DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42497#0374
68
Historical Construction of Walls.
[CHAP.
parison of the profiles of its mouldings ; but these styles passed
through the usual stages of infancy, maturity, and decay, whereas
the Roman architecture, with which we are acquainted—that of the
late Republican and Imperial periods (the earlier remains are too
slight and imperfect to afford sufficient basis for observations)—
sprung to full maturity at once, and flourished for two centuries :
during this period slight changes in its detail are all we have to guide
us in the assignment of a particular building to its true date. It is
only by close observation that the almost imperceptible differences
which occur can be traced; but by the aid of a few general rules
I hope to point out characteristics which distinguish the details of
Republican from those of Imperial architecture, and those of the time
of Augustus and Trajan from those of Diocletian and Constantine.
It will, however, be desirable first, to consider the origin of Roman
art, and it will be necessary also to explain the technical names
given to the various members of the orders; for as this book is
intended as much for the general reader as for the archaeologist,
it is necessary to begin with rudiments, even at the risk of being
tedious to the antiquary.
The chief reason why Roman architecture does not shew traces of
progress and gradual development is, because it was borrowed bodily
from the Greeks, and adapted without much modification to the wants
of the Romans. I do not mean to assert for one moment that the
Roman is not a distinct style from the Greek. One element in it, how-
ever, the order, is certainly common to them both, but its application
by the Romans was entirely different from that for which it was ori-
ginally intended by its inventors, the Greeks, and its combination
with the arch gave it an entirely new service to perform. From this
combination a novel style resulted, which differs as much in principle
from the Greek as the character of the two nations differed. The
other element in it, the arch with voussoirs, was borrowed from the
Etruscans, and was employed in the oldest constructions of the
Kings as early as b.c. 640. This use of the arch, and the dome and
vault which are generated from it, is the distinctive mark of the
Roman arcuate style, from the Greek trabeate style. A new principle
was introduced, then unknown to the Greeks, from which all vaulted
buildings, even our Gothic cathedrals, are indirectly derived.
There are so few remains of the Kingly or of the early Repub-
lican period, and these are all of such massive character, without
ornamentb, that we are naturally led to the conclusion, that in the
early years of Rome the people were too busily employed in con-
b See Note A, at the end of this Section.
Historical Construction of Walls.
[CHAP.
parison of the profiles of its mouldings ; but these styles passed
through the usual stages of infancy, maturity, and decay, whereas
the Roman architecture, with which we are acquainted—that of the
late Republican and Imperial periods (the earlier remains are too
slight and imperfect to afford sufficient basis for observations)—
sprung to full maturity at once, and flourished for two centuries :
during this period slight changes in its detail are all we have to guide
us in the assignment of a particular building to its true date. It is
only by close observation that the almost imperceptible differences
which occur can be traced; but by the aid of a few general rules
I hope to point out characteristics which distinguish the details of
Republican from those of Imperial architecture, and those of the time
of Augustus and Trajan from those of Diocletian and Constantine.
It will, however, be desirable first, to consider the origin of Roman
art, and it will be necessary also to explain the technical names
given to the various members of the orders; for as this book is
intended as much for the general reader as for the archaeologist,
it is necessary to begin with rudiments, even at the risk of being
tedious to the antiquary.
The chief reason why Roman architecture does not shew traces of
progress and gradual development is, because it was borrowed bodily
from the Greeks, and adapted without much modification to the wants
of the Romans. I do not mean to assert for one moment that the
Roman is not a distinct style from the Greek. One element in it, how-
ever, the order, is certainly common to them both, but its application
by the Romans was entirely different from that for which it was ori-
ginally intended by its inventors, the Greeks, and its combination
with the arch gave it an entirely new service to perform. From this
combination a novel style resulted, which differs as much in principle
from the Greek as the character of the two nations differed. The
other element in it, the arch with voussoirs, was borrowed from the
Etruscans, and was employed in the oldest constructions of the
Kings as early as b.c. 640. This use of the arch, and the dome and
vault which are generated from it, is the distinctive mark of the
Roman arcuate style, from the Greek trabeate style. A new principle
was introduced, then unknown to the Greeks, from which all vaulted
buildings, even our Gothic cathedrals, are indirectly derived.
There are so few remains of the Kingly or of the early Repub-
lican period, and these are all of such massive character, without
ornamentb, that we are naturally led to the conclusion, that in the
early years of Rome the people were too busily employed in con-
b See Note A, at the end of this Section.