CIVIL ARCHITECTURE. 



.< 







V- ; 

 IT 



' r 

 " ' 



- - 







ThMdomt. 



i i.xxiir. 



Kooumm. 

 tfrtxcdm 

 ike Crrrk*. 



Tfc* wch 



introduced 

 kyikc Ao. 



out, rich, UK! t*nive provinces, the rare for majjniti- 

 cenccktpt pace t and public ind private buildings increased 

 much beyond the bound* impropriety. To debauch the 

 people, public hor* had been introduced, anil theatrt-a 

 of VMt magnitude constructed ; habit* of luxury requi- 

 ted superb edifices fur exercise and battling ; the forum* 

 were much increased in lir.e and tplendour ; the (ingle 

 i had been employed a* a recording monument ; 

 and the introduction of the arch had created many new 

 ttructure*, especially the triumphal arch aud the aque- 

 duct. 



This rape for building was not coi.-fined to Italy, but 

 extended over every province of the empire. It appear- 

 ed the most effectual way in which the different emper- 

 or?, governor*, and commander*, could gratify their va- 

 nity, and elablih their authority ; and their rapid lucces- 

 i ion led to an increase of the number in every quarter, from 

 Palmyra and Balbcc in the east, (where their architectu- 

 i at work* were splendid and vast,) to the remote province 

 of Britain in the west ; but after the time of the Arito- 

 uir.ci, thi- people became vitiated, all dignity of charac- 

 ter disappeared, and every thing proceeded from one ex- 

 cess to another without taste or arrangement. 



Their architecture, which never was pure, had dege- 

 nerated into extravagance, and was overloaded with gor- 

 geous ornaments. The talents of Dioclesian could nei- 

 ther reform the empire nor its architecture. He resign- 

 ed the government of the former, and, in his palaces and 

 baths, left specimens of the degenerate state of the latter. 

 From thi* period architecture shared the fate of the em- 

 pire, and, excepting some solitary instances in the reigns 

 of Theodosius and Justinian, there is nothing deserving of 

 attention ; though, in order to preserve some idea of the 

 style of those times, and establish a connection with a 

 new school of architecture which succeeded, or rather 

 for a considerable time interrupted the progress of the 

 Roman, it is necessary to mention, that the third church 

 built by Constantine was that of Si Paul, on the road to 

 Ostia ; of which, the -K) columns enclosing the great aisle, 

 24 of blue and white marble were taken from the mauso- 

 leum of Adrian ; that the church of St Paul, without the 

 rates of Rome, was erected under Theodosius ; and that 

 St Sophia at Constantinople, was erected under Justinian. 

 See PUtcCLXXlII. 



The Roman* were so much indebted to the Greek* 

 for all that relate* to architecture and sculpture, that 

 they have little claim to any original ideas upon those 

 subjects. Being found in so perfect a state a* to re- 

 press all thought* of rivalship, the Romans were con- 

 tented to plunder and imitate. In the theatre of Marcellus 

 and in the Coliseum, the Doric and Ionic were both in- 

 troduced, but, with a very few exceptions, the Corin- 

 thian order only was employed by the Romans ; and, as 

 J not left by the Greek* sufficiently expressive of riches 

 and magnificence, they loaded every member with orna- 

 ments unknown to the inventor!!. They united the Ionic 

 and Corinthian into an order they named the Composite, 

 d (tripping the Doric of its finest features, they formtd 

 their Tuscan. When the particular members could re- 

 leivc no mere ornaments, they had recourse to varying 

 the outline* of their structures into every shape which 

 could be produced by the union of circle* or triangle*. 

 Sec Montfaucon'l Antiq. vol. iii. 



To one important feature in architecture, the Romans 

 appear to have an indubitable claim, that is the arch. 

 The ancient Egyptian*, Persian*, and Hindoos, were en- 

 tirely ignorant of it* construction ; and in no instance 

 Kive the Greek*, previous to the Roman conquest, made 

 u*e of Jtfche*, either in thjc external or internal face* of 



' 



their buildings. It ha< h?en*aid, that arches over drains 

 have been observed in the ancient temple of the sun at 

 Athens, and that of Apollo at Didymus. If that were 

 clearly ascertained, it would determine the merit of the 

 mere invention to the Greeks ; but it is evident, that the 

 people never considered the arch of any importance a* an 

 external feature, nor were aware of the advantage* which 

 might be derived, by extending it over considerable open- 

 ing*, for in no instance have they in this manner employ- 

 ed it ; and, notwithstanding the splendid and expensive 

 works of Pericles, it was left for the Romans to construct 

 a stone arch over the small river Cephisus, upon the great 

 road to Athens. If, therefore, we should not be fully 

 justified in attributing to the Romans the merit of the 

 first invention, they assuredly had that of introducing 

 arches into general and exten*ive use, and, by this means, 

 creating a species of architecture unknown to the Greeki. 

 The arch in their hands, was employed in extensive 

 vaultings and domes, in triumphal arches, bridges ovrr 

 riven, and in aqueduct* for conveying water to citiei. 

 Thus fur the arch was an important acquisition in the 

 building art ; but not satisfied with this, they hastened 

 to introduce it in facades of Greek architecture, the dis- 

 tinguishing features of which being straight lines, the 

 circular outline* of the arch were discordant, and distract- 

 ed the mind between a style formed by the employment 

 of timber beams, and another which could only be com- 

 posed by a number of separate stones, placed in a posi- 

 tion very different from that in which timber was used. 

 This therefore became a glaring defect in the Roman ar- 

 chitecture, and distinguished it widely from the simplici- 

 ty of the Grecian. 



The specimens, exhibited in Plates CLXII. CLXIIf. 

 and CLXIV. will shew in what manner the Roman style was, 

 at various periods, employed in public andpriv.ate buildings. 

 We shall therefore conclude this outline of its history, by 

 observing that the power, wealth, and vanity of the Ro- 

 mans, led them to increase the number, magnitude, and de- 

 corations of their edifices to a degree almost incredible. 

 The dexterity of execution in the pantheon, Trajan's co- 

 lumn, the palace and baths of Dioclesian, andthe triumphal 

 arches, are evidence how well qualified their workmen 

 were, at all those periods, of bringing the particular part* 

 to any degree of perfection ; but the directing mind wa* 

 from the beginning deficient, and constantly became 

 more depraved. The Greek style, which had been pol- 

 luted in its introduction to Italy, had its forms at last so 

 distorted and overwhelmed with injudicious ornaments, 

 that scarcely any resemblance was left to distinguish it* 

 origin. 



Or GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. 



This name has been given to a school of architecture Gotliie 

 very different from either the Greek or Roman. It* ar 

 origin has perhaps hitherto hardly been satisfactorily as,- " 

 certained, but it certainly continued till the sixteenth 

 century, when it was supplanted by the revival of the 

 Roman style. It was only at the time of its txtirpation 

 that the appellation of Gothic was applied, in token of the 

 contempt in which it was held by the school of Palladio 

 in Italy, and Jones in England. 



The fate of this style of architecture has been as sin- 

 gular as its principles of construction. It was, during a 

 tew centuries, practised over most of Europe with a de- 

 gree of ardour, and to an extent which rendered its ef- 

 fects truly magical. From the zenith of it* glory it was, 

 by a very rapid transition, reduced to the state of degra- 

 dation we have just alluded to. 



After the expiration of about two centuries, menof scv- 



C1.X1 

 '; 



