UTILITY IN ARCHITECTURE. 205 



tians, for example, adopted a totally different style of architect- 

 ure for their temples or palaces than they did for their dwellings. 

 The former were of stone, and of a massive method of building 

 that was intended to withstand the wear and tear of ages ; the 

 latter were of wood or brick, constructed in a light manner, and 

 without much concern as to their durability. The Romans sup- 

 ply another illustration of the same fact. These people were un- 

 questionably the greatest builders the world has seen, and the 

 methods they employed can properly serve as a guide for later 

 usage. Much of their architecture, judged by the pure standard 

 of the Greek, on which it largely rested, is bad from an aesthetic 

 point of view, and not a little of their construction was devised 

 on methods that can not always be approved of ; but, apart from 

 this, the buildings of the Romans offer many interesting exam- 

 ples of the application of idea to structure, and- the importance of 

 utility over mere questions of art. 



It has been remarked that in ancient Rome no one ever had 

 a doubt as to the use to which any building was put or what it 

 was ; and, in truth, great as was the variety of Roman buildings, 

 their forms were so many, their plans so varied and so well ex- 

 pressed in the structure, that there never could have been room for 

 the smallest doubt on the subject. The temple" differed from the 

 basilica, the basilica from the amphitheatre, the amphitheatre 

 from the palace, the palace from the baths. In a word, each class 

 of buildings had its own form, its own plan, which was based, not 

 on some fancy of the architect, not on some individual caprice, 

 not on some mistaken idea of the beautiful, but on the single 

 thought that if the building answered its purpose it was satisfac- 

 tory and accomplished all that was to be expected of it. In the 

 golden age of the Roman Empire enormous sums of money were 

 spent in adorning the capital and chief cities with public works — 

 buildings not only for the emperor himself but for public and 

 state use as well. The display of wealth and luxury was lavish 

 in the extreme ; ornament and decoration were to be seen in every 

 available place in the greatest profusion ; yet in the midst of all 

 this gorgeousness the Roman architect never forgot the destina- 

 tion of the building. If a complicated structure, like a bath, was 

 needed, there was no limit to the extent to which the plan was 

 elaborated ; if a simple edifice was required, such as a basilica, 

 there was no multiplication of parts for external effect, but simply 

 the large hall and the necessary rooms. The ornament was fre- 

 quently profuse and much overdone, but the architecture proper, 

 the structure itself, the plan, the essential part, was never any- 

 thing else than what it was intended to be. 



There is nothing astonishing in this method, which is only the 

 application of common sense to art and the subordination of orna- 



