History of Ancient Art Part 17

Among the Roman temples of this period only two appear to have been of importance for the history of art--the national shrine of Diana upon the Aventine, and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; both built by the last three kings, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus. The first of these structures has been compared to the Artemesion at Ephesos, the national sanctuary of the Ionians; but it would be wrong to draw from this a conclusion in regard to the style of the Latin temple of the same G.o.ddess, which was most probably Tuscan, as that of the Temple of Jupiter is known to have been, from descriptions given by ancient writers as well as from the recent excavations of Jordan. According to Dionysios of Halicarna.s.sos, the substructure of this latter building--eight hundred Roman feet in circ.u.mference--was only fifteen feet greater in length than in width; these dimensions agree well with the proportion of five to six given by Vitruvius for the temple architecture of the Etruscans. The cella of the Capitoline temple was divided into three aediculae, another peculiarity a.s.signed by the Roman writer to the sacred edifices of Etruria; it had three ranges of columns, of six each, before the cella, which provided a portico equal in depth to half the entire length of the building. The ornamentation, which will be treated more fully in the section upon Roman sculpture, was wholly the work of the Etruscans. This race had, indeed, settled in Rome between the Capitol and the Palatine, where the name of Vicus Tuscus preserved, until late historical times, the memory of their settlement and of the considerable part taken by them in the peopling of ancient Rome. It is even stated by Pliny (x.x.xv. 12, 45, and 154) that, for seventeen years after the expulsion of the kings--namely, until the building of the Temple of Ceres upon the Circus--all the sanctuaries of Rome were Etruscan; that is to say, were not only built in the Tuscan style, which might more properly be called the ancient Italian, but were erected by Etruscan artificers, or, at least, under the direction of Etruscan artists.

Even the Temple of Ceres appears to have been Tuscan in general disposition, its cella having been triply divided and its intercolumniations excessively great, as may be seen by the remains of a later restoration still existing in S. Maria in Cosmedin. In this temple, however, the influence of Greek architecture, introduced through the h.e.l.lenic colonies of Magna Graecia, had already begun to gain ground in the arrangement and the details, though the ancient Italian traditions were too deeply rooted to permit it essentially to alter the original distribution. The structure remained nearly square, being equally divided between the portico and the cella. This is ill.u.s.trated by the Temple of Concord, erected by Camillus upon the Forum at the foot of the Capitol in 367 B.C. The limited area, defined by the neighboring buildings and by the steep slope of the hill against which it stood, prevented even later restorations from elongating its plan. The extended oblong of the h.e.l.lenic temple was naturally adopted, in place of the heavy proportions of the Tuscan temples, as soon as the execution of the entablature in stone rendered the excessively wide intercolumniations impossible, and placed insurmountable difficulties in the way of the broad front. Still, the Etruscan or ancient Italian division of the building was retained, inasmuch as the columns were usually restricted to a p.r.o.naos of great depth, such as is shown by the ruins of four temples in the Forum Romanum. The Roman prostylos, as Vitruvius terms a temple thus planned, may be regarded as the first compromise effected between the ancient Italian and the h.e.l.lenic disposition. (_Figs._ 267 and 271.)

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 267.--Temple of Fortuna Virilis.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 268.--Temple of Antoninus and Faustina.]

The early Italian manner of ab.u.t.ting the undeveloped back of the building upon the circuit wall of the temenos, or against a cliff, seems to have long remained in practice; but, in cases where this was impossible, the bare sides and rear of the cella appeared intolerable when compared with the outstanding wings of the Greek peripteros.

Although, in some instances, the prostylos plan was adopted in later ages, as in the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (_Fig._ 268) in the Forum, where the enclosing walls of the cella are treated with pilasters, this was only in cases where the sanctuary was so crowded by adjoining buildings that little else than the portico could be seen. In completely isolated structures the desire of approaching the peripteral effect led to the application of engaged columns to the side and rear walls of the cella, thus attaining, in the so-called prostylos pseudoperipteros, the highest stage of that development of sacred architecture which was peculiar to Rome. The purely peripteral form was naturally adopted in later times, primitive cellas being enclosed by outstanding ranges of columns; but two fundamental peculiarities were always retained: the p.r.o.naos always formed a deep portico, and the naos always remained a s.p.a.cious hall, the peripteral columns being fitted to it, and made of subordinate importance. The dimensions of the cella were thus not restricted by the pteroma, as was the case in the temples of Greece, and especially in those of Sicily; for the chief difference between the architectural tendencies of the Greeks and the Romans was that the former devoted their attention almost exclusively to the perfection of external appearance, creating monuments of unequalled beauty, while the latter held material usefulness to be of the first importance, a.s.signing to technical excellence a second place, and to artistic design but a third, thus creating imposing interiors admirably adapted to their purposes.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 269.--Engaged Tuscan Column from the Flavian Amphitheatre]

