BUILDING (AS. byldan. to !MN, bold, leel. beet, house, from feel. bun, to live, abide, dwell: ef. 011G. bfran, Goth. banal', to dwell, in habit, Ger. bauen, to build. Skt. bhil, to be). A term used in two senses, applying either to the art or trade of erecting structures, or to a structure itself. Building should properly be distinguished from both architecture and eon struction. All architecture is building with something added; all building is not architecture, because it may not have any artistic qualities. Then again, all construction• is building with something added; but all building is not con struction, because it may lack in scientific quali ties. Still, loosely speaking. building as a more general term is made to include both the others, especially as in modern usage a builder is one who has general supervision over the several dis tinct arts and trades concerned in making a building complete in every part, in which case he is also called the contractor. At the head of the building trade is the architect, who is em ployed to draw plans, and to make drawings and specifications for time work to be done. At present the architect and the building contractor are al ways two distinct persons. with divergent inter ests; but it was not always so, and it will be in teresting to examine into the history of building before studying present conditions. This arti cle, supplemented by the articles on BRICK; STONEWORK; MASONRY; FIREPROOF CONSTRUC TION; CONCRETE: VAULT; etc., covers the tech nical side of building as well as all the main divisions of materials. There is also included in this article a resumts of the scientific issues in volved in building, together with a discussion of the personality, duties, and relations of build ers, contractors, and architects. The historic de velopments are treated under the general head ing ARCHITECTURE.
Building has been in the past carried on ac cording to three methods: (1) by forced, or otherwise unpaid labor and contributions; (2) by paid day's work; (3) by contract. The last mentioned is the common modern method, and ac counts for the defective and inartistic quality, especially in details, of most present work; but it is only gradually that contract work gained its present supremacy. The first method, by unpaid labor. was common in despotic communities, like Egypt and Assyria ; the forced labor of the Israel ites in Egypt was matched in the same country down to the present century, and is still found in Turkey. Of course, this meant a mass of un trained laborers with only a few skilled men in charge, and involved imperfection of detail. As
a system it was beautifully organized by the Roman Empire, which was able to cover the world with superb buildings at small cash ex penditure. In the first place, all the materials were furnished free as part of tribute or tax by different provinces or cities, and were trans ported free by vessels or carts in return for trade privileges: in the second place, the Roman Army was turned into an immense building or ganization, with engineers, stone and brick ma sons. and carpenters attached to each legion. Not only were bridges and aqueducts built by them, but entire cities, without pay. Finally. all arts and trades were separately organized with a membership known to and controlled by the State, and were corporately bound to furnish free Libor to the State in return for monopoly in each occupation, which no one not belonging to the as-oeiation could practice. This obligation be came finally so heavy a burden to the corpora tions as to lead to their decay. All this explains both the immense quantity and the lack of indi viduality in Homan work.
Free labor. however. was not always forced. Alediawal building shows this. It. was at first, during the Monastic Age (Eighth to Eleventh centuries), a modification of the Roman, with this difference, that in its artistic branches it is a labor of love. 'Ithe monasteries taught all the arts and trades, and were, in fact, the only schools for them: the institutes of technology and of art. 'flue masses of workmen so developed were of two classes : either members of the mon astery—full monks, lay brothers, and novices; or they were laymen who were the property or dependents of the monastery, organized by trades, living in its shadow and obliged to give their work free. Neither class worked for pay—the one did it for love, the other for duty. There fore, while knowledge was less than in the Roman period, intention was better, and love is shown in the details which were usually the work of the members of the monastery. When the monopoly of art passed from the monasteries in the Elev enth Century, the organization of free lay asso •ciations of arts and trades put an end to this emlition. Only sporadically do we henceforth find free labor and free material playing any large part in Minding, in such eases as when a whole community threw itself, under the reli gious enthusiasm of the Crusading Age, into the erection of some great cathedral.