306 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[OcTOBPB, 



hypotrnchelium or necking between this and the ovolo was fre- 

 <iupntly ornamented witli roses or other devices; to tlie abacns is 

 added an opee and fillet round the upper edge, and the shaft is 

 generally |ilain. Fins sjiecimens of the Roman Doric are to be 

 seen in the theatre of .Marcellus and the amjiliitheatre at Nismes; 

 most of the examples of this ordw have the attic base. The 

 frieze, instead of being finished by triglyidis at the angles, accord- 

 ing to the Greek method, was generally terminated by a half 

 metope; the metojia^ were seldom so richly sculptured as in the 

 Greek order, a simple patera or wreath, or ox-skull adorned with 

 festoons, was repeated in each, or alternated. 'J'he dentil was 

 sometimes introduced in the cornice instead of the mutule, and 

 the face of the entablature was perpendicular with the u]iper dia- 

 meter of the column. The Doric order was seldom used, except 

 where the building was to rise to the heiglit of two or more 

 stories, when the Doric was placed as the lowest order; in the 

 ampliitheatre at Nismes, both stories are Doric. The Ionic order 

 is, comparatively with the Corinthian and Composite, rarely met 

 with, and is in most instances a mere copy from the Greek; the 

 Temple of Concord, however, is a singular exce])tion, in this the 

 capitals have the form of the upper part of the Composite, with 

 small angular volutes, a cable ornament, and enriched cyma, torus, 

 and fillet below. Amongst the numerous fragments discovered in 

 Italy is an Ionic capital, the \olutes of which are an exact repre- 

 sentation of the horns of a ram, greatly strengthening the supposi- 

 tion of such having been their origin. The most lieautiful example 

 of the Ionic order in Rome is the Tenijile of Fortuna V'irilis,* 

 supposwl to have been erected by a Greek architect. There is a 

 difference of opinion as to whether the Corinthian or Composite 

 should be placed first; but as both I'alladio and Vignola give pre- 

 cedence to the Corintliian, I cannot greatly err in following tlieir 

 example. The Corinthian became the favourite order in Imperial 

 Rome, and was repeated (though with great variety of detail) so 

 endlessly that the e\e becomes wearied with excess of magnificence. 

 We undoubtedly owe our most finished examples of this order to 

 the Romans; amongst which, for beauty and elegance of design, 

 tlie exquisite ccdumns of Jupiter Stator '* stand unrivalled. Only 

 three columns with their entablature remain standing, the 

 whole composed of the finest white marble. The columns are ten 

 diameters in height, the shafts diminish nearly |th, and have 

 twenty-four flutings; in the capital, the second row of leaves are 

 lower than in the rule given by Vitruvius, lea\ing more room for 

 the sweep of the cauliculi and scrolls; the intertwining tendrils 

 in the centre have a particularly light and graceful effect; the 

 cornice is high; one modillion is placed over each column and 

 three in the interval; the modillions are peculiar in having 

 the volutes of equal size. In the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli," 

 the second row of leaves are still lower than in the former 

 example; the scrolls rise without cauliculi, and are so large as 

 almost to approach those of the Composite order; behind the 

 second row of acanthus is a small row of water leaves, the tops of 

 which touch the bottom of the scrolls. 



It is worthy of observation, that while in the pure Greek-Corin- 

 thian, either the wild or cultivated acanthus was always closely 

 imitated, in the Roman the foliage generally took the form of the 

 olive leaf, though with the growth of the acanthus ; this may be 

 seen in the capitals of Jupiter Stator, Mars Ultor, and many others. 

 The following exani]des will show the varied proportions of 

 columns of the Corintliian order: 



Lo.vcr Diameter. 



IleiBht. 



ft. in. 



43 3 



45 3t^ 



45 5A 



Tfmple of Antoninus and Faustina 4 6-,^ .. 



Temple of Jupiter Statur 4 5f . . 



I'asilica of Aiitoninu> or Temple of Mars 4 6^ .. 



Temple of .Mars Ultor 6 58 O" 



The pro]iortions of the entablature vary in different examples 

 from one-fifth of the height of the column to one-fourth or more. 