The details of their architecture were with the Romans purely decorative and applied. The Doric style, which had predominated in Lower Italy and Sicily, and must have offered the most numerous models near at hand, was nevertheless least employed. It would be difficult to decide whether this is to be ascribed to the similarity of the Tuscan and Doric styles, and their derivation from a common prototype, or to the development of the two manners of building in different directions; certain it is that the channelled shaft was not employed, and the Doric entablature appeared only in an attenuated and purely ornamental imitation, above the wide intercolumniations of the ancient Italian facade. The Tuscan (_Fig._ 269) became somewhat higher in proportion to its diameter, and was slightly altered in detail. The epistyle was diminished to a narrow band, and, in the smaller temples, was usually carved from one stone with the frieze of triglyphs, thus destroying the separate importance of these two members. The diminutive triglyphs were frequently increased in number above the intercolumniations; the chamferings were terminated above by a straight line, while the guttae were lengthened and had a more marked conical form. The proportionally small metopes were either entirely without sculptured ornament, or were provided with rosettes, disks, and the heads of oxen; which last were introduced as a reminiscence of the barbaric custom, prevalent in early times, of affixing the skulls of the sacrificed animals to the wooden entablature.

The corona was usually not inclined like this member in the Doric cornice; the mutules lost their _guttae_, and became simplified to plain consoles. (_Fig._ 270.) In some instances Ionic elements were introduced into the Doric entablature, as in the sarcophagus--now in the Vatican--of L. Corn. Scipio Barbatus, who was consul in 298 B.C., where an Ionic cornice surmounts the frieze of triglyphs, and Ionic spirals decorate the lid. The Theatre of Marcellus displays a similar combination; and, in other cases, Doric forms are entirely supplanted by simplified Ionic members.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 270.--Temple at Cori.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 271.--Temple of Fortuna Virilis.]

Towards the end of the third century B.C. the Ionic style was generally introduced; yet, according to the nature of Roman architecture, which did but borrow external features from foreign nations, itself supplying the general disposition and constructive forms, it became nothing more than a decorative adjunct: the Grecian _style_ became a Roman _order_.

Attic Ionic influences were naturally more prevalent than those of Asia Minor. This was particularly fortunate, because a canon of mathematical rules early took the place of independent development, hardening the forms into formulas. This mechanical method of design was favored by the extended application of engaged columns and pilasters which did not require the complete execution of the elaborate capital, while, in the decoration of colossal buildings of several stories, the distance from the eye rendered a simplification of the Ionic helices natural, as well as more suitable to the coa.r.s.e and porous stone employed by the Roman builders. (_Fig._ 271.) The complicated corner capital of the Ionic style could not, however, be avoided upon the free-standing columns of the temple fronts, and the execution of this member must have been exceedingly troublesome to artisans accustomed to work everything after one model. It is therefore to be regarded as a direct consequence of the Roman architectural system that a variety of the Ionic capitals appeared in later times which omitted the rolls and displayed the spirals upon all four sides. This form, as exemplified by the Temple of Saturn upon the Clivus Capitolinus, seems to have arisen by repeating the two outer sides of the corner capital upon those remaining. The entablature was of great simplicity, perhaps because the comparatively rare employment of this order left it undeveloped.

