Chapter XIV: Act 1898: the official principal of the archbishop is required to (3)

In 430 B.C., shortly after the completion of the Parthenon, Ictinus
was employed to design the temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Bassae, in
Arcadia. This temple externally was of the Doric order, but, being
built in local stone, no attempt was made to introduce those
refinements which are found in the Parthenon. In the rear of the cella
is a second sanctuary with a doorway facing east; it was probably the
site of an ancient temple which had to be preserved, and this may
account for the fact that the temple runs north and south. The cella
is flanked by five columns of the Ionic order which are conntected by
spur walls to the cella wall. These columns carry an architrave,
frieze richly sculptured with figure subjects, cornice and wall above
rising to the roof. There was no ceiling therefore, and the interior
was probably lighted through pierced Parian marble tiles, of which
three examples were found. The Corinthian capital found on the site is
supposed by Cockerell to have belonged to the shaft between the two
cellas.

The same architect, Ictinus, was employed in 420 B.C. to rebuild the
hall of the mysteries at Eleusis on a larger scale. The hall was 185
ft. square, and its ceiling and roof were carried by seven rows of
columns with six in each row. The propylaea, which gave access to the
sacred enclosure at Eleusis, was copied from the propylaea at Athens.
The so-called lesser propylaea had some connexion with the mysteries.

The temple of Zeus at Olympia had much in common with the Parthenon,
being nearly contemporaneous, built to enshrine a second
chryselephantine statue by Pheidias, and in plan having a similar
arrangement of columns inside the cella; the lower range of columns
(according to Pausanias) supported a gallery round, so that privileged
visitors could approach nearer to the statue. The temple, however, was
built in the local conglomerate stone covered with a thin coat of
stucco and painted.

Of circular temples there are two examples known, the Philippeion at
Olympia and the Tholos at Epidaurus. The latter had, inside the cella,
a peristyle of Corinthian columns, the capitals of which are of great
beauty and represent in their design the transition between those of
the monument of Lysicrates and the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens.

In the sacred enclosures of the Greek sanctuaries were other smaller
temples or shrines, altars, statues and treasuries, the latter being
built by the various cities, from which pilgrimages were made, to
contain their treasures. At Olympia there were ten or eleven, the
remains of some of which are of great interest. Of the treasury of the
Cnidians at Delphi, discovered by the French, so much has been found
that it has been possible to evolve a complete conjectural restoration
in plaster, now in the Louvre. Its sculpture and the rich carving of
its architectural features show that it was Ionian in character. In
front was a portico-in-antis, in which the caryatide figures standing
on pedestals took the place of columns. These are the earliest
examples known of caryatide figures, and they precede those of the
Erechtheum by about a century.

The most important temple in Asia Minor was the temple of Diana
(Artemis) at Ephesus (356-334 B.C.). The archaic temple was burnt in
356, and was immediately rebuilt with greater splendour from the
designs of Paeonius. The site of the temple was discovered by Wood in
1869, and the remains brought over to the British Museum in 1875.
There were 100 columns, 36 of which (according to Pliny) were
sculptured, and it was probably on account of the magnificence of the
sculpture that this temple was included among the seven wonders of the
world. The sculptured bases are of two kinds, square and circular, in
the latter case being the lower drums of the columns. Examples of both
are in the British Museum, and several conjectural restorations have
been made, among which that of Dr A.S. Murray has been generally
accepted, but recent researches (1905) suggest that it remains still
an unsolved problem.

The temple of Apollo Didymaeus, near Miletus, was the largest temple
in Asia Minor, and its erection followed that of the temple at
Ephesus, Paeonius and Daphnis of Miletus being the architects. The
temple was decastyle, dipteral, with pronaos and vestibule, but no
opisthodomos. The cella was so wide (75 ft.) that it remained open to
the sky. The bases of the columns were elaborately carved with
ornament, as if in rivalry with the temple of Diana. Both these
temples were of the Ionic order, as also were those of Athena Polias
at Priene (340 B.C.), many of the capitals of which are in the British
Museum, and the temples of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias and Cybele at
Sardis.

The mausoleum at Halicarnassus, also of the Ionic order, built by
Queen Artemisia in memory of her husband Mausolus, who died in 353
B.C., was, according to Pliny, recorded as one of the seven wonders of
the world, probably on account of the eminence of the sculptors
employed, Bryaxis, Leochares, Timotheus, Scopas and Pythius. Pliny's
description is somewhat vague, so that its actual design is a problem
not yet solved. Professor Cockerell's restoration is in accord with
the description, but does not quite agree with the actual remains
brought over by Newton and deposited in the British Museum. If the
Nereid monument and the tombs at Cnidus and Mylasa be taken as
suggesting the design, the peristyle (pteron) of thirty-six columns of
the Ionic order with entablature stood on a lofty podium, richly
decorated with bands of sculpture, and was crowned by a pyramid which,
according to Pliny, "contracted itself by twenty-four steps into the
summit of a meta." The steps found are not high enough to constitute a
meta, and it is possible therefore that, according to Mr J.J.
Stevenson, these steps were over the peristyle only, and that the
lofty steps which constituted the meta were in the centre, carried by
the inner row of columns. The magnificent sculpture of the Macedonian
period has in recent times been demonstrated by the discovery of the
marble sarcophagi found at Sidon by Hamdi Bey and now in the museum at
Constantinople.

The Lycian tombs, of which there are many hundreds carved in the rock
in the south of Asia Minor, are copies of timber structures, based on
the stone architecture of the neighbouring Greek cities (fig. 17). The
Paiafaor Payava tomb (375-362 B.C.), found at Xanthus and now in the
British Museum, is apparently a copy, cut in the solid rock, of a
portable shrine, in which the wood construction is clearly defined.

