96 ON THE ARCH. 



appears favourable to Aristotle's knowledge in tiie matter before 

 us; his mind was capacious beyond those who had s^one before 

 him, and, as Cicero expresses himself, he was acute in discovery 

 and prolific in thought. It is, therefore, by no means a matter 

 of surprise that he should have known the uses of the arch ; 

 but it does not follow a necessary consequence, as I have before 

 advanced, that the application of knowledge should speedily 

 follow its acquirement, nor am I aware of any grounds even to 

 suppose that the Greeks availed themselves of the knowledge in 

 question, nor ever applied it to architectural purposes until it 

 had been long in use with the Romans, and which people, being 

 very adroit in borrowing from their neighbours, most probably 

 received the principle from Greece. Arches have, doubtless, 

 been discovered in buildings of great antiquity, but the want of 

 universality argues their introduction at periods long subsequent 

 to the original structures, as in the pyramid I formerly mentioned ; 

 without a due consideration of this more than probable order 

 of things, theories have been formed, and even supported, by 

 argument at variance with sound reason. In the absence of well- 

 founded data, conjecture will direct our judgment, but hypothesis 

 must yield to the influence of reason, and is it not in keeping 

 with the latter character to suppose that some earlier authors 

 amongst the Greeks, particularly Homer and Herodotus, would 

 have mentioned so important an order as the arch, had it been 

 known or applied in their respective days ? This argument, I 

 admit, is not conclusive, but it is a reasonable ground upon which 

 we may infer that no arch was used before the period to which 

 our attention may be directed by some adequate authority. 



Having reached this point of consideration, we must look for 

 such authority. 



Dr. King, in his very elaborate and learned Dissertation upon 

 the Arch, wherein he has taken a most comprehensive view of 

 his subject, arrives at the conclusion that its invention is of a 

 date comparatively modern, not long if at all before the time of 

 Augustus. That I may faithfully report this learned critic, I 

 w ill use his own words — " Till any sufficient testimony i^an be 

 produced to the contrary, we are left unavoidably to conclude 

 that the arch was invented no very long time before the age of 

 Augustus." The Doctor, though very learned and talented, has 

 drawn his conclusions somewhat too hastily, and slurred over a 

 *' testimony" which appears unequivocal and conclusive that the 

 arch was not only invented, but applied, " a very long time 

 before the age of Augustus;" and had he taken the trouble to 

 have devoted more attention to the pages of Livy, he would have 

 found that during the Censorship of Scipio Africanus, and L. 

 Mummius, arches were formed upon buttresses, on which was 

 erected a bridge over the Tiber; and that in the same Censorship 

 water was brought to the city by an aqueduct built upon arches ; 

 and further be it remarked, that the cloacae veteres, or ancient 



