catalogue of the Boston Architectural Exhibition.
The exhibition itself is quite
small comparatively speaking, including
only three hundred and twenty-five numbers,
but, as the illustrations in the catalogue
show, is widely representative and
of a high grade of excellence. The contributions
are very largely confined to
members of the two societies under whose
management the exhibition is held.
This tends to give a somewhat local
character to the exhibition as a whole.
Still there is a sufficient number of important
contributions from outside to
make a quite respectable showing.
The selection of illustrations, the only
ground upon which there is excuse for
reviewing the publication, is unquestionably
good. There are thirty-six in all,
covering a wide range of subjects treated
in a variety of ways. The reproductions
are unusually good, and the book is neatly
and well printed on good paper. The
cover, designed by Mr. George G. Will,
is especially attractive and good in design.
Club Notes.
Recruits in the already very considerable
list of architectural clubs are still
coming to the front. The latest to be
heard from is the Architectural Club of
San Francisco, which was organized on
Feb. 26 with fourteen members, some of
whom were members of the old Sketch
Club of San Francisco. It is growing in
membership, and gives promise of a bright
future. Rooms have been secured in
the Menisini Building, 231 Post Street.
Meetings are held on the first Monday of
each month, and a paper is read and the
designs submitted in the monthly competitions
are criticised and the awards
announced. The first club exhibition will
be held April 26. Mr. Loring P. Rixford,
Room 24, Menisini Building, 231 Post
Street, San Francisco, is secretary.
Brochure Series Competitions.
From time to time, as opportunity
offers, competitions in design will be
conducted by The Brochure Series. An
upright or cabinet piano case, the subject
of the first one, badly needs the attention
of good designers.
The Henry F. Miller & Sons Piano
Company of Boston have, for several
years, made steady advancement in the
artistic qualities of their piano cases.
They have equipped their factory with a
view to special work, and have unusually
good facilities for getting out pianos to
order, carrying out, architects’ sketches or
those of their own designers to harmonize
with different styles of interior decoration.
It is their idea to encourage the special
designing of piano cases, and to this end
they have placed with the publishers
fifty dollars to be divided into prizes for
such designs. Only sketches will be required,
their object being not to use the
designs further than to publish the best,
but to get designers to give a little attention
to this particular problem, and so do
a little towards creating an interest in the
better design of piano cases. Full particulars,
including a structural diagram
and a statement of the technical requirements
and limitations, will be announced
in our next issue.
Personal.
As usual at this season, a number of
architects and draughtsmen are planning
to go abroad; some for only a few
months, and others for a longer time.
Among these are Messrs. H. T. Pratt,
Matthew Sullivan, C. D. Maginnis, and
H. C. Dunham, of Boston, and E. K. Taylor
and H. L. Jones of New York.