DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0078
48 MONUMENTS OF CLASSIC STYLE
unquestionably belong to the era of Roman influence, cliffer widely from the contem-
poraneous monuments of architecture at the center of the empire. There are certain
characteristics of architectural arrangement and certain features of detail that are pecu-
liar to the region, and which, in all probability, give the best idea of the classic archi-
tecture of Antioch that can now be gained. We find a graceful simplicity, an accuracy
of line, a dignity of sentiment, in the monuments of the second century in this region,
that separate them from the architecture of the same period in other parts of the Roman
Empire. These characteristics are sufficiently marked to indicate that the style had
developed independently of any Roman art influence. The omission of certain details
that are inseparably connected with the Roman orders, and the substitution of others
which are not found elsewhere, seem to prove quite conclusively that the style had
been developed in the locality, and we may safely assume that this development had
taken place at Antioch, the metropolis.
The Roman architecture of the second century, particularly that of the latter half of
the century, was typically Hellenistic, as is well illustrated in the monuments which
the Roman emperors erected in Coele-Syria, at Ba'albek; but the monuments that
have been spared in the mountains of Northern Central Syria show none of the ten-
Aqueduct-bridge outside of the town of Antioch.
dencies which are illustrated by those buildings. The unit of measurement employed
is frequently the Roman unit; but the art is more Greek and less Roman, as we shall
see in the descriptions of the monuments. It would seem as if the influence of the
building spirit of the Roman Empire in this country and in the provinces farther south,
unquestionably belong to the era of Roman influence, cliffer widely from the contem-
poraneous monuments of architecture at the center of the empire. There are certain
characteristics of architectural arrangement and certain features of detail that are pecu-
liar to the region, and which, in all probability, give the best idea of the classic archi-
tecture of Antioch that can now be gained. We find a graceful simplicity, an accuracy
of line, a dignity of sentiment, in the monuments of the second century in this region,
that separate them from the architecture of the same period in other parts of the Roman
Empire. These characteristics are sufficiently marked to indicate that the style had
developed independently of any Roman art influence. The omission of certain details
that are inseparably connected with the Roman orders, and the substitution of others
which are not found elsewhere, seem to prove quite conclusively that the style had
been developed in the locality, and we may safely assume that this development had
taken place at Antioch, the metropolis.
The Roman architecture of the second century, particularly that of the latter half of
the century, was typically Hellenistic, as is well illustrated in the monuments which
the Roman emperors erected in Coele-Syria, at Ba'albek; but the monuments that
have been spared in the mountains of Northern Central Syria show none of the ten-
Aqueduct-bridge outside of the town of Antioch.
dencies which are illustrated by those buildings. The unit of measurement employed
is frequently the Roman unit; but the art is more Greek and less Roman, as we shall
see in the descriptions of the monuments. It would seem as if the influence of the
building spirit of the Roman Empire in this country and in the provinces farther south,