41
the learned themselves would require a showman topoint out the phenomenon.
By the general adoption of the arch in architecture,to whomever the invention of it may belong, theRomans excelled the Greeks in the science of build-ing, as much as the Byzantine Greeks and the Gothicarchitects excelled them. From that time architec-ture began to assume a new character ; and it is notdifficult to trace, in the arches of the interior of theTemple of Faunus on the Celian Mount, or in thearcades of the Coliseum, the features which afterwardbecame more prominent in what has been called Nor-man architecture, nor in that the features whichdesignate Gothic architecture. The Romans wereslow in exchanging the portico for the arcade, and inrendering the column subordinate to the arch : theyretained it as an ornament, where it ceased to becomea useful member; and succeeding ages, whatever hasbeen the style of architecture in fashion, have fol-lowed their example, and have always found it neces-sary, either for service or beauty. Equal respect hasnot been paid to the entablature; the absurdity ofusing it where the arch became a substitute for thelintel, was soon perceived, and it did not form a fea-ture in any subsequent architecture, until it was usedagain, and often misused, at the revival of learning inEurope . Through the progress of the science ofbuilding, from the post and beam architecture of theEgyptians, the Phenicians, and the Greeks, to theadoption of the arch in the various styles of architec-ture, which a knowledge of its uses and of its versatileapplication occasioned, we trace a gradual decline inthe art. The buildings of the Acropolis and Ioniaare in the highest rank in respect of the art ; but they