DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0343
Bk. IV. Cn. III.
OBDEBS.
307
but in so far as we can juclge frorn wkat yet remains of it, in boklness
and majesty of conception it must kave been quite equal to the otker
example, tliougk it must kave requirecl far more familiarity witk tke
style acloptecl to manage its clesign as appropriately as tke simpler
clome of the Pantkeon.
These two builclings may be consiclerecl as exemplifying tke extent
to wkick tke Romans kad progressecl in the invention of a new style
of architecture ancl tke state in which they left it to tkeir successors.
It may kowever be wortk wkile pointing out how, in transplanting
Roman architecture to tkeir new capital on the shores of the Bos-
pkorus, tke semi-Oriental nation seized on its own circular form,
and, moclifying ancl moulding it to its purpose, wrougkt out tke
Byzantine style; in whick tke clome is tke great feature, almost to tke
total exclusion of tke rectangular form witk its intersecting vaults.
On tke otker hancl, tke rectangular form was appropriatecl by the
nations of tke YVest witk an equally distinct rejection of tke circular
ancl domical forms, except in tkose cases in wkick we fincl an Eastern
people still incorporated witk them. Tkus in Italy botk styles con-
tinuecl long in use, tke one in baptisteries, tke otker in churches,
but always kept distinct, as in Rome. In France tkey were so com-
pletely fusecl into eack other tkat it requires consiclerable knowledge
of architectural analysis to separate tkem again into tkeir component
parts. In Englancl we rejectecl tke circular form altogether, ancl so
tkey clicl eventually in Germany, except wken uncler Erenck influence.
Eack race reclaimecl its own among the spoils of Rome, and usecl it
witk tke improvements it kacl acquired during its employment in the
Imperial city.
Orders.
Tke first tking that strikes tke student in attempting to classify
tke numerous examples of Roman architecture is tke immense variety
of purposes to wkich it is applied, as compared witk previous styles. In
Egypt arckitecture was applied only to temples, palaces ancl tombs. In
Greece it was almost wholly confinecl to temples ancl tkeatres ; ancl in
Etruria to tombs. It is in Rome tkat we first feel that we have not
to cleal witk eitker a Theocracy or a kingdom, but witk a great people,
wko for tke first time in tke worlcl’s history renclerecl architecture sub-
servient to the myriacl wants of tke many-keaded monster. It tkus
kappens tkat in tke Roman cities, in aclclition to temples we fincl
basilicas, tkeatres and amphitkeatres, batks, palaces, tombs, arckes of
triumpk and pillars of victory, gates, bridges, ancl aqueclucts, all
equally objects of architectural skill. The best of these, in fact, are
those whick from previous neglect in otker countries are kere stampecl
with originality. These woulcl kave been noble works indeed kad it
x 2
OBDEBS.
307
but in so far as we can juclge frorn wkat yet remains of it, in boklness
and majesty of conception it must kave been quite equal to the otker
example, tliougk it must kave requirecl far more familiarity witk tke
style acloptecl to manage its clesign as appropriately as tke simpler
clome of the Pantkeon.
These two builclings may be consiclerecl as exemplifying tke extent
to wkick tke Romans kad progressecl in the invention of a new style
of architecture ancl tke state in which they left it to tkeir successors.
It may kowever be wortk wkile pointing out how, in transplanting
Roman architecture to tkeir new capital on the shores of the Bos-
pkorus, tke semi-Oriental nation seized on its own circular form,
and, moclifying ancl moulding it to its purpose, wrougkt out tke
Byzantine style; in whick tke clome is tke great feature, almost to tke
total exclusion of tke rectangular form witk its intersecting vaults.
On tke otker hancl, tke rectangular form was appropriatecl by the
nations of tke YVest witk an equally distinct rejection of tke circular
ancl domical forms, except in tkose cases in wkick we fincl an Eastern
people still incorporated witk them. Tkus in Italy botk styles con-
tinuecl long in use, tke one in baptisteries, tke otker in churches,
but always kept distinct, as in Rome. In France tkey were so com-
pletely fusecl into eack other tkat it requires consiclerable knowledge
of architectural analysis to separate tkem again into tkeir component
parts. In Englancl we rejectecl tke circular form altogether, ancl so
tkey clicl eventually in Germany, except wken uncler Erenck influence.
Eack race reclaimecl its own among the spoils of Rome, and usecl it
witk tke improvements it kacl acquired during its employment in the
Imperial city.
Orders.
Tke first tking that strikes tke student in attempting to classify
tke numerous examples of Roman architecture is tke immense variety
of purposes to wkich it is applied, as compared witk previous styles. In
Egypt arckitecture was applied only to temples, palaces ancl tombs. In
Greece it was almost wholly confinecl to temples ancl tkeatres ; ancl in
Etruria to tombs. It is in Rome tkat we first feel that we have not
to cleal witk eitker a Theocracy or a kingdom, but witk a great people,
wko for tke first time in tke worlcl’s history renclerecl architecture sub-
servient to the myriacl wants of tke many-keaded monster. It tkus
kappens tkat in tke Roman cities, in aclclition to temples we fincl
basilicas, tkeatres and amphitkeatres, batks, palaces, tombs, arckes of
triumpk and pillars of victory, gates, bridges, ancl aqueclucts, all
equally objects of architectural skill. The best of these, in fact, are
those whick from previous neglect in otker countries are kere stampecl
with originality. These woulcl kave been noble works indeed kad it
x 2