As for the second method, building by paid day's work, we know very little about it until the historic age in Greece, when we find it the prevailing method. The State engaged directly each workman. whether slave or free, and paid him individually, and appointed officials to over see the work. There were a business committee and technical overseers. the latter including an architect and a clerk of the works. The State supplied all materials by dealing directly with individuals, for transportation, quarrying. etc. The reports of these overseers and the accounts rendered with itemized details, are extant in a number of cases. even for such im portant buildings as the Erechtlnlon and Propy hen at Athens, the temples of Elcusis and the Parthenon. The perfection of Greek work of the Golden Age in all its details is partly accounted for by the individual responsibility thus placed upon each workman. The Greeks never entirely gave up the direct engagement of workmen day's work or job work in monuments of the first class. especially temples, nor did they ever leave the quantity of the materials to be used at the mercy of the contractor, in contract work, hot saw that they were supplied by the State. The contract method first obtained a foothold in Greece in works that belonged to engineering rather than architecture; in the erection of city walls, like those of Athens. of arsenals, like that of the Pirxus; in the draining of lakes, etc.
1 hen, in the Fourth Century me., this method invaded the finer branches of building. but even no contractor was given the entire work; it was portioned among a multitude of snmll contractors:. and a considerable part of the work was kept out of the contractors' hands alto gether. lieing under the direct supervision of the State architect.
The Romans never appear to have used such free and individual show that in Republican times the State, repre sented by the Censors, had public. struetures put up for a lump sum by a single contractor. With the Greeks the contractor and the architect had rarely been the same man; but emitractors and lmilders were identical. Among the Romans the same man was often both arehitect and con tractor. as well as builder, except in eases where contracting was indulged in without technical knowledge as a mere speculation, which led to many abuses, as in the famous case of Verres. Contract work thus shared forced labor with the Romans. Organized. not individual, labor was their watchword, but not free organization. This was carried to an extreme by the Byzantine State, which governed the arts and trades with an iron hand. The individual responsibility of workmen and the system of days' work was not revived until, after an interval of over a thou sand years, the organization of the lay artists and artisans of Italy in the Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth centuries, which spread gradually to the rest of Europe, and is accountable for the return of artistic quality in the details of archi tecture of the late Romanesque. Gothic, aml Renaissance periods. ,Membership in the guilds, which represented the culmination of this organ ized labor, besides conferring freedom to work, entailed obligations of good work, and if work was defective. expulsion followed. The labor as soeiations of those days, different from our own, gave more thought to the quality of their work and the development of their art than to the assertion of claims. Architects, sculptors, and painters, even those of the highest merit, belonged to these guilds. The architects of this period usually possessed what those of Greece liad pos sessed. a general and even practical knowledge of the principal related arts of architectural decoration, design', sculpture, and sometimes even of painting. Even more than in the Golden of Greece, all work was done by the employer dealing directly with individual work men, either by day's work, or, what is its praet cal equivalent. job work. The head architect was engaged in the same way, and he thus the head Imilder, but not the contractor. It is in teresting to note how, as was the case in Greece, contract work crept in with the decay of the Renaissance, though it did not become general until the last century.
At present the architect and the builder are more clearly in separate spheres than ever be though each must. in his way. keep in touch with all the arts and trades that are required to make a building complete. The differentiation of these occupations has steadily increased, as well as their eflicieney in practical ways. The architect and builder must keep informed of all such changes. They must also know about the State and city legislation affecting building, frontage. projections, stoops, drainage, use, strength and quality of material, context and registration of contracts, etc. Each country, each large city is likely to vary in such regula tions. Another necessary preliminary is a knowl edge of the locality, especially the subsoil, lay of the land, transport facilities, etc., as this affects the placing and price of the building. The first step toward a building on the part of the employer is the selection of an architect. In the case of large public or corporate undertakings, this is often left to competitive examination, open to all comers, but ordinarily an architect is chosen outright and asked to submit a prelimi nary sketch. If approved, this is followed by a set of specifications covering every detail of con struction and finish; size, kind, and quality of materials; and description of its 17118C en aucre. In making this the architect has due regard to the amount the client wishes to spend. Then a list of contractors is made out to whom the architect sends copies of these specifications, and they send in their bids. The lowest responsible bidder is usually chosen. A contract is then drawn up, usually a modification of a printed formula supplied by the architect. It is made to include the specifications, mentions a date for the completion of the work, often with a money penalty for delay. and often stipulating that the contractor should furnish a bond, and that the payment should be made in installments. at cer tain periods of the work's progress, on the archi tect's certificate. As one of the great troubles has been the desire of employers to make changes in the course of the work, there is usually some clause regulating how this shall be done so as to avoid dispute. The site is then surveyed and work begun. Great power of decision is given the architect, who either visits the building himself periodically or appoints a clerk of the works to exercise constant supervision to in sure the exact carrying out of the contract. The usual architect's fee is 5 per cent. of the cost of the completed building, but much less if he exercises no supervision. His greatest work is the preparation of the detailed working plans and drawings, with which he must supply the contractor in advance of the work. As for the contractor or master-mechanic, it is customary to employ a single general contractor (though the heating apparatus is often done by separate contract) who is virtually the constructor and manager. and sub-lets to others certain special parts of the work, such as excavating, masonry, ironwork, plumbing, inside woodwork, painting, etc., making contracts with these mechanics, and becoming responsible for their work, or else, as in England, he himself employs these different classes of mechanics. These subcontractors, and even individual workmen, if unpaid, can, in cer tain countries, get out mechanics' liens on the building—a sort of first mortgage. The final payment is not made until the work has been ap proved by the local in• lectors (e.g. plumbing) and accepted by the architect. methods of turning out all classes of material mechani cally in great quantities at scheduled prices lacilitates estimates and makes quick work easier, but leads to a dead level of uniformity.. Modern architects have advanced in the quality of their designs far more rapidly than our mechanics and manufacturers have in the artis tic or even careful treatment of details.