DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42497#0383
III.]
On the Details of Roman Architecture.
77
tinctive characteristics of the architecture of the Republican period.
The tomb of Cecilia Metella, on rising ground about two miles out-
side the Porta di S. Sebastian o, is a huge circular structure of traver-
tine, with an elegant frieze and cornice, ornamented with the caput
bovis. The mouldings of the cornice have but little projection, and
the cymatium is particularly flat, as in the early Greek buildings.
Thus we see that in times of Republican simplicity the plainer
orders—Tuscan, Doric, and Ionic—were preferred; but in those
of Imperial grandeur, the Corinthian and Composite became the
favourite orders, and it is to them chiefly that the following rules for
fixing the approximate dates must be applied; for, as a general rule,
when the simpler orders are the chief, and not the subordinate
features of a building, it belonged to the ante-imperial period.
As it has been before stated, Roman architecture flourished for
two centuries without any decided signs of decadence; though
I think it may be shewn that the purest phase of the style was its
earliest, that of the first century, for, as I have already mentioned, it
reached maturity at once. Therefore, the first rule for ascertain-
ing the approximate date is, to observe whether the original forms
and proportions are preserved; that is to say, if they resemble
those of Greek architecture. The proper relative proportions, for
instance, are, that the frieze and architrave should be about equal
in depth, and the cornice always rather larger. This is the case in
the Temple of Mars Ultor, of the time of Augustus; whereas in the
Baptisteryof Constantine (Photo. 387) we find the architrave the largest
of the three. The cymatium and corona are always prominent fea-
tures in early work; and whenever the mouldings beneath them
assume an importance that they have not in early architecture, we
know that the order belongs to the time of the decadence. In Greek
architecture, the curve of the cymatium is a sure indication of date :
if it be almost straight, it belongs to the Archaic period; if the projec-
tion be great, and the curve very decided, to the Graeco-Roman ; but
this is not the case in Roman architecture, as the latter form was
adopted and retained by the Romans from the first.
The second guide is, the amount of ornament found on the mem-
bers of the entablature. In Agrippa’s Pantheon there is an absence
of ornament; towards the time of the Antonines the corona was
fluted (see Photo. 824 of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina), and
by the time of Septimius Severus the whole order was overloaded :
a Greek artist would have left plain spaces for the eyes to repose
upon, but in later times he evidently was overruled by masters, who
demanded splendour regardless of cost. On comparing the entabla-
On the Details of Roman Architecture.
77
tinctive characteristics of the architecture of the Republican period.
The tomb of Cecilia Metella, on rising ground about two miles out-
side the Porta di S. Sebastian o, is a huge circular structure of traver-
tine, with an elegant frieze and cornice, ornamented with the caput
bovis. The mouldings of the cornice have but little projection, and
the cymatium is particularly flat, as in the early Greek buildings.
Thus we see that in times of Republican simplicity the plainer
orders—Tuscan, Doric, and Ionic—were preferred; but in those
of Imperial grandeur, the Corinthian and Composite became the
favourite orders, and it is to them chiefly that the following rules for
fixing the approximate dates must be applied; for, as a general rule,
when the simpler orders are the chief, and not the subordinate
features of a building, it belonged to the ante-imperial period.
As it has been before stated, Roman architecture flourished for
two centuries without any decided signs of decadence; though
I think it may be shewn that the purest phase of the style was its
earliest, that of the first century, for, as I have already mentioned, it
reached maturity at once. Therefore, the first rule for ascertain-
ing the approximate date is, to observe whether the original forms
and proportions are preserved; that is to say, if they resemble
those of Greek architecture. The proper relative proportions, for
instance, are, that the frieze and architrave should be about equal
in depth, and the cornice always rather larger. This is the case in
the Temple of Mars Ultor, of the time of Augustus; whereas in the
Baptisteryof Constantine (Photo. 387) we find the architrave the largest
of the three. The cymatium and corona are always prominent fea-
tures in early work; and whenever the mouldings beneath them
assume an importance that they have not in early architecture, we
know that the order belongs to the time of the decadence. In Greek
architecture, the curve of the cymatium is a sure indication of date :
if it be almost straight, it belongs to the Archaic period; if the projec-
tion be great, and the curve very decided, to the Graeco-Roman ; but
this is not the case in Roman architecture, as the latter form was
adopted and retained by the Romans from the first.
The second guide is, the amount of ornament found on the mem-
bers of the entablature. In Agrippa’s Pantheon there is an absence
of ornament; towards the time of the Antonines the corona was
fluted (see Photo. 824 of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina), and
by the time of Septimius Severus the whole order was overloaded :
a Greek artist would have left plain spaces for the eyes to repose
upon, but in later times he evidently was overruled by masters, who
demanded splendour regardless of cost. On comparing the entabla-