Capitals of the Greek Corinthian order have been found at Bassae,
Epidaurus, Olympia and Miletus, but the earliest example of the
complete order is represented in the Choragic monument of Lysicrates
at Athens.

The most important example of the Greek Corinthian order is that of
the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, begun in 174 B.C., but not
completed till the time of Hadrian, A.D. 117. The temple was 135 ft.
wide and 354 ft. long, built entirely in Pentelic marble, the columns
being 56 ft. high. There were eight columns in front and a double
peristyle round.

The two porches of the Tower of the Winds at Athens (_c_. 75 B.C.) had
Corinthian capitals. The upper part of the tower, which was octagonal
in plan, was sculptured with figures representing the winds.

The Greek houses discovered at Delosand Priene were very simple and
unpretentious, but the palace near Palatitza in Macedonia, discovered
by Messrs Heuzey and Daumet, would seem to have been of a very
sumptuous character. The front of the palace measured 250 ft. In the
centre was a vestibule flanked with Ionic columns on either side,
leading to a throne room at one time richly decorated with marble, and
with numerous other halls on either side. The date is ascribed to the
middle of the 4th century B.C.

In selecting the sites for their theatres, the Greeks always utilized
the slope of a hill, in which they could cut out the cavea, and thus
save the expense of raising a structure to carry the seats, at the
same time obtaining a beautiful prospect for the background. The
theatre of Dionysus at Athens was discovered and excavated in 1864,
and has fortunately preserved all the seats round the orchestra,
sixty-seven in number, all in Pentelic marble, with the names
inscribed thereon of the priests and dignitaries who occupied them.
The largest theatre was at Megalopolis, with an auditorium 474 ft. in
diameter. The most perfect, so far as the seats are concerned, is the
theatre at Epidaurus, with a diameter of 415 ft. Other theatres are
known at Dodona in Greece, Pergamum and Tralles in Asia Minor, and
Syracuse and Segesta in Sicily. (R. P. S.)

PARTHIAN ARCHITECTURE

The architecture of the Parthian dynasty, who from 250 B.C. to A.D.
226 occupied the greater part of Mesopotamia, their empire in 160 B.C.
extending over 480,000 sq. m., was quite unknown until Sir A.H.
Layard, following in the steps of Ross and Ainsworth, visited and
measured the plan of the palace at Hatra (el Hadr) about 30 m. south
of Mosul; the architecture of this palace shows that, on the one hand,
the Parthians carried on the traditions of the barrel vault of the
Assyrian palace, and on the other, from their contact with Hellenistic
methods of building, had acquired considerable knowledge in the
working of ashlar masonry.

A, Throne or reception room.
B, Large hall, or
C, Entrance hall of temple.
D, Temple.]

El Hadr is first mentioned in history as having been unsuccessfully
besieged by Trajan in A.D. 116, and it is recorded to have been a
walled town containing a temple of the sun, celebrated for the value
of its offerings. The temple referred to is probably the large square
building at the back of the palace, as above the doorway is a rich
frieze carved with griffins, similar to those found at Warka by
Loftus, together with large quantities of Parthian coins. The remains
(fig. 18) consist of a block of 380 ft. frontage, facing east, and 128
ft. deep, subdivided by walls of great thickness, running at right
angles to the main front, and built in an immense court, divided down
the centre by a wall, separating that portion on the south side, where
the temple was situated, from that on the north side, which
constituted the king's palace. The seven subdivisions of the different
widths were all covered with semi-circular barrel vaults which, being
built side by side, mutually resisted the thrust, the outer walls
being of greater thickness, with the same object. In the centre of the
south block was an immense hall 49 ft. wide and 98 ft. deep, which
formed the vestibule to the temple in the rear; this vestibule was
flanked by a series of three smaller halls on either side, over which
there was probably a second floor. On the palace or north side were
two great aiwans or reception halls. The main front (fig. 19) was
built in finely jointed ashlar masonry with semicircular attached
shafts between the entrance doorways, which had semicircular heads,
every third voussoir of the three larger doors being decorated by
busts in strong relief with a headgear similar to that shown on
Parthian coins; other carvings, with the acanthus leaf, belonged to
that type of Syrio-Greek work, of which Loftus found so many examples
at Warka (Loftus, _Chaldaea, Susiana_, p. 225). In the great mosque of
Diarbekr are two wings at the north and south ends respectively, which
are said to have been Parthian palaces built by Tigranes, 74 B.C.;
they have evidently been rearranged or rebuilt at various times, the
columns with their capitals and the entablature having been utilized
again. The shafts of the columns of the upper storey are richly carved
with geometrical patterns similar to those found by Loftus at Warka.

FIG. 20.--Plan of the Parthian Palace at Nippur.]

The American researches at Nippur have resulted in the discovery on
the top of the mounds of the remains of a Parthian palace; and the
disposition of its plan (fig. 20), and the style of the columns of the
peristylar court, show so strong a resemblance to Greek work as to
suggest the same Hellenistic influence as in the palace of el Hadr.
Having no stone, however, they were obliged to build up these columns
at Nippur with sections in brick, covered afterwards with stucco. The
columns diminished at the top to about one-fifth of the lower
diameter, and would seem to have had an entasis, as the lower portion
up to one-third of the height is nearly vertical. A similar palace was
discovered at Tello by the French archaeologists, and the bases of
some of the brick columns are in the Louvre. (R. P. S.)

SASSANIAN ARCHITECTURE

Plan.

Section in lines BC, DE, FG of plan.]

