ROM

373

ROM

wucabi

^jthoi 16 t0 t * le ^^ r * st * an religion, as well as to the heathenl lie A more notable example of the circular form is

c Hp re of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem , built by the^dena, mother of Constantine.

Hsol Clrcu ^ ar form was also a favourite one for tombs and°f a ’ ar nongst the more remarkable of which are thosec ylit) ( j® Us * ;U3 and Hadrian . The former consisted of four8r aaH er Ca * stories, the diameter of each being somewhat'°lo S3al lan that below it, and the uppermost crowned by ast atue of the emperor. The latter is now the well-af ica( b a - S i^? Angelo, and originally consisted of a cylin-Hi C b adding, placed upon a square base, the height ofHow ? S about half that of the superstructure. No remainso as al So • ^ le uppermost stage of the building, whichW'ntk - Clrc ular, and was surmounted with a peristyle of 34p l he ! an Co * umn s ; its diameter being about one-third that^ e cilj a ar ger cylinder. Of a similar form is the tomb of^i° ll8 ■ let ella, but devoid of the upper story. A moreJ^*ich e exa ®ple is the sepulchral monument at St. Renie,

1 Qn ^.s of three stories, the lowest a square base,Veligp, Sfadini, and covered on each side with sculpturesb ar at '.i, next square, with an attached fluted Corinthian

t^rtbost an ° le3 > an d an open arch on each side ; and theten, , a porinthian rotunda, forming an open or monop-1 8 ’ st s of’ * n w *uch are two statues. The tomb of Yirgila Ce a s fluare base, surmounted by a conical structure;fibrin , ta Ph at Constantina, in Africa , has the lower storycoq ’ surroun( led by a peristyle; while the upper is aon* ^ orme< ^ * n receding courses or steps. Edifices. a g°n a | P°lygonal plans were not uncommon, of which the°yed • Vere most frequent; the latter form was commonlyS ' 8a loons to public baths; and there is an octago-

^ 8 >des ln -^‘oelesian’s palace at Spalatro. Buildings ofl^tliar f^ ere not common ; but there is one at Balbec oftb ^° u r r rin ’ } Wo °f the sides measuring 110 feet each, andte etna * n >ng only 88 feet. There is also a curious•lift a n * )e a t Balbec , of curious design ; it is placedpj tagonal base, the sides of which are curvedarc *i esent ' n g a concave f ace > an< f at the angles ofY e d j n P la ced columns bearing an entablature, which isof h aVe s '“>ilar manner to the base.t^ 0 vvin e , a uded to the previous examples, for the purpose<li s ai )8stne^5 OW infinitely varied Roman edifices were in the0 a ^Uti on the main parts, and how readily a different°t the same or similar parts were made to exhibiti e 0 /v. e ffect. Many examples in proof of the same*bor e ere( f> were it within our limits to do so, and thesetfw^eir iY,t Xtens ive scale, as witness the baths, fora, &c.,

■Oi^ilar

It Jl'ch an y courts, saloons, galleries, and porticos, eacht hus 81 ‘ t P resent some different method of distribution.9 took ” e seen > how, in point of practical utility, theto g P rec edence of the Greeks, and how they were'h 3 be r ect buildings suitable for any purposes which

“ TPn * ouiluuic iut miy puipuaca wuiuu

e -etoig lre< ^‘ f n 8UC b matters, they undoubtedly have\ a 9tl t t Q ® nce > but in matters of pure taste, they must betf ^ ca 8eg vjdd priority to the Greeks; for although in%e c b Wg'f have shown proof of excellency of design,HJ’ ^liich need no °tber illustration than the CorinthianQ j. ^as fairly their own ; yet at the same time, the^lij ^ity whi^k F < ^ eS ' fi,nS n0t ftx b'bit that nuritv and

designs do not exhibit that purity and-a • "y vi'Y 1 18 t be mark of true excellence. But besidestheif i^ 0ns true taste are constantly occurringf, ”‘ ' ' PQf works, indeed they seem to have been

„ Cr,, .'“«ir bestV 1 _»* the

, st Sn(;"p C 8 y st em; amongst these, we may mention the'tit* • mpl °y m ent of the arch and entablature in theVaipj an fi it is to be lamented, that instead of endea-• It. y fo unite the two systems, they had not struck5 c

out in a bolder course by themselves, and worked out a con-sistent style of building. It is true that they employed thearch very freely, and sometimes probably more so than correcttaste would warrant; yet at the same time they did not takethat advantage of the possession of such a means of construc-tion as they might have done in a scientific point of view;they piled arch over arch, and seemed to be pleased withtheir acquisition, and content to make use of it, but not toapply it with any idea of improvement. But there are stillone or two other points which merit reprehension, for instance,the employment of columns merely for the purpose of decora-tion, as where they are half inserted in the walls, or wherepilasters supply their place. Now, columns are evidentlyintended for support, and they should always manifest suchintention ; and where they are used in positions where suchsupport is not required, their employment is certainly objec-tionable, and would not be admitted in accordance with stricttaste : the construction of ornament merely as ornament, andespecially when its employment is liable to deceive, is to becondemned. A forcible illustration of the above kind is tobe observed in triumphal arches, in which, although thecolumns be entirely isolated, and standing in front of the wall,they serve no practical purpose, their only use being to sup-port a projecting portion of the entablature ; and if it beasked for what purpose this projection is made, the most readyreply will be to give an useless column something to do. Thefact is, that they are both added for the sake of effect, pro-bably for variety in outline, and for the sake of the deepshadow which such a projection would cast; but as far asconstruction goes, the whole thing is a sham, and deceptionsin buildings indicate a low ebb of taste and science in archi-tecture. Another characteristic of Roman art, and one whichentered very largely into the system, is the employment oforder above order in the same building, which illustrates atonce its virtues and faults ; for while on the one hand, suchan arrangement is incompatible with the requirements of thehighest standards of taste, yet still at the same time it provestheir aptness of invention, and versatility of design.

We have now endeavoured to show, in as fair a light aspossible, the comparative merit of the two styles ; and while,as a question of taste, we must without doubt yield thepalm to Greece , we are inclined to think with Mr. Freeman,that architecture would have flourished more successfullyat Rome , had she remained unacquainted with that ofher rival.

Descriptions of some of the principal Roman buildings willbe found in the body of this work ; we may refer especiallyto the articles under the following heads :— Pantheon,Amphitheatre, Balbec , Palmyra, &c. The adaptationof the orders will be found noticed under Corinthian,Doric, Ionic, Roman, and Tuscan Orders .

ROMAN ORDER, an ordinance of architecture, inventedby the Romans from the Ionic and Corinthian orders ; andhence, it has also obtained the name of the Composite Order.See Order.

Vitruvius, the most ancient writer on architecture, afterdescribing the three Grecian orders, mentions several fancifulcompositions, without giving them any particular denomina-tion. The name of Composite order is of modern application,and has been applied in consequence of the numerous examplesto be found at Rome , and other parts of the ancient Romanterritory, of an order compounded of the Ionic and Corinthian,which is of a very uniform character.

The capital of the Roman order is compounded of the Ionic and Corinthian, the upper part being the Ionic , and the lowerthe Corinthian. The entablature, as found in the ancientremains of Roman architecture, is Corinthian, and not one

i