Before the Roman had decided upon the practical but inartistic repet.i.tion of the volutes upon all four sides--by which the nature of the Ionic capital was destroyed, and the spiral treated in the early Asiatic manner as mere ornament--the Corinthian capital had come into general and popular use. It has already been explained, in the section upon h.e.l.lenic architecture, that the Corinthian capital attained no typical form in its native country, and could not be ranked with the Doric and Ionic styles, being a mere variety of the Ionic capital without any individual formation of the shaft and entablature. The Corinthian columns of the uncompleted Temple of the Olympian Zeus at Athens, which Sulla transported to Rome about the year 84 B.C. for the rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, were, if not the first in Rome, at least those which were in later times taken by Roman architects as typical examples of their style. The Roman architect justly preferred the Corinthian capital because of its capacity for more varied application, without that fatal difficulty at the corners inherent in the Ionic style, and because of its rich effect, even when less carefully and delicately detailed. The preference for the Corinthian may be justifiable, but that form of Composite capital into which it developed, by a multiplication of its ornaments and the addition of four spirals upon the corners, must be regarded as a debas.e.m.e.nt. (_Fig._ 273.) The fact should not be overlooked that this arrangement of acanthus around a concave kernel best solves the problem of the capital as a mediating member between the vertical support and the horizontal entablature, as well as between the circular plan of the shaft and the rectangle of the epistyle. (_Fig._ 272.)

The leaves and tendrils of the capital were at last introduced into the entablature, which thereby a.s.sumed a peculiar character, and permitted the Romans, for whom the forms of h.e.l.lenic architecture were nothing more than a decorative mask, to place the Corinthian, as an independent order, by the side of the Ionic and the Tuscan or Doric. As the Corinthian base had been formed by a combination of the Ionic and Attic mouldings, the consoles of the cornice resulted from a fusion of Ionic dentils and Doric mutules. The simplicity and slight projection of the dentils did not suffice for the requirements of florid Roman architecture; the horizontal mutules without guttae, characteristic of the later Tuscan style, consequently took their place, supported by the spiral brackets which had been already employed as the parotides beneath the cornices over Ionic doorways. A richly foliated ornamentation fully harmonized these new members with the acanthus capital, and gave to the entire cornice an independent importance and a certain lavish elegance, soon, however, debased by the extravagance of the decorators. Continued increase of ornament resulted in a want of attention to the general composition--a loss which the multiplication of the details could ill supply, especially as they were without even formal beauty.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 272.--Corinthian Capital from the Pantheon.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 273.--Composite Capital.]

The sacred buildings of the Romans have been considered thus at length because offering the best opportunity for a characterization of the orders; yet the significance of their national architecture is not to be found in the temples, but rather in their structures for public utility and comfort. In these the technical naturally far exceeded the artistic element, and it is consequently in points of construction that the great advances of the Romans appear. In these methods they were almost wholly independent, and were by far the most important people of antiquity.

Masonry of brick and hewn stones early attained great extent and perfection, furthered by the excellent materials at hand--the hard Tiburtine and Travertine limestones, the tufa so easily carved, the unequalled clay for bricks, and the famous volcanic sand and pozzuolana which, when combined with lime, harden to the firmest stone. Vaulting was generally introduced as early as the time of the kings, the walls and ceiling forming an uninterrupted ma.s.s of h.o.m.ogeneous materials; the vertical and horizontal members, support and covering, being blended together without marked transition. Before this system of construction was invented the s.p.a.cious and monumental development of protected rooms had been possible only under great limitations; without it these chief ends of Roman architecture could not have been attained.

The building of barrel vaults with hewn stones, as observed in the Cloaca Maxima, was attended with certain difficulties; the great weight of the masonry permitted a moderately large span only when immense and c.u.mbrous b.u.t.tresses were provided. This objection was, in a great degree, obviated by the employment of bricks, but the size of the s.p.a.ces covered was limited by the necessity of heavy supporting-walls at the sides. The full scope of vaulted construction was not recognized until the introduction, by the Romans, of the intersecting or cross vaults, or the so-called groined arch. This replaced the two side walls previously necessary to support the barrel vault, by piers upon the four corners, at the same time opening the covered s.p.a.ce on all four sides. The way was thus prepared for an indefinite series of such quadrangular compartments, or bays, covering a continuous s.p.a.ce. A third development of this principle, the hemispherical vault or cupola, was of more restricted application, having been employed only for circular buildings, or, when bisected, for apses, or semicircular additions to the plans of rectangular temples and halls. The date of the first appearance of the cross-vault can hardly have been earlier than the second century B.C.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 274.--Section of the Aqua Marcia Tepula and Julia, near the Porta San Lorenzo.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 275.--Section of the Pantheon, in its Present Condition.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 276.--Section of the Pantheon. Restoration by Adler.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 277.--Plan of the Baths of Caracalla.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 278.--Chief Hall of the Baths of Caracalla.]