Although, on the overthrow of the Parthian dynasty in A.D. 226, the
monarchs of the Sassanian dynasty succeeded to the immense Parthian
empire, the earliest building found, according to Fergusson, is that
at Serbistan, to which he ascribes the date A.D. 380. The palace (fig.
21), which measures 130 ft. frontage and 143 ft. deep, with an
internal court, shows so great an advance in the arrangements of its
plan as to suggest considerable acquaintance with Roman work. The fine
ashlar work of el-Hadr is no longer adhered to, and in its place we
find rubble masonry with thick mortar joints, the walls being covered
afterwards, both externally and internally, with stucco. While the
barrel vault is still retained for the chief entrance porches, it is
of elliptical section, and the central hall is covered with a dome, a
feature probably handed down from the Assyrians, such as is shown in
the bas-relief (fig. 10) from Kuyunjik, now in the British Museum. In
order to carry a dome, circular on plan, over a square hall, it was
necessary to arch across the angles, and here to a certain extent the
Sassanians were at fault, as they did not know how to build
pendentives, and the construction of these are of the most irregular
kind. As, however, their mortar had excellent tenacious properties,
these pendentives still remain _in situ_ (fig. 22), and their defects
were probably hidden under the stucco. In the halls which flank the
building on either side, however, they displayed considerable
knowledge of construction. Instead of having enormously thick walls to
resist the thrust of their vaults, to which we have already drawn
attention in the Assyrian work and at el Hadr, they built piers at
intervals, covering over the spaces between them, with semi-domes on
which the walls carrying the vaults are supported, so that they
lessened the span of the vault and brought the thrust well within the
wall. This, however, lessened the width of the hall, so they replaced
the lower portions of the piers by the columns, leaving a passage
round. It is possible that this idea was partly derived from the great
Roman halls of the thermae (baths), where the vault is brought forward
on columns; but it was an improvement to leave a passage behind. The
elliptical sections given to all the barrel vaults may have been the
traditional method derived from Assyria, of which, however, no remains
exist. In the article VAULT there will be found a reason why these
elliptical sections were adopted (see also below in the description of
the great hall at Ctesiphon). In the palace of Firuzabad, attributed
by Fergusson to Peroz (Firuz) (A.D. 459-485), the plan (fig. 23)
follows more closely the disposition of the Assyrian palaces, and we
return again to the thick walls, which might incline us to give a
later date to Serbistan, except that in the pendentives carrying the
three great domes in the centre of the palace at Firuzabad they show
greater knowledge in their construction. The angles of the square hall
are vaulted, with a series of concentric arches, each ring as it rises
being brought forward, the object being to save centreing, because
each ring rested on the ring beneath it. The plan is a rectangular
parallelogram with a frontage of 180 ft. and a depth of 333 ft., more
than double, therefore, of the size of Serbistan. An immense entrance
hall in the centre of the main front is flanked on each side by two
halls placed at right angles to it, so as to resist the thrust of the
elliptical barrel vaults of the entrance hall. This hall leads to a
series of three square halls, side by side, each surmounted by a dome
carried on pendentives. Beyond is an open court, the smaller rooms
round all covered with barrel vaults. Here, as in Serbistan, the
material employed is rubble masonry with thick joints of mortar, and
fortunately portions of the stucco with which this Sassanian masonry
was covered remain both externally and internally. As there are no
windows of any sort, the wall surface of the exterior has been
decorated with semi-circular attached shafts and panelling between,
which recall the primitive decorations found in the early Chaldaean
temples, except that arches are carried at the top across the sunk
panels. Internally an attempt has been made to copy the decoration of
the Persian doorway, which represents a kind of renaissance of the
ancient style. But instead of the lintel the arch has been introduced,
and the ornament in stucco representing the Persian cavetto cornice
shows imperfect knowledge of the original and is clumsily worked. The
niches also, in the main front, have been copied from the windows
which flank the doorway in the Persian palace. But they are decorative
only, and are too shallow to serve any purpose.

FIG. 24.--The Great Hall at Ctesiphon.]

If there has been some difficulty in determining the exact date of
Firuzabad, that of the third great palace, at Ctesiphon, on the
borders of the Tigris, is known to have been built by Chosroes I. in
A.D. 550. Owing probably to its proximity to Bagdad, from which it
lies about 25 m. distant, it is much better known than the other
examples we have quoted; but while they are constructed in rubble
masonry, Ctesiphon is built of brick, because we have now returned to
the alluvial plain where no stone could be procured. The only portion
of the palace which still exists is that which was built in burnt
brick, and this far exceeds in dimensions Serbistan and Firuzabad. Its
main front measured 312 ft.; its height was about 115 ft.; and its
depth 175 ft. The plan is very simple, and consisted of an _aiwan_ or
immense hall, 86 ft. in width and 163 ft. long, covered with an
elliptical barrel vault, the thrust of which is counteracted by five
long halls on each side, also covered with barrel vaults and probably
used as guard chambers or stores. The great hall was open in the
front, and constituted an immense portal, 83 ft. wide and 95 ft. to
the crown of the arch. The springing of the vault is 40 ft. from the
ground, but up to about 26 ft. above the springing the walls are built
in horizontal courses projecting inwards as they rise, so that the
actual width of the vaulted portion (fig. 24) has been diminished
one-sixth and measures only about 71 ft. The crown of the vault is 9
ft. thick, the walls at the base being 23 ft. The bricks or tiles of
which the vault is built are, like those at Thebes, laid flat-wise,
and there is also a similar inclination of the rings of brick-work,
which are about 10 deg. out of the vertical. This leads to the
conclusion that this immense vault was built without centreing, as the
tenacious quality of the mortar would probably be sufficient to hold
each tile in its position until the ring was complete. In the building
of the arch of the great portal other precautions were taken; bond
timbers 23 ft. long and in five rows, one above the other, were
carried through the wall from front to back. The lower portion of the
arch (5 ft. in height) was built with bricks placed flat-wise; the
upper portion (4 ft. in height) in the usual way, viz. right angles to
the face. The reason for this change was probably that the upper
portions might be carved, as they have been, with a series of
semi-circular cusps.