 In the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, the cornice has neither 

 dentils nor modillions, but the frieze is enriched with figures of 

 griffins, candelabra, and scrolls. The Arch of Titus has been said 

 to be the earliest example of the Composite order, but this appears 

 to be a mistake, as this order is seen in the atrium of the house of 

 Pansa in Ponijieii, which was destroyed several years before the 

 Arch of Titus was erected. Simie autlitus deny the claim of the 

 Composite to be described as a sejjarate order, and consider it 

 merely as a variation of the Corinthian, but as it has several 

 distinctive features, it saves confusion to allow it to retain its 

 place as a fifth order. The capital is formed by a union of the 

 Ionic and Corinthian; it is smiewhat deeper in proportion than 



* See Taylor and Cresy's Rome. 



the latter, and like it is divided into three parts; the first occu- 

 pied by the angular volutes, with the intervening torus and astra- 

 gal; the second by the upper, and the third by the lower range of 

 acanthus leaves ; the fillet below the astragal forms the lip of the 

 vase. This is the usual form, but the Romans frequently varied it, 

 and sometimes with great elegance and propriety. In some in- 

 stances, the centre flower of the abacus is replaced by the figure of 

 an eagle, as in the Portico of Septimus; in others, the eagles 

 occupy the place of the volutes at the angles, with Jupiter's thunder- 

 bolts in the centre; in other examples, ox-skulls are placed at the 

 aneles, with a festoon between, the lower part of the capital being 

 finished with a row of water leaves, and so on in infinite variety. 

 The shafts too were either plain or capriciously ornamented, some 

 with spiral flutings, as in the Baths of Dioclesian, and others with 

 wreaths of leaves, as in the Temple at Spoleto in Onibria; the 

 flutings were frequently filled in with cablings part of their height, 

 as in the Baths of Nismes, where the shaft springs from a row of 

 acanthus leaves above the base. These fancies were not confined 

 to the Composite, but sometimes extended to the Corinthian; the 

 attic base was applied to both orders. The entablature of thq 

 Composite resembled that of either the Ionic or Corinthian, but 

 did not follow any positive rule. The mouldings in Roman archi- 

 tecture difl^er considerably from the Greek, and seldom present so 

 graceful a profile; they are rounder and more prominent, and the 

 enrichments are bolder and more profuse. The frieze in both the 

 Corinthian and Composite orders is frequently swelled or rounded. 

 The usual iutercolumniation of the temples and porticoes was 

 pycnostyle or 1^ diameters, contrary to the recommendation of 

 Vitruvius, who condemned both the pycnostyle and systyle as too 

 narrow. "Neither of these species," he says, "ought to be gene- 

 rally adopted, for the matrons who go to their supplications 

 mutually supporting each other, cannot ])a3s through the inter- 

 columniations unless they separate and walk in files." He 

 alludes also to the obstruction caused to the view of the entrance; 

 but this was obviated by making the centre intercolumniation of 

 greater width than the others. 



Contrary to the usual practice of the Greeks, the Roman pilaster 

 capitals repeated those of the orders; in some instances the 

 pilaster tapered upwards in the same degree as the column. TJie 

 greatest distinctive feature in Roman architecture, however, was 

 the introduction of the arch. It is almost impossible to imagine 

 that the Greeks, having constant intercourse with both Egypt and 

 Etruria, should have been ignorant of its mode of construction: 

 it is a more probable conclusion, that they felt the want of harmony 

 between the horizontal lines of the stylobate and entablature and 

 the semicircular form; and having no occasion to roof in any large 

 area (their great temples being hypsethral) they rejected the arch 

 from choice rather than from want of knowledge. The vast mul- 

 titudes that flocked to Rome rendered it necessary to erect 

 public buildings of much greater magnitude than had been required 

 in any of the cities of (Jreece; besides which, the humidity of tlie 

 climate rendered a covering more desirable: thus the principle of 

 vaulting was brought into use, as any space that could be spanned 

 by a beam of wood or block of stone would have been inadequate 

 to the wants of the population. The use of the arch naturally 

 produced great changes; where introduced, the walls became the 

 ]irincipal support of the roof, and the columns being merely orn.a- 

 mental accessories, were slighter and further apart. .Vt first the 

 arch was entirely independent of the order, springing from imposts 

 behind the column, and not reaching so high as the entablature. 

 The imposts and archivolts had only a few simple mouldings, but 

 the key-stone was frequently sculptured with a head or mask, or 

 ornamental console. In the time of Hadrian the imposts were 

 made in the form of pilasters, or the arch sprung from the archi- 

 trave above the columns; thus breaking the frieze and cornice, and 

 destroying the horizontal line hitherto so strictly preserved. To 

 this succeeded arches rising immediately from the capital of the 

 column, the entablature being altogether omitted, as in the Emperor 

 Dioclesian's palace at S|)alatro, thus gradually leading to the 

 Romanestiue or early Christian style. The Roman arch was always 

 semicircular, with plain wedge-shaped voussoirs of stone or brick, 

 sometimes of stone and brick alternately. Vaulting came into use 

 in Rome at the same time as the arch; the earliest kind was that 

 called the Barrel or Wagon Vault, presenting a uniform concave 

 surface throughout its length. Groining was also practised by the 

 Romans, and formed by the intersection of vaults crossing at right 

 angles. That domical vaulting was thoroughly understood we 

 have a proof in the Pantheon. Another new feature was the 

 pedestal as applied to architecture; this may be ascribed to two 

 causes — the numerous wrought- marble columns brought from 



