DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0342
306
ROMAN ARCHITEOTURE.
Part I.
but more generaily the cella occupies the whole of the inner part
though frequently ornamented by a false peristyle of three-quarter
columns attachecl to its walls.
Besicles this, the Romans borrowecl from the Etruscans or Greeks a
circular form of temple. As appliecl by the Romans it was generally
encirclecl by a peristyle of columns, though it is not clear that the
Etruscans so usecl it; this may therefore be an improvement adoptecl
from the Greeks on an Etruscan form. In early times these circular
temples were cleclicated to Yesta, Cybele, or some gocl or goclcless either
unknown or not generally worshippecl by the Aryan races ; but in
later times this clistinction was lost sight of.
A more important characteristic which the Romans borrowecl from
the Etruscans was the circular arch. It was known, it is true, to the
Egyptians, Assyrians, ancl Greeks; yet none of these people, perhaps
excepting the Assyrians, seem to have usecl it as a feature in their
ornamental architecture ; but the Etruscans appear to have hacl a pecu-
liar preclilection for it, ancl from them the Romans acloptecl it bolclly,
ancl introclucecl it into almost all their builclings. It was not at first
usecl in temples of Grecian form, nor even in their peristylar circular
ones. In the civil builclings of the Romans it was a universal feature,
but was generally placecl in juxtaposition with the Grecian orclers. In
the Colosseum, for instance, the whole construction is arched ; but a
useless network of ill-clesigned ancl ill-arrangecl Grecian columns, with
their entablatures, is spread over the whole. This is a curious instance
of the mixture of the two styles, ancl as such is very characteristic of
Roman art; but in an artistic point of view the place of these columns
would have been far better suppliecl by buttresses or panels, or some
expeclient more correctly constructive.
After having thoroughly familiarisecl themselves with the forms of
the arch as an architectural feature, the Romans macle a bolcl stricle in
aclvance by applying it as a vault both to the circular ancl rectangular
forms of buildings. The most perfect examples of this are the rotuncla
of the Pantheon ancl the basilica of Maxentius, commonly callecl the
Temple of Peace, strangely like each other in conception, though
apparently so distant in clate. In these builclings the Roman archi-
tects so completely emancipatecl themselves from the trammels of
former styles as almost to entitle them to claim the invention of a new
orcler of architecture. It woulcl have requirecl some more practice to
invent cletails appropriate to the purpose ; still these two builclings
are to this hour unsurpassecl for bolclness of conception ancl just appre-
ciation of the manner in which the new methocl ought to be appliecl.
This is almost universally acknowleclgecl so far as the interior of the
Pantheon is concernecl. In simple grandeur it is as yet unequallecl;
its faults being principally those of detail. It is not so easy, however,
to form an opinion of the Temple of Peace in its present ruined state ;
ROMAN ARCHITEOTURE.
Part I.
but more generaily the cella occupies the whole of the inner part
though frequently ornamented by a false peristyle of three-quarter
columns attachecl to its walls.
Besicles this, the Romans borrowecl from the Etruscans or Greeks a
circular form of temple. As appliecl by the Romans it was generally
encirclecl by a peristyle of columns, though it is not clear that the
Etruscans so usecl it; this may therefore be an improvement adoptecl
from the Greeks on an Etruscan form. In early times these circular
temples were cleclicated to Yesta, Cybele, or some gocl or goclcless either
unknown or not generally worshippecl by the Aryan races ; but in
later times this clistinction was lost sight of.
A more important characteristic which the Romans borrowecl from
the Etruscans was the circular arch. It was known, it is true, to the
Egyptians, Assyrians, ancl Greeks; yet none of these people, perhaps
excepting the Assyrians, seem to have usecl it as a feature in their
ornamental architecture ; but the Etruscans appear to have hacl a pecu-
liar preclilection for it, ancl from them the Romans acloptecl it bolclly,
ancl introclucecl it into almost all their builclings. It was not at first
usecl in temples of Grecian form, nor even in their peristylar circular
ones. In the civil builclings of the Romans it was a universal feature,
but was generally placecl in juxtaposition with the Grecian orclers. In
the Colosseum, for instance, the whole construction is arched ; but a
useless network of ill-clesigned ancl ill-arrangecl Grecian columns, with
their entablatures, is spread over the whole. This is a curious instance
of the mixture of the two styles, ancl as such is very characteristic of
Roman art; but in an artistic point of view the place of these columns
would have been far better suppliecl by buttresses or panels, or some
expeclient more correctly constructive.
After having thoroughly familiarisecl themselves with the forms of
the arch as an architectural feature, the Romans macle a bolcl stricle in
aclvance by applying it as a vault both to the circular ancl rectangular
forms of buildings. The most perfect examples of this are the rotuncla
of the Pantheon ancl the basilica of Maxentius, commonly callecl the
Temple of Peace, strangely like each other in conception, though
apparently so distant in clate. In these builclings the Roman archi-
tects so completely emancipatecl themselves from the trammels of
former styles as almost to entitle them to claim the invention of a new
orcler of architecture. It woulcl have requirecl some more practice to
invent cletails appropriate to the purpose ; still these two builclings
are to this hour unsurpassecl for bolclness of conception ancl just appre-
ciation of the manner in which the new methocl ought to be appliecl.
This is almost universally acknowleclgecl so far as the interior of the
Pantheon is concernecl. In simple grandeur it is as yet unequallecl;
its faults being principally those of detail. It is not so easy, however,
to form an opinion of the Temple of Peace in its present ruined state ;