The decoration of the flanks of this great central portal is of the
most bewildering description. There has evidently been a desire to
give a monumental character to the main front. With this idea in view
they would seem to have attempted to reproduce Roman features, such as
are found decorating the fronts of the various amphitheatres of the
Empire. But the semi-circular shafts which form the decoration do not
come one over the other on the several storeys, and there is a
reckless employment of blank arcades distributed over the surface.

There are remains of two other palaces at Imamzade and Tag Iran, and
in Moab a small example, the Hall of Rabboth Ammon, supposed to have
been erected for Chosroes II. during the subjugation of Palestine,
which is richly decorated with carving, probably by Syrio-Greek
artists, with a mixture of Greek, Jewish and Sassanian details. At
Takibostan and Behistun (Bisutun), some 200 m. north-east of
Ctesiphon, are some remarkable Sassanian capitals and panels
(published in Flandin and Coste's _Voyage en Perse_, 1851, Paris).
(R. P. S.)

ETRUSCAN ARCHITECTURE

Although our acquaintance with Etruscan architecture is confined
chiefly to the entrance gateways and the walls of towns, and to tombs,
it forms a very important link between the East and the West. Though
little is known of the history of Etruria (q.v.), the influence which
her people exerted on Roman architecture, lasting down to the period
when Greece was overrun and plundered of her treasures, was so great
that it would be difficult to follow the origin of Roman architecture
without some inquiry into the work of its immediate predecessor. The
theory put forward by Fergusson, as to the migration of the Etruscans
from Asia Minor in the 12th or 11th century B.C., is substantiated by
the resemblance of the tumuli in the latter country, such as those at
Tantalais, on the northern shore of the gulf of Smyrna, and that of
Alyattes near Sardis, as compared with the Regulini Galeassi tomb at
Cervetri and the Cucumella tomb at Vulci, in all cases consisting of a
sepulchral chamber buried under an immense mound surrounded by a
podium in stone. The chamber was covered over with masonry, laid in
horizontal courses, each stone projecting slightly over the one below.
The same system of construction prevailed in the bee-hive tombs of
Greece, except that the latter were always circular on plan, whilst
these cited above were rectangular. Similar methods of construction
are found at Tusculum and in a gateway at Arpino. In all these cases
the projecting courses were worked off on the completion of the tomb,
in Greece and at Tusculum and Arpino following a curve, and in the
Regulini Galeassi tomb a raking line.

The earliest example known of the arched vault, with regular voussoirs
in stone, is found in the canal of the Marta near Graviscae, ascribed
to the 7th century. The vault is 14 ft. in span, with voussoirs from 5
to 6 ft. in depth. In the tomb of Pythagoras near Cortona, with a span
of about 10 ft., only four voussoirs were employed. In the Cloaca
Maxima at Rome the vault (now ascribed by Commendatore Boni to the 1st
century B.C.) is built with three concentric rings of voussoirs. In
all these cases the thrust of the arch was amply resisted as they were
constructed under ground, and in the entrance gateways at Volterra,
Perugia and Falerii a similar resistance was given by the immense
walls in which they were built.

We have already referred to one class of tomb in which the sepulchral
chamber, built above the ground, was covered over with a mound of
earth; there is a second class, carved out of the solid rock, in which
we find the same treatment as that described in connexion with Egypt.
The tomb represents, in its internal arrangements and in its
decorations, the earthly dwelling of the defunct (compare the Egyptian
"soul-houses"). The ceilings are carved in imitation of the horizontal
beams and slanting rafters of the roof, the former carried by square
piers with capitals; one well-known tomb at Corneto (fig. 25)
represents the atrium of an Etruscan house, which corresponds with the
description given by Vitruvius of the _cavaedia displuviata_, in which
there was a small opening at the top, known as the compluvium, the
roof sloping down on all four sides.

The paintings which decorate these tombs have very much the same
character as those which are found on what were thought to have been
Etruscan, but are now generally considered as Greek vases, the
principal difference being that instead of allegorical subjects,
domestic scenes recalling the life of the deceased are represented. In
a tomb at Cervetri the walls and piers were carved with
representations of the helmets, swords and other accoutrements of a
soldier, and also the mirrors and jewelry of his wife, even the
kitchen utensils being included, so as to give the complete fittings
of the house they occupied. In two examples at Castel D'Asso the rock
has been cut away on all sides, leaving a rectangular block, crowned
with reverse mouldings.

Scarcely any remains _in situ_ of Etruscan temples have been found,
and the description given by Vitruvius is very scanty. Of late years,
however, in the British Museum and in the museums at Florence and
Rome, a large amount of material has been brought together, from which
it is possible to make some kind of conjectural restoration. This has
been facilitated by the discoveries made at Olympia, Delphi and
elsewhere in Greece, showing the important function which terra-cotta
served in the protection and decoration of the timber roofs of the
Greek temples and treasuries. The cornices, antefixae, pendant slabs
and other decorative features in terra-cotta, found on the sites of
the Etruscan temples, show that the timber construction of their roofs
was protected in the same way; and although Vitruvius (bk. iii. ch. 2)
considered the temple of Ceres at Rome to be clumsy and heavy, and its
roofs low and wide, in comparison with the purer examples of Greek
architecture, the remains of terra-cotta found at Civita Castellana
(the ancient Falerii), at Luna, Telamon and Lanuvium (the latter in
the British Museum), show that in their modelling and colour they must
have possessed considerable decorative effect, and when raised on an
eminence, as in the case of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol,
formed striking features of importance, enriched as they were with
gilding. There is one feature in the Etruscan examples which seems to
have been peculiar to their temples, viz. the pendant slabs hung round
the eaves to protect the walls; these latter were probably covered
with stucco and decorated with paintings. The lower portions of many
of these slabs were decorated in relief and in colour at the back,
showing that they were exposed to view below the soffit of the
projecting eaves.