The first secular buildings which attained monumental importance were undoubtedly those erected for public usefulness, like the extensive covered ca.n.a.ls so requisite to the very existence of Rome. On the one hand, it was necessary, by means of gigantic sewers, to drain the low land, which was not only full of springs, but was periodically flooded by the Tiber; on the other, to provide the metropolis with good water by aqueducts extending to great distances. Still, it was not until the year 312 B.C., more than two centuries after the building of the Cloaca Maxima, that the first work of this kind, the Aqua Appia, was completed, simultaneously with the first great military road, by the famous censor Appius Claudius Caecus. This entirely subterranean aqueduct, eight Roman miles long, was followed, down to the time of Diocletian, by no less than thirteen similar constructions of increased dimensions and magnificence. (_Fig._ 274.) Almost all extended to the mountains which surround the Campagna, even reaching a length of forty-two Roman miles.

They provided so great a quant.i.ty of excellent water that one third part of it would have been more than sufficient for the real necessities of the city. Stupendous arches raised the conduits high above the ground, while valleys and ravines were spanned by mighty works of engineering, even rivalling the bridges upon the great military roads. The greater part of the water thus obtained was used for the baths, which were increased under the emperors to a measureless luxury, and provided the chief means by which these rulers purchased the favor of the populace.

There were in Rome no less than eight hundred and fifty-six private baths open to the use of every citizen for a certain price, besides the great imperial structures which were free to the public. The first founder of these free baths was Agrippa, in 25 B.C., who appears to have followed, in their general arrangement, the type of a Greek gymnasion.

The bodily exercises of early times, by which the military power of the State had been trained, were succeeded under the empire by a luxurious care for physical well-being; gymnastic drill appeared unnecessary to the sovereigns of all the known world, while the bath and the toilet became more and more important. Thus, in the Roman baths, the s.p.a.ces for serious athletic contests, which had formed the princ.i.p.al part of the Greek gymnasion, were wholly subordinated to the departments for indolent luxury and light amus.e.m.e.nts. The primitive bathing-chambers were enlarged to magnificent halls, which offered the greatest scope for the development of that interior architecture which was cultivated with such great success by the Romans. This grandeur is evident in the imposing rotunda still remaining from the Baths of Agrippa, the remarkable circular structure which, because of its beauty, was transformed by Agrippa himself into a temple--the Pantheon--by the addition of Corinthian columns. (_Figs._ 275 and 276.) The building, not having been originally planned for an isolated position, is wholly undeveloped upon the exterior, but its ma.s.sive construction and harmonious proportions have merited the admiration accorded to it in all ages. From the existing remains it cannot be surely determined whether the Baths of Nero, t.i.tus, Trajan, and Commodus, which followed the great creation of Agrippa, surpa.s.sed it in dimensions and magnificence; but it is certain that this was the case with the enormous structures of Caracalla and of Diocletian, as the entire plan of the former, with parts of the mosaic pavements, still remains; while the main hall of the latter, in almost perfect preservation, forms the chief part of the Church of S. Maria degli Angeli. The princ.i.p.al structure was usually surrounded by an extensive enclosure, which, in the case of the Baths of Caracalla (_Fig._ 277), was formed upon the front (_a_) by a series of separate cabinets. Upon the sides were segmental projections, or exedras (_b_), with various chambers (_c_), probably intended for intellectual entertainments, such as rhetorical and poetical dissertations, etc.; while the rectangle was closed by a one-sided stadion, with s.p.a.ces for gymnastic purposes (_d_), and a reservoir for water (_e_). The central building provided upon either side enormous halls for games, preparatory to the ablutions (_g_, _p_), between them (_i_, _k_, _l_) the s.p.a.ces for the cold, tepid, and hot baths; while the adjoining smaller chambers served as rooms for dressing and the manifold processes of the toilet.

