ARCHITECTURE. 



What We now call the Composite order 

 rs of Roman extraction : it was employed 

 in many of their building's, but chiefly in 

 the triumphal arches : from what we find 

 in Vitruvius, it was 'never counted a dis- 

 tinct order, but as a species of the Co- 

 rinthian only. The only existing 1 exam- 

 ple that Rome affords of the Doric order is 

 that executed in the theatre of Marseilles, 

 and, though in the age of Augustus, is 

 but a vitiated composition : the columns 

 are meagre and plain, divested of that 

 sublime grandeur and elegance which are 

 so conspicuous in the solidity and flutings 

 of the Grecian Doric. The dentilsin the 

 cornice arc too effeminate a substitute for 

 the masculine mutules, which are so cha- 

 racteristic of the origin of this order. 



The Ionic in the same building is ill 

 executed. The channels of the volutes, 

 of the capitals, of the Ionic columns on the 

 Coliseum, and the dentil band of the cor- 

 nice are not cut. The Ionic order of the 

 Temple of Fortune, though it has been 

 held out as a model, is ill proportioned, 

 and the spirals of the volutes are un- 

 gracefully formed. The Ionic of the 

 Temple of Concord is out of character, 

 the volutes are insignificantly small, and 

 mutules supply the place of dentils in the 

 cornice. The Romans placed one order 

 upon another, on the exterior, in the se- 

 veral stories of some of their buildings : 

 but the Greeks only employed them 

 around the cells of their temples, forming 

 a peristyle. 



The Romans carried the method of ce- 

 mentitious buildings to the utmost degree 

 of perfection. Their most considerable 

 edifices had the facings of their walls, and 

 the arches and angles, of brick, or small 

 rubble stones squared ; the cores built 

 with pebble and rubble stones, grouted or 

 run with liquid mortar ; and at regular 

 intervals were strengthened with courses 

 of bond stones. This construction of 

 walls was frequently stuccoed, or incrust- 

 *'d with marble. It is much more expe- 

 ditious and economical than that built of 

 wrought stone, which occasions a greater 

 waste of materials and loss of time. The 

 durability and solidity of the Roman ce- 

 mentitious buildings is such, that mortar 

 has acquired a hardness superior to the 

 stones which are connected by it. This, 

 when compared with the fragility and 

 crumbling nature of the mortar used by 

 modern builders, had led some to suppose 

 1 hat the ancients possessed processes in 

 the making of cements, which have, from 

 1'he lapse of time, been lost to the present 

 day. But the information and experi- 

 ments of ingenious men have -exploded 



this opinion ; and there is no doubt, thai, 

 if proper attention be paid to the choice 

 of limestone and sand, to the burning of 

 j the lime, and above all, that care be taken 

 in the mixing and tempering these mate- 

 rials, workmen will be enabled to rival 

 those of Rome. This has been tried in 

 some instances, though the lapse of ages 

 may be necessary to make the comparison 

 complete ; however, it will appear, from 

 the following account of Vitruvius, that 

 the method of making lime by the Ro- 

 mans was not very different from what it 

 is at the present day. " Lime should be 

 burnt from white stone, or flint, of which 

 the thick and hard sort are more proper 

 for building walls, as those which are po- 

 rous are for plastering. When the lime 

 is burnt the ingredients are thus to be 

 mixed : with three parts of pit sand, one 

 partoflime is to be mingled; but if river 

 or sea sand is used, two parts of sand and 

 one of lime must be united : for in these 

 proportions the mortar will have a proper 

 consistence : if bricks or tiles, pounded, 

 and sifted, be joined with river or pit 

 sand, to the quantity of a third part, it 

 will make the mortar stronger and fitter 

 for use." 



The works of wrought stone of the Ro- 

 mans, as well as those of the Greeks, were 

 constructed without cement ; but cramps 

 and ligatures of iron and bronze were 

 used in great abundance. The use of 

 metal was not confined to cramps and 

 bolts, for they even constructed roofs of 

 bronze, which was also used in magnifi- 

 cent profusion in the decorations of build- 

 ings. It excites regret, to reflect that 

 the means employed by the ancients to 

 increase the beauty, and ensure the du- 

 ration of their edifices, have only, in mu- 

 ny instances, served to accelerate their 

 destruction. 



These valuable materials have caused 

 much dilapidation, and more buildings 

 have been ruined by rapine, than by the 

 injuries of time. In the works of the 

 Greeks and the Romans, of hewn stone, 

 they appear to have wrought only the 

 beds of the stones, before they were 

 placed in the building, leaving the faces 

 to be worked after the completion of the 

 edifice. By this means, the arises and 

 the mouldings were preserved from in- 

 jury, and the faces made exactly in the 

 same plane, or surface, which is not gene- 

 rally the case in the facings of our mo- 

 dern works. Our workmen pass them 

 over in the most slovenly manner, with 

 the greatest indifference, by rounding- 

 the stones which happen to project at the 

 joints, which gives them a false and irre- 