Owing to the ephemeral nature of the materials employed in the
building of the walls of Etruscan temples, viz. unburned brick or
rubble masonry with clay mortar, the roofs being in timber, little is
known of their general design; the terra-cotta decorations are,
however, fortunately in good preservation, and suggest that although
the Etruscan temple, architecturally speaking, was not of a very
monumental character, its external decoration and colour added
considerably to its effect. (R. P. S.)

ROMAN ARCHITECTURE

The rebuilding of Rome, which began in the reign of Augustus, and was
carried on by his successors to a much greater extent, has caused the
destruction of nearly all those examples of early work to which the
student, working out the history of a style, would turn. There are,
however, a few early buildings still existing, and these are of value
as showing the extremely simple nature of their design. The temple of
Fortuna Virilis (so-called) in the Forum Boarium, attributed to the
beginning of the 1st century B.C., shows the great difference between
Greek and Roman temples. Like the Etruscan temple, it is raised on a
podium, and approached by a flight of steps. The Etruscan cella is
dispensed with; and what may be looked upon as the semblance of a
Greek peristyle is retained in the semi-detached columns which are
carried round the walls of the cella. To the entrance portico,
however, the Roman architect attached great importance, and we find
here that one-third of the whole length of the temple is given up to
the portico. The Tabularium built by Lutatius Catulas (78 B.C.) is a
second example of early work. On a lofty substructure, built of
peperino stone, was raised an arcade, which formed a passage from one
side of the capitol to the other, and here we find the earliest
example of the use of the Classic order, as a decorative feature only,
applied to the face of a wall. The arcade consists of a series of
arches with intermediate semi-detached Doric columns carrying an
entablature. The architectural design of the substructure is of the
simplest kind, depending for its effect only on the size of the stones
employed and the finish given to the masonry. The same remark applies
to the few remains left of the Forum Julium (47 B.C.), where an
additional decorative effect was produced by the bevelled edge worked
round all the stones, producing the effect of rusticated masonry.

If, however, the remains are few, the records of classical writers
show that already before the beginning of the 1st century B.C. the
influence of Greece had been shown in the transformation of the Forum,
the embanking of the river Tiber, the erection of numerous porticoes
throughout the Campus Martius, and of basilicas, one of which, rebuilt
by Paulus Aemilius in 50 B.C., was remarkable for its monolithic
columns of pavonazetto marble; and further that on the Palatine hill
were various mansions, the courts and peristyles of which were richly
decorated with marble.

The boast of Augustus that he found Reme built of brick and left it in
marble is true in a sense, but not in the way it is usually
interpreted. He greatly encouraged the use of marble--the temple of
Venus in the forum of Julius Caesar is said to have been built
entirely of that material--but as a rule marble was only used as a
facing. This, however, led to the substitution of solid concrete for
the core of walls, in place of the unburnt brick which up to that time
had been employed. On this subject the writings of Vitruvius, the
Roman architect, are of the greatest value, as they describe clearly
not only the materials used at this time (about 30 B.C.), but the
different methods of building walls (see ROME). The material which
contributed more than any other to the magnificent conceptions of the
Roman Imperial style was that known as pozzolana, a volcanic earth
which, mixed with lime, formed an hydraulic cement of great cohesion
and strength. Not only the walls but the vaults were built in this
pozzolana concrete, and formed one solid mass. Bricks were employed in
arches, on the quoins of walls, occasionally in bond courses, and in
the constructional vaults as ribs, in order to relieve the centreing
of the weight until the pozzolana concrete had been poured in and had
consolidated. The bricks employed in these ribs, and for the voussoirs
of arches, were of the kind we should describe as tiles, being about 2
ft. square and 2 in. thick. Bricks also of smaller size and triangular
in shape were used for the facing of walls, the triangular portions
being embedded into the concrete walls.

The Romans themselves do not seem to have realized the tenacious
properties of this pozzolana cement which, when employed for the
foundation of temples, formed a solid mass capable of bearing as much
weight as the rock itself. They feared also the thrust of the immense
vaults over their halls, and always provided crosswalls to counteract
the same, as shown in the plan of all the thermae; when, however, they
had discovered the secret of covering over large spaces with a
permanent casing indestructible by fire, it not only gave an impetus
to the great works in Rome, but led to a new type of plan, which
spread all through the Empire, varied only by the difference in
materials and in labour. In this respect the Romans always availed
themselves of the resources of the country, which they turned to the
best account. As pozzolana was not to be found in North Africa or
Syria, they had to trust to the excellent qualities of the Roman
mortar, but even in Syria, where stone was plentiful and could be
obtained in great dimensions, when they attempted to erect vaults of
great span similar to those in Rome, these probably collapsed before
the building was finished, and were replaced by roofs in wood.