Between this chief structure and the enclosure race-courses and promenades, with fountains and beds of flowers, added the charms of nature to the magnificence of architecture. The public Baths of Alexander Severus, Decius, and Constantine appear to have been less extended; but these were far surpa.s.sed in size by the constructions of Diocletian, which could accommodate three thousand bathers. The Roman buildings for the circus, the theatres, and amphitheatres were of scarcely less importance. The extreme simplicity of the Circus Maximus recalls the early Greek hippodrome; the slopes of the Palatine and Aventine served as a station for the spectators, while the level ground in the valley between formed the arena. It was not until 327 B. C. that the barriers (_carceres_) were architecturally embellished, and even the rebuilding of the whole by Caesar was limited to the erection of the lower stories of the auditorium in stone. The wooden superstructure was not replaced by a more permanent and monumental construction until the time of Domitian and Trajan. The general plan was adopted from the Greek model, the peculiarities of the Roman arrangement being a low division wall, or spina, the position of the barriers, and the moat which surrounded the arena (_euripis_), intended to protect the lower tiers of spectators during the combats of wild beasts. The spina, connecting the two turning-posts (_metae_), was ornamented with memorial columns, altars, aediculas, statues, obelisks, and the like; it did not follow a direction precisely parallel to the side seats, but allowed a considerably broader s.p.a.ce upon the right than upon the left, so that the many chariots here crowded together early in the race might not be too greatly impeded. That all the compet.i.tors might have an equally favorable position when brought into line, it was necessary that the starting-points should be arranged in the segment of a circle, the centre of which was a little to the right of the spina. This plan may be recognized in the best-preserved Roman circuses, as, for instance, in that at Bovillae, near Albano, and that of Romulus, the son of Maxentius, upon the Via Appia. (_Fig._ 279.) The Circus Maximus, like all the other structures of its kind in Rome, has been entirely destroyed.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 279.--Plan of the Circus of Romulus.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 280.--Scheme of the Roman Theatre, according to Vitruvius.]

In the earlier periods of Roman history, the theatre did not receive the recognition and a.s.sistance of the government; and the law in force until the end of the republic, which permitted no theatre with seats to be constructed within the limits of the city, prevented any monumental development in this direction. Dramatic representations, however, were not to be suppressed after an acquaintance with the Greek drama had once been formed. Comedy was especially popular, and Roman authors devoted their attention to it with success. But these plays were performed only upon festival days, and were undertaken by individuals. The creation of the improvised stage, for transient usage, thus fell to the lot of those politicians whose desire it was to win the favor of the populace. In the latter days of the republic structures were reared which equalled the extravagant magnificence of the Diadochi; the aedile M. Scaurus, for instance, erected a gigantic theatre, to stand only a few days, which provided seats for no less than eighty thousand spectators, the stage being ornamented by three hundred and sixty marble columns and three thousand bronze statues. This boundless waste was brought to an end through the building of the first stone theatre in Rome, by Pompey, who, notwithstanding his great political power, could succeed in silencing the objections made by the conservative party against this innovation only by the pretence that the stone seats were the steps of a temple, which he erected upon the summit of the _cavea_. This first permanent structure was succeeded during the reign of Augustus by two other theatres, those of Marcellus and of Balbus; the first could seat but a quarter as many spectators as did the theatre of Pompey--namely, twenty thousand--while that of Balbus provided places for only eleven thousand six hundred. In later imperial times even this capacity was found too great. The theatre lost much of its attraction after the Roman people had once seen blood flow in the arena. Yet in all the Roman empire there was scarcely a city of importance where a stone theatre was not erected during the reign of Augustus; even small towns like Tusculum, where the remains are particularly well preserved, boasted of these monuments. The characteristic differences between the Roman theatre and the Greek, its prototype, were that the orchestra did not exceed a semicircle, the front of the stage (A A) being so advanced as to form its diameter, which thus brought the actors nearer to the spectators. (_Fig._ 280.) The open half of the circle was not, as in Greece, reserved for the evolutions of the chorus, but was occupied by the senators and the higher cla.s.ses of citizens, who brought thither their own seats. The auditorium, which, with the orchestra, had been restricted to a semicircle, a.s.sumed a peculiar form upon the exterior, the entire building standing in a plain, and only rarely, as in Tusculum, occupying a natural slope. With the introduction of vaulting, ma.s.sive foundations of masonry were rendered unnecessary. Barrel vaults were placed one above another, terminating upon the exterior in a series of arcades, the decorative features of Roman architecture being usually so applied that the lower story displayed engaged Tuscan columns, the second Ionic, and the third Corinthian pilasters, with their respective entablatures. This treatment of the exterior is shown in the best preservation by the remaining amphitheatres; but vestiges of theatres may still be seen sufficient to serve as ill.u.s.trations, like that of Marcellus (_Fig._ 281), and those at Orange in Southern France, at Aspendos in Asia Minor, etc.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 281.--Theatre of Marcellus, Rome.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 282.--Plan of the Flavian Amphitheatre.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 283.--Section of the Auditorium of the Flavian Amphitheatre.]

Imposing as the architectural appearance of the Roman theatre was, magnificently and suitably as it was planned, it could never attain great national, and consequently historical, importance, because tragedy was never popular and comedy never political. The warlike and b.l.o.o.d.y scenes presented by the mortal combats of gladiators and wild beasts had a far greater attraction for a people who, by nature, felt more reverence for Mars than for the Muses. It was long, however, before these exhibitions were provided with especial arenas. After the introduction of the gladiatorial contests by Marcus and Decius Brutus, in 264 B.C., upon the occasion of funeral games, the prisoners of war had fought together upon the Forum; and the slaughter of powerful animals, inaugurated under Metellus by the killing of elephants taken from the Carthaginians in 252 B.C., and continued under aemilius Paullus by the sacrifice of deserters to beasts of prey, had taken place in the Circus. But this could not have been well suited to the purpose, as its limited width was impeded by the spina, and its side barriers could not have offered sufficient protection to the spectators from the desperate attempts of the infuriated animals to escape. As early as 59 B.C., Caius Curio had surprised the Roman people with two wooden theatres, built back to back, and arranged so as to turn bodily upon their axes after the conclusion of the scenic performances, so that the two auditories faced one another, and left between them an arena for the succeeding combats of gladiators. It is not certain whether this was the original of the amphitheatre, or whether the oval plan arose from simply giving broader proportions to that form of stadion, like the one at Aphrodisias in Caria, which was terminated by a semicircle at each end. But it is scarcely to be doubted that the wooden Theatrum Venatorium of Caesar had the disposition which was repeated, with but few alterations, in the stone amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus, built during the reign of Augustus, and in those of wood erected by Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero.

By the time of the Flavians it was recognized that no gift was so acceptable to the Roman populace as the provision of a magnificent place fitted for these inhuman games, and thus arose that most gigantic edifice of all ages--the Colosseum. (_Figs._ 282 and 283.) Even provincial towns like Reggio, Pompeii, Herculaneum, Albanum, Tusculum, Sutri, Pola, Verona, Nismes, Treves, Constantine, etc., were provided with edifices of this kind, fully as important in proportion to the number of their inhabitants.

The mausoleums and monuments erected in honor of prominent citizens const.i.tute an important cla.s.s in the architectural history of Rome. In early times a tumulus form, similar to that of the Etruscan tombs, seems to have predominated. The older monuments in the vicinity of Rome were thus constructed. A tumulus, the lower cylinder of which appears to have been elevated upon a square substructure decorated with Tuscan pilasters, may be a.s.sumed to have existed above the remarkable sepulchral labyrinth of the Scipios, outside the Porta Appia, and within the present Porta S. Sebastiano. In course of time the circular drum of masonry increased, while the original cone was diminished to a pointed roof; the magnificent tombs of Caecilia Metella, the wife of Cra.s.sus, and of the Plautii upon the Via Appia and Via Tiburtina, show it as already preponderating. The tumulus of Augustus upon the Via Flaminia, at present within the Porta del Popolo, displays a cylinder of 24 m. in diameter, decorated by thirteen niches once provided with statues; while the cone of earth above, which was archaistic agreeably to the affectation of Augustus, was planted with cyprus-trees and terminated by a colossal image of the imperial builder. Even more gigantic was the mausoleum built by Hadrian, the lower portion of which now forms the substructure of the Castle of S. Angelo. It was once surmounted by a second smaller cylinder bearing a conical roof. When the area at disposal was too limited for the adoption of so extended a base, the monument rose, like a tower, to a great height, in successive stories of decreasing dimensions, with or without columns, as in the fine example of St. Remy in Southern France. The endless rows of tombs upon the Via Appia vary from simple piers and subterranean burial-chambers (called _columbaria_, from the thousands of niches for funeral urns resembling the nests of doves) to colossal mausoleums. The remains of bulwarks prove that many of these elