ROM

372

ROM

rated beyond hope of restoration, and new edifices of barba-rous design had begun to be erected at the expense of thoseof better design already in existence.

In comparing the relative merits of Greek and Romanarchitecture, there can be no question but that the former byfar excels in matter of taste; and this, by many writers,seems to be the only question considered. But this is notI i fairly the whole point at issue between them ; there are otherj j matters to be brought under consideration ; and such are—! \ variety, as well in use as in design; the capability of being, adapted to different purposes of life ; as well as excellency and; facility of construction. Now, although the Greeks farexceed their rivals in simple grandeur, chasteness of deco-ration, and correctness of detail, still it must be remembered| that their structures are chargeable with sameness and mono-j | tony : their plans scarcely ever varied from the oft-repeated| ! rectangle ; the only change consisting in the different arrange-] 1 ment of the columns, and in the applications of the few orders' of architecture which they possessed ; the only variation ini plan which occurs, is to be found in the Erechtheum at Athens ,and some smaller monuments, as the Temple of the Winds,the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates , and such like. Grecianarchitecture was almost entirely devoid of composition ; andno attempt was made in them of grouping their several parts,so as to produce a varied, yet effective, outline.

Now, on the other hand, the Romans were not so much asentimental as a practical people; and this fact, we think,

! will account in a great measure for their different appreciationi of the art under consideration. During the earlier period of, their history, it will be found that they constructed onlyI works of public utility and convenience, and whose onlyj claim to beauty consisted in their magnitude, their grandj conception, the mechanical skill employed in their construc-tion, and their perfect adaptation to the purposes for whichj i they were intended. The effect produced by them is ratheri I surprise and admiration than pleasure; they awe by their1 grandeur, rather than satisfy by their display of taste. SuchJ | works would not be classed in the present day under thej term architecture at all, but under that of engineering—twoI terms which are perfectly distinct in this application, although! both applied to works of construction, to buildings, or arti-I ficial erections, the one, however, applies more especially toj the science, the other to the art, of building; not thatscience is absent in either case, but that art—that is, fineart—in the one case stands pre-eminent, as scientific skillj does in the other. Under the term engineering we should■ include the roads, bridges, aqueducts, and sewers, for whichthe early Romans are so noted, and whose mode of construc-tion was probably learned from the Etruscans , who seem tohave been a people of similar character, though of improvedcivilization, to the Romans. This practical character towhich we allude the Romans never entirely lost, even afteri they had become acquainted with the voluptuousness of! Greece, and during the luxury of the court of Augustus i | and the succeeding emperors ; for although at this periodj i they began to cultivate architecture simply as one of the finei ; arts, still not even then did they lose sight of utility in their| j buildings.

With the Greeks, religion was almost the sole purpose forwhich architecture seemed to exist; with few exceptions, wehave no other examples but temples: on the other hand,i the temples of the Romans were neither so extensive nor sonumerous as their works of public utility or convenience ;and this also arises from their national peculiarities ; for theywere neither so religious, nor so philosophical and contempla-tive, as the Greeks. Amongst Roman remains, besides theengineering works whiah we have above alluded to, we have

fora, baths, palaces, circi, theatres, amphitheatres,halls of justice, triumphal arches, commemorative ^et®mausolea, and such like. The requirements vv 1 (0 tb 8

necessary for such buildings as these, led, no dou ’ e rta j11practice of composition and grouping, for it is ve ^ eI1 gud'that one uniform plan of building would not ^ ave n ot

tb 8

able for such a variety of purposes ; but this er h»P 9 ’only cause of variety in their buildings, although ^pl ofthe principal one. Another may be observedment of the arch, which allowed much greater . .j], tb

construction than the entablature of the Greeks •latter the intercolumniations were fixed to a cer ^ , v itlor at least limited within a determinate range ; f e ea3 ing ?the former, every facility was afforded for ,nC1 an um 1diminishing the space between the piers to almo ge n>i c]t 'mited degree. It is not improbable, too, that 11 nt o9«,

cular form of the arch, which was in such 0011 0 f ci f "

assisted in the development and frequent employtn^gdcular plans, or of plans in which circular and . te nc®were introduced ; for it is not unlikely that the e apP^ C *„a form or figure in the elevation should sugge® c ; r <;l« 1tion to the plan likewise. This employment of w j,j c h 1,8the plans of their buildings led inevitably to t* 13 d oD,e ^hequite a new feature in architectural design, to

lOf'

quite a new feature in architectural aesig*,, - . ,

feature, too, which gave a totally distinct characterbuildings in which it was employed, and introduced an " ^,jgtant element of variety into architectural design- ' le ;arrangement the Pantheon is the most remarkable e%n V t beand it requires none other, to attest to the importancechange then introduced. The effect of the interior >s aingly different from anything which had before appe aT flvast area, such as that of the Pantheon, covered t j 0 n,single hemispherical dome, must, at the time of if® e j g tb 8nave produced a most wonderful and novel effect. & ^ e -extenor devoid of novelty or character—a fact whm' 1 ' /yoi»cia y observable in the rectangular portico-—p r0 J eC l c nt ja$ &

* li * r - er c,r ™lar building. Such a combination W ft

striking contrast to the uniformityof Grecian edih c “ e ° {ie instance of the Pantheon, the exterior is jjuild'columns, except in the portico. But there aremgs m which the circular plan was carried out' ( th eexternal peristyle: such, for instance, is the temp ,p; v oli'amyl; or, as it is otherwise named, that of Vesta ^ oJ g.eS<Buildings of this class were roofed with hemispheric® e notor with lesser segments of a sphere; but these Z„iect ing

visible on the exterior, being concealed by tf je P- pea 11 'colonade. Even in the Pantheon, where the dome ^ c 0 n-spherical, and of so great diameter, it does not to

does

bpucricui, anu ui »u great ujawctui, **-, . ~ Jjn© 1

spicuous object on the outside, for its spnng’ ; t9 eX*®ated at about the level of the lower cornice , ^ ollt teP 3

height is still further reduced, by the base 0 geg of 9tion of the dome heinsr formed into several c j fjroD® .

s if u :

.of'

tion of the dome being formed into i

ble

■ti 0*

Had the entire ) • -

exterior, it would^hf 1 fbe dome been vi»»*..-to its base. l n , ,.‘ lve born e by far too great a P r0 P' (VJJ „

employed with an inf ™ 6 °f Constantine, the circular p ® g a „Stephano Rotund,, 6 j na col <>nnade, as in the church c .

the circuSt and that of Sta Costanga; ineievation than t |,,, t POHlon within the colonnade is ° { £'deexternal Wal)li! 1 T-° n embrace,i between the cole ^Costanga there is J , S covei 'ed with a dome ; bat s arenot only coup] e( i i u,tber peculiarity, for the coin ftPairs, one behfnd are an ' !W ged in an unusual p0 rt3,1 arcade. Both i >0 ° tber : the columns serve to ,temples, (the olm le ® e ‘•difices have been claimed as * t0Bacchus,) but seenf- 8 ded,cated to Faunus , and the tba oconjecture, and the without an 7 other foundati gf6

’ a the existence of some decorations