In the styles hitherto described the gradual development has been
traced to their primitive, culminating and decadent periods. This is
not called for in a description of the Roman style of architecture,
which to a certain extent appeared phoenix-like in its highest
development under Augustus. Roman orders in the Augustan age had
reached their culminating development. The capitals of the portico of
the Pantheon (27 B.C.), or of the temple of Mars Ultor (2 B.C.),
constitute the finest examples of the Corinthian order, whilst those
of later temples show a falling off in style. It was only in the
application of the orders that new combinations presented themselves,
and this can be better understood when we refer to the monuments
themselves. The description of the Roman orders, with the subsequent
modifications, is given in the article ORDER. It is necessary,
however, here to draw attention to two very important developments
which the Roman architect introduced as regards the orders: firstly,
their employment as decorative features in combination with the
arcade, known as composite arcades, and secondly, their superposition
one above the other in storeys. The earliest example of the first
class is that found in the Tabularium as it now exists; of the second
class the Colosseum and the theatre of Marcellus are the best known
examples. In principle the practice must be condemned, for the
employment of the column and entablature, which was designed by the
Greek architect as an independent constructive feature, in a purely
decorative sense stuck on the face of a wall, is contrary to good
taste, but it is impossible not to recognize in its application to the
Colosseum the value of the scale which it has given to the whole
structure, a scale which would have been entirely lost if the building
had been treated as one storey. The superposition of the orders as
exemplified in the Roman theatres and amphitheatres throughout the
Empire constitutes the greatest development made in the style, and it
is one which, from the Italian revivalists down to our time, has had
more influence in the design of monumental work than any other Roman
innovation.

In the preceding sections it has been necessary to confine our
descriptions, in the case of Egypt and Greece, more or less to temples
and tombs, and in that of Assyria to palaces, but in Roman
architecture the monuments are not only of the most extensive and
varied kinds, but in some parts of the Empire they become modified by
the requirements of the country, so that a tabulated list alone would
occupy a considerable space. The following are the principal
subdivisions: The Roman forum (see ROME); the colonnaded streets in
Syria and elsewhere, and temple enclosures; temples (q.v.),
rectangular and circular; basilicas (q.v.); theatres (q.v.) and
amphitheatres (q.v.); thermae or baths (q.v.); entrance gateways and
triumph arches (see TRIUMPHAL ARCH); memorial buildings and tombs,
aqueducts (q.v.) and bridges (q.v.), palatial architecture (see
PALACE); domestic architecture (see HOUSE).

The _Forum Romanum_ under the Republic would seem to have served
several purposes. The principal temples and important public buildings
occupied sites round it, and up to the time of Julius Caesar there
were shops on both sides: it was also used as a hippodrome and served
for combats and other displays. Under the Empire, however, these were
relegated to the amphitheatre and the theatre, markets were provided
for elsewhere, and the forum became the chief centre for the temples,
basilicas, courts of law and exchanges. But already in the time of
Julius Caesar the Forum Romanum had become too small, and others were
built by succeeding emperors. In order to find room for these, not
only were numerous crowded sites cleared, but vast portions of the
Quirinal hill were cut away to make place for them. The Fora added
were those of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, Nerva and Vespasian.
Outside Rome, in provincial towns and in Africa and Syria, the Forum
was generally built on the intersection of the two main streets, and
was surrounded by porticoes, temples and civic monuments.

_Colonnaded Streets._--We gather from some Roman authors that in early
days the Campus Martius was laid out with porticoes. All these
features have disappeared, but there are still some existing in Syria,
North Africa and Asia Minor, which are known as colonnaded streets.
The most important of these are found in Palmyra, where the street was
70 ft. wide with a central avenue open to the sky and side avenues
roofed over with stone. The columns employed were of the Corinthian
order, 31 ft. high, and formed a peristyle on each side of the street,
which was nearly a mile in length. The triple archway in this street
is still one of the finest examples of Roman architecture. At Gerasa,
the colonnaded streets had columns of the Ionic order, the street
being 1800 ft. long, with other streets at right angles to it; similar
streets are found at Amman, Bosra, Kanawat, &c. At Pompeiopolis, in
Asia Minor, are still many streets of columns, and in North Africa the
French archaeologists have traced numerous others.

_Temple Enclosures._--In Rome the great cost, and the difficulty of
obtaining large sites, restricted the size of the enclosures of the
temples; this was to a certain extent compensated for by the
magnificence of the porticoes surrounding them. The most important was
that built by Hadrian, measuring 480 ft. by 330 ft., to enclose the
double temples of Venus and Rome. The portico of Octavia measures 400
ft. by 370 ft., enclosing two temples, and the portico of the
Argonauts, which enclosed the temple of Neptune, was about 300 ft.
square. These dimensions, however, are far exceeded by those of the
enclosures in Syria and Asia Minor. The court of the temple of the Sun
at Palmyra was raised on an artificial platform 16 ft. high, and
measured 735 ft. by 725 ft., with an enclosure wall of 74 ft. on the
west and 67 ft. high on the other three sides.

At Baalbek the platform was raised 25 ft. above the ground, the
dimensions being 400 ft. wide and 900 ft. deep. At Damascus the
enclosure of the temple of the Sun has been traced, and it extended to
about 1000 ft. square. Similar enclosures are found at Gerasa, Amman
and other Syrian towns. In Asia Minor, at Aizani the platform was 520
by 480 ft., raised about 20 ft., and in Africa the French have found
the remains of similar enclosures.

_Roman Temples._--The Romans, following the Etruscan custom,
invariably raised their temples on a podium with a flight of steps on
the main front. Their temples were not orientated, and being regarded
more as monuments than religious structures occupied prominent sites
facing the Forum or some great avenue. Much importance was attached to
the entrance portico, which was deeper than those in Greek temples,
and the peristyle when it existed was rarely carried round the back.
On the other hand the cella exceeded in span those of the Greek
temples, as the Roman, being acquainted with the principle of trussing
timbers, could roof over wider spaces. The principal temples in Rome,
of which remains still exist, are those of Fortuna Virilis, Mars
Ultor, Castor, Neptune, Antoninus and Faustina, Concord, Vespasian,
Saturn and portions of the double temples of Venus and Rome. At
Pompeii are the temples of Jupiter and Apollo, at Cora the temple of
Mercury, and in France, the Maison Carree at Nimes and the temple at
Vienne. In Syria are the temples of Jupiter at Baalbek, of the Sun at
Palmyra and Gerasa, and in Spalato the temple of Aesculapius.

Of circular temples the chief are the Pantheon at Rome, the temple of
Vesta on the Forum, of Mater Matuta, so-called, on the Forum Boarium,
the temple of Vesta at Tivoli, of Jupiter at Spalato and of Venus at
Baalbek.

Of the rectangular temples the Maison Carree at Nimes is the most
perfect example existing (fig. 26). It was built by Antoninus Pius,
and dedicated to his adopted sons Lucius and Martius. This temple, 59
ft. by 117 ft., is of the Corinthian order, hexastyle,
pseudoperipteral, with a portico three columns deep, and is raised on
a podium 12 ft. high. The next best preserved example is the temple of
Jupiter at Baalbek, also of the Corinthian order, octastyle,
peripteral, with a deep portico, and a cella richly decorated with
three-quarter detached shafts of the Corinthian order.

Of the circular temples the Pantheon is the most remarkable. It was
built by Hadrian, and consists of an immense rotunda 142 ft. in
diameter, covered with a hemispherical dome 140 ft. high. Its walls
are 20 ft. thick, and have alternately semicircular and rectangular
recesses in them. In the centre of the dome is a circular opening 30
ft. in diameter open to the sky, the only source from which the light
is obtained. The rotunda is preceded by a portico, originally built by
Agrippa as the front of the rectangular temple erected by him, taken
down and re-erected after the completion of the rotunda, with the
omission of the two outer columns. In other words Agrippa's portico
was decastyle; the actual portico is octastyle.

_Basilicas._--The earliest example of which remains exist is that of
the Basilica Julia on the Forum, the complete plan of which is now
exposed to view. It consisted of a central hall measuring 255 ft. by
60 ft., surrounded by a double aisle of arches carried on piers, which
were covered with groined vaults. The Basilica Ulpia built by Trajan
was similar in plan, but in the place of the piers were monolith
columns, with Corinthian capitals carrying an entablature, with an
upper storey forming a gallery round.

[FIG. 26.--Elevation and plan of the Maison Carree, Nimes.]

The third great basilica, commenced by Maxentius and completed by
Constantine, differs entirely from the two above mentioned. It
followed the design and construction of the Tepidarium of the Roman
thermae, and consisted of a hall 275 ft. long by 82 ft. wide and 114
ft. high, covered with an intersecting barrel vault with deep recesses
on each side which communicated one with the other by arched openings
and constituted the aisles.

_Theatres._--The only example in Rome is the theatre of Marcellus,
built by Augustus 13 B.C., and one of the purest examples of Roman
architecture. Amongst the best preserved examples is the theatre of
Orange in the south of France, the stage of which was 203 ft. long. In
the theatre at Taormina in Sicily are still preserved some of the
columns which decorated the rear wall of the stage. The theatre of
Herodes Atticus at Athens (A.D. 160) retains portions of its enclosure
walls and some of the marble seats. There are two theatres in Pompeii
where the seats and the stage are in fair preservation. Other examples
in Asia Minor are at Aizani, Side, Telmessus, Alinda, and in Syria at
Amman, Gerasa, Shuhba and Beisan.

_Amphitheatres._--The largest amphitheatre is that known as the
Colosseum, commenced by Vespasian in A.D. 72, continued by Titus and
dedicated by the latter in A.D. 80. This refers to the three lower
storeys, for the topmost storey was not erected until the first part
of the 3rd century, when it was completed by Severus Alexander and
Gordianus. The building is elliptical in plan and measures 620 ft. for
the major axis and 513 ft. for the minor axis. There were eighty
entrances, two of which were reserved for the emperor and his suite.
The Cavea (q.v.) was divided into four ranges of seats; the whole of
the exterior and the principal corridors were built in travertine
stone, and all other corridors, staircases and substructures in
concrete. Externally the wall was divided into four storeys, the three
lower ones with arcades divided by semi-detached columns of the
Tuscan, the Ionic and the Corinthian orders respectively. The walls of
the topmost storey were decorated with pilasters of the Corinthian
order, the only openings there being small windows, to light the
corridors and the upper range of seats. Among other amphitheatres the
best preserved are those found at Capua, Verona, and Pompeii in Italy;
at El Jem in North Africa; at Pola in Istria, and at Aries and Nimes
in France.

_The Thermae_ or _Imperial Baths._--The term thermae is given to the
immense bathing establishments which were built by the emperors to
ingratiate themselves with the people. Of the ordinary baths
(_Balneae_) there were numerous examples not only in Rome but at
Pompeii and throughout the Empire. The thermae were devoted not only
to baths but to gymnastic pursuits of every kind, and being the
resorts of the poets, philosophers and statesmen of the day, contained
numerous halls where discussions and orations could take place. The
plans of these thermae were measured by Palladio about 1560, at a time
when they were in far better preservation and more extensive than they
are to-day. They have, however, been measured since by some of the
French Grand Prix students; and Blouet's work on the _Thermae of
Caracalla_(1828) and Paulin's on the _Thermae of Diocletian_(1890)
give accurate drawings as well as conjectural restorations which are
of the greatest value. The earliest thermae were those built by
Agrippa (20 B.C.) in the Campus Martius, and of others those of Titus
and Trajan are the best preserved; plans can be found in Cameron's
_Baths_(1775).

_Entrance Gateways_ and _Arches of Triumph._--As the entrance gateways
were sometimes erected to commemorate some important event, we have
grouped these together, the real difference being that the arch of
triumph was an isolated feature and served no utilitarian purpose,
whereas the entrance gateway constituted part of the external walls of
the city and could be opened and closed at will. Of the latter those
at Verona, Susa, Perugia and Aosta in Italy, Autun in France, and the
Porta Nigra at Treves (Trier) are the best known, but there are also
numerous examples throughout Syria and North Africa. The arches of
triumph offered a fine scope for decoration with bas-reliefs setting
forth the principal events of the campaign; the representation on
coins also suggests that they were looked upon as pedestals to carry
large groups of sculpture. The best known examples are those of Titus,
Septimius Severus and Constantine at Rome, of Trajan at Ancona, and,
in France, at Orange, St Remi and Reims. There were numerous examples
throughout North Africa and Syria, of which the arch of Caracalla at
Tebessa in the former and the great gateway of Palmyra in Syria are
the best preserved.

_Memorial Buildings and Tombs._--Columns of victory constituted
another type of memorial, and the shafts of the columns of Trajan and
Marcus Aurelius in Rome lent themselves to a better representation of
the records of victory than those which could be obtained in the
panels of a triumphal arch. Other columns erected are those of
Antoninus Pius in Rome, a column at Alexandria, and others in France
and Italy.

If the Romans derived from the Etruscans a custom of erecting tombs in
memory of the dead, they did not follow on the same lines, for whilst
the Etruscans always excavated the tomb in the solid rock,
constituting a more lasting memorial, the Romans regarded them as
monumental features and lined the routes of the _via sacra_ of their
towns with them. The earliest example remaining is that of Caecilia
Metella (58 B.C.), of which the upper portion, consisting of a
circular drum 93 ft. in diameter, remains. Of the tomb of Hadrian the
core only exists in the castle of Sant' Angelo. From the descriptions
given it must have been a work of great magnificence. The tombs known
as Columbaria (q.v.) were always below ground, but in some cases an
upper storey was built above them consisting of a small temple, and
these flanked the Via Appia in large numbers. At Pompeii outside the
Herculaneum Gate the Via Appia was lined on both sides with tombs of
varied design, and with exedrae or circular seats in marble, provided
for the use of those visiting the tombs. The tombs in Syria form a
very large and important series, the earliest perhaps being those in
Palmyra, where they took the form of lofty towers, from 70 to 90 ft.
high, externally simple as regards their design, but in the several
storeys inside profusely decorated with Corinthian pilasters and
coffered ceilings in stone. The tombs in Jerusalem built in the 1st
century of our era are partly excavated in the rock and partly
erected. The most important were those known as the tomb of Absalom,
the tomb of St James, and the tombs of the judges and the kings, all
cut in the solid rock. In central Syria some of the tombs are
excavated in the rock, and over them are built a group of two or more
columns held together by their entablatures. The most important series
are the tombs at Petra, all cut in the side of cliffs and of elaborate
design. The sculptor, being free from the restriction of construction,
realized his conception much in the same way as a scene-painter
produces a theatrical background.

_Aqueducts_ and _Bridges._--Although at the present day aqueducts and
bridges would be classed under the head of engineering works, those
built by the Romans are so fine in their conception and design that
they take their place as monuments. The Pont-du-Gard near Nimes, and
the aqueducts of Segovia, Tarragona and Merida in Spain, and some of
those in or near Rome, are of the simplest design, depending for their
effect on their magnificent construction, their dimensions both in
length and height, and the scale given in the ranges of arches one
above the other. Few of the Roman bridges have lasted to our day; the
bridges of Augustus at Rimini and of Alcantara in Spain may be taken
as types of the design, in which we note that there are no
architectural superfluities; the quality of the design depends on the
graceful proportion of the arches and the fine masonry in which they
are built.

_Palatial Architecture._--By far the most magnificent group of palaces
are those which were erected by the Caesars on the Palatine hill at
Rome. Commenced by Augustus and added to by his successors down to the
reign of Severus, they cover an area considerably over 1,000,000 sq.
ft., and comprise an immense series of great halls, throne room,
banqueting hall, basilicas, peristylar courts, temple, libraries,
schools, barracks, a stadium and separate suites for princes and
courtiers. The service of the palace would seem to have been carried
on in vaulted corridors in several storeys, some of which on the north
side, overlooking the Circus Maximus, must have been over 100 ft. in
height. Except under the Villa Mills, the greater part of the plan has
been traced; and large remains of mosaic pavements have been found _in
situ_, and in the approaches, vaulted halls, some still retaining
their stucco decoration.

A similar variety of groups of every description of structure is found
at Tivoli, but spread over a very much larger area. The villa of
Hadrian extended over 7 m.; the works there were probably begun about
A.D. 123, the first portion being his own residential palace. In
addition to the numerous halls, courts, libraries, &c., Hadrian
attempted to reproduce some of the most remarkable monuments which he
had seen during his long travels; the Stadium, Palaestra, Odeum, the
two theatres, the artificial lake, Canopus and other features were,
however, constructed in the Roman style. Built on a ridge between two
valleys, the several buildings occupied various levels, so that
immense terraces and flights of stairs existed throughout the site
and, combined with the natural scenery, must have been of
extraordinary beauty.

The palace of Diocletian at Spalato, to which he retired after his
abdication, constituted a fortress, three of its walls being protected
by towers, the fourth on the south by the sea. For an account of its
well-preserved remains see SPALATO. The emperor's own residence was on
the south side, and had a gallery 520 ft. long overlooking the sea.
The two main streets, with arcades on each side and crossing one
another, divided the whole palace into four sections. One of these
streets crossed from gate to gate, the other from the north gate led
to the entrance into the palace of the emperor.