ir. 



ABCHlTECTUBK. 



ROMAN ARCHITECTURE. 



146 



The temple of Venus and Roma, built by Hadrian in the Roman 

 Forum, would seem from recent excavations to have been one of the 

 most splendid edifices in the city. According to the plan of 

 M. Caristie, the temple stood in the centre of a quadrilateral enclo- 

 ribolus, measuring 525 by 318 feet, and was enclosed by 

 double colonnades of the Corinthian order, consisting altogether of 264 

 columns. The temple itself was of the same order, upon a con- 

 siderably larger scale, and ita dimensions about 350 by 166 feet. It 

 was consequently large in proportion to the area within which it 

 stood ; and when viewed in combination with the extended files of 

 columns around it, must have produced a powerful effect, one in 

 which harmony and regularity were blended with contrast The 

 interior, judging from the indications afforded by the ruins, must have 

 been equally splendid and picturesque in character. 



The Romans seem to have affected the practice of grouping buildings 

 together as feature* in one general symmetrical plan. Their temples 

 and basilicas were frequently placed, as the principal arckitectur.il 

 object*, at the extremity of a forum, or other regular area enclosed 

 with colonnades. The temple of Nerva stood at one end of, and 

 projected into an enclosure (measuring about 360 by 160 feet), 

 the entrance end of which had five open arches, and the sides were 

 formed by screen walls, decorated with Corinthian pilasters, and 

 columns immediately before them, over which the entablature formed 

 breaks. Of Trajan's forum, which was surrounded not only by colon- 

 nade*, but various stately edifices, nothing now remains except the 

 celebrated triumphal column that occupied its centre, and which, so 

 placed as a principal object, must have heightened the splendour of th 

 whole. Like that of Nerva, the temple of Antoninus and Faustina 

 was placed at one end of a court of moderate dimensions, whose side 

 were adorned with coupled columns placed immediately against th 

 walls; and only the portico part of the temple (a Corinthian hexastyle 

 triprostyle) [ PORTICO] advanced into the enclosed area in front. The 

 forum of Caracalla was nearly a square, entirely surrounded by arcades 

 presenting thirteen arches on each of the longer and eleven on each o 

 the shorter sides. In the centre was a Corinthian temple very similar 

 in plan to the Pantheon, with an hexastyle, triprostyle portico in front 

 and remarkable for having inner columns behind the second from each 

 angle, so that there was a double range of them at each end, and the 

 central space within the portico was a perfect square equal to three 

 intercolumns. 



The mention we have incidentally made in regard to these temples 



may not improperly be followed by some additional remarks upon 

 Roman edifices of that class. Unlike those of Greece, peri pr era 

 temples were of comparatively rare occurrence among the Romans 

 were mostly prostyle, the portico being attached only in con 

 tinuation of the cella, whose walls formed the flanks of the building 

 though the order of the portico was frequently continued along them 

 either in half-columns or pilasters. Such w the plan of that celebrated 

 one at Ninnies, known by the name of the liaison Quarrce, which is a 

 liian hexastyle, pseudo-peripteral, the cella being ornamented 

 with attached columns, thereby making ten intercolumns on each 

 flank, three of which are open, or belong to the portico, which latter is 

 accordingly tripnatyU. The Corinthian temple at Assui was similar 

 in plan, except that it was not pseudo-peripteral, the sides of the cvlla 

 being plain. That of Fortuna Virilis at Rome was an Ionic tetrastylc, 

 diprostyle, and pseudo-peripteral. Besides contributing to variety, 

 temples of thin kind possess a certain variety of effect in themselves, 

 owing to the depth of the portico, and the contrast between that part 

 and the cella. The portico announced itself more decidedly as the 

 facade par txceUena ; particularly as such temples were generally 

 raised upon a stereobate continued as pedestals to enclose the steps 

 / up to them in front, and which sometimes, as in the temple 

 rva, and that of Antoninus and Faustina, projected very con- 

 As oar object is rather to direct attention to the modes of composition 

 fleeted by the Romans and the elements of their style, than t 

 describe their chief architectural monuments, either historically or 

 according to their respective clauses and destination, we proceed now 

 to consider some of the individual peculiarities and features belonging 

 t<> their buildings. In the application of sculpture, particularly of 

 **'?""' ""^ WCTW P r d>K' I but "*cy employed the latter chiefly as 

 etural accessories, frequently placing them over columns, or on 

 irmniU of their edifices as acroteria to pediments, by way of 

 variety to the ontlin.- ,,f their buildings, and also of indieat ing 

 at finrt n igbt their partictdar appropriation a practice almost unknown 

 *j, there being only one instance of it. The abundant u*e 

 of statues led to the ad' ptimi of tl,.- niche a feature unknown in 

 architecture as a convenient mode of inserting them within 

 the surface of walls, and thereby decorating them ; at the same time 

 space was gained in interiors, where, if otherwise placed, they would 

 have taken up room. Niches frequently occur in Roman temples and 

 laths. [NIC-UK.] 



These various applications of curvilinear forms, both in plan and 

 elevation, undoubtedly furnished Roman architecture with resources 

 unknown to that of Greece. Nor can it be denied that the arch itself 

 is a very beautiful feature, although it was employed by the Romans 

 to such excess as rather to occasion monotony than to contribute to 

 variety of design ; the amphitheatres and similar works of the Romans 

 ABM ASD SCI. DIV. VOL. VII. 



consisting only of continuous tiers of arclies, which constituted their 

 more strongly marked features, the columns placed against their tiers 

 being merely ornamental accessories, and comparatively of little effect, 

 and even that not of the very best kind. There was one class of 

 stures however, which, though consisting uniformly of arches and 

 piers alone, were eminently impressive and picturesque, namely, the 

 Roman aqueducts, works of extraordinary grandeur, if estimated by 

 their prodigious extent, and the colossal massiveness of their con- 

 struction, but not otherwise entitled to be termed magnificent their 

 architecture being in the plainest and severest style. In these' there 

 were sometimes two or even more tiers of arches, at others only a 

 single one, as in that at Hetz on the Moselle, which has exceedingly 

 lofty arches, or, to speak more correctly, arches ou exceedingly lofty 

 piers, divided by offsets into three stages, the effect of which is no less 

 advantageous than it is uncommon. 



Another practice was eventually adopted, by means of which the 

 arch and column became amalgamated as integral parts of the same 

 ordinance, namely, that of supporting arches upon columns, making 

 them spring either directly from their capitals or from an entablature- 

 shaped block over them. This practice is commonly condemned as 

 barbarous, but in our opinion somewhat too hastily, and with more of 

 prejudice than of fair examination. That it was introduced during 

 the decline of the art, and that it was an innovation subversive of 

 former principles, is not to be denied. Yet if it must be reprobated, 

 it ought to be so for its own demerits, not as an innovation : for all 

 invention is such. It appears a very poor argument against it, to say 

 that columns were originally designed to support horizontal archi- 

 traves : we do not see how that circumstance, of necessity, renders 

 every other application inadmissible. Where columns are employed to 

 support, it certainly cannot be alleged that they are idle unmeaning 

 expletives ; nor that they are mutilated by being apparently partly 

 embedded in the wall behind them. One very great advantage 

 attending the combination of the arch with the column as its support, 

 is that it allows the openings to be considerably wider than they other- 

 wise could bo, because such intervals as would produce a poor and 

 straggling effect in a colonnade, become well proportioned and agreeable 

 when spanned by arches. 



Of the two Grecian orders, the Roman specimens usually referred to, 

 namely, the Doric of the theatre of Marcellus, and the Ionic of that 

 building and the temple of Fortuna Virilis, are exceedingly poor and 

 meagre, spiritless and tasteless ; while the Ionic of the temple of Con- 

 cord may be pronounced detestable. In this last example the volutes 



of the capitals are turned diagonally, a mode afterwards adopted by 

 Scamozzi for that order, and also practised hi what is called the Com- 

 posite. Even when comparatively pleasing in its contours, the Roman 

 Ionic capital is poor and devoid of expression, in consequence of the 

 smallncss of the volutes, which is such that they almost cease to be 

 characteristic features of the order. To this defect may be added the 

 meagreness arising from the few revolutions made by the spirals, and 

 the omission of intermediate ones ; and also the harshness occasioned 

 by the great projection of the ovalo, the narrowness of the face of the 

 capital above it, and by that part forming a. straight line, instead of the 

 gracefully-flowing fcstoon-heui which unites the volutes together in all 

 the Athenian specimens of the order. Numerous studies of both 

 voluted and foliaged capitals may be seen in Piranesi's ' Magnificenza 

 de' Roman! ;' and the variety of cump<'.-iti"ii displayed in the latter 

 very greatly exceeds what would be imagined by those who are 

 acquainted only with whatare referred to as standard examples of that 

 order. This la*t may in fact be emphatically denominated the Roman 

 order, although such distinctive title is usually applied to what is other- 

 wise called the Composite, but which is only a variety of the fuli.i; c- 

 ca pi tailed clnsg, and by no means the most striking as such, there 

 living instances of compound capitals, in which griffins, eagles, human 

 Igures, or masks, are introduced above the foliage ; consequently, if 

 the voluted variety is to bo received as a serrate, order, each of the 

 others is quite as much entitled to the same distinction. How far 

 the ordinary C'oiinthian capital diH'eis from that in which the small 

 volutes, or caulicoli,at the angles of the abacus aredcvi !.^]:<1, and en- 



i the size of those of the Roman Ionic capital, may at once be seen 

 >y referring to COLUMN, col. 33, where a half of each example is placed 

 n juxtaposition ; and at col. 45 will be found a similar comparison 



i t he capitals of the Tivoli Corinthian and that of the monument 



if I.ymcrate*. The contrast present. .1 by the two last is striking 



nough. thero Ix'ing no similarity of cliaractcr, but merely such degree 



of resemblance as serves to make the differences the more obvious. 



\nd if tint Tivoli example be compared with the one shown in the 



it, ami which may be received as nn average sample of the 

 Tiler, it will be tolerably evident, even from such comparison alone, 

 hat the foliagc<l capital was treated by the Romans in a variety of 

 modes and in a free artist ical spirit. Neither arc such distinctions 

 confined to the capitals alone, for different examples present equal 

 liversity in their entablatures and cornices. That of the Tivoli 

 i-niple is remarkable throughout ; and has such a peculiar character 

 tamped upon it, that it almost deserves to be considered a separate 

 nler certainly much more so than the Composite. Among other 

 xamples, that of the three columns of the temple of Jupiter Stator 

 i the richest and most elegant in its capital, and is beautifully com- 

 oeed throughout. The Romans in fact bestowed as great diversity 



L 



