DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.25500#0114
68
COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURE.
“ Those ancient roads
With'tombs high verged, the solemn paths of Fame ;
Deserve they not regard ! o’er whose broad flints
Such crowds have roll’d ; so many storms of war,
So many pomps, so many wondering realms.”—Dyer.
THE AQUEDUCTS AND BRIDGES
were really of a more engineering than architectural character,
being in the main utilitarian. Rome had to be supplied
with water from a distance, because of the badness and
scarcity of the water on the spot, the Tiber being unfit for
drinking purposes.
In any views of the Campagna round Rome, the ruined
aqueducts are striking features. On approaching the Eternal
City in the days of its glory, from all directions these
enormous arched waterways must have seemed to the
stranger to be converging into the centre. A view, from
Windsor Castle ramparts, of the S.W.R. arched train-way
winding across the valley of the Thames will give a faint
idea of one only of such structures.
The principle of all the examples is similar—a level
channel, lined with cement, is carried on arches, often in
several tiers, and sometimes of immense height (say ioo
feet) from the high ground, across valleys, to the city
reservoir. Some examples have channels one above the
other.
The Aqua Claudia, 45 miles long, and the “Anio
novus,” 62 miles long (date a.d. 48), entered the city on
the same arches.
Perhaps the finest remaining, however, is the Pont du
Gard, near Nimes in France. It has three tiers of arches
of rough masonry, spanning a valley at about 180 feet above
the stream. The arches are rather lower in proportion than
usual, the top tier being much smaller than the two below.
It is strikingly impressive by the very simplicity of its bold
design.
Bridges were firstly of wood, but on the introduction of
the arch, stone was employed in their erection.
The characteristics of Roman bridges are that they are
solid, sturdy, and built to last for ever. Many still remain,
COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURE.
“ Those ancient roads
With'tombs high verged, the solemn paths of Fame ;
Deserve they not regard ! o’er whose broad flints
Such crowds have roll’d ; so many storms of war,
So many pomps, so many wondering realms.”—Dyer.
THE AQUEDUCTS AND BRIDGES
were really of a more engineering than architectural character,
being in the main utilitarian. Rome had to be supplied
with water from a distance, because of the badness and
scarcity of the water on the spot, the Tiber being unfit for
drinking purposes.
In any views of the Campagna round Rome, the ruined
aqueducts are striking features. On approaching the Eternal
City in the days of its glory, from all directions these
enormous arched waterways must have seemed to the
stranger to be converging into the centre. A view, from
Windsor Castle ramparts, of the S.W.R. arched train-way
winding across the valley of the Thames will give a faint
idea of one only of such structures.
The principle of all the examples is similar—a level
channel, lined with cement, is carried on arches, often in
several tiers, and sometimes of immense height (say ioo
feet) from the high ground, across valleys, to the city
reservoir. Some examples have channels one above the
other.
The Aqua Claudia, 45 miles long, and the “Anio
novus,” 62 miles long (date a.d. 48), entered the city on
the same arches.
Perhaps the finest remaining, however, is the Pont du
Gard, near Nimes in France. It has three tiers of arches
of rough masonry, spanning a valley at about 180 feet above
the stream. The arches are rather lower in proportion than
usual, the top tier being much smaller than the two below.
It is strikingly impressive by the very simplicity of its bold
design.
Bridges were firstly of wood, but on the introduction of
the arch, stone was employed in their erection.
The characteristics of Roman bridges are that they are
solid, sturdy, and built to last for ever. Many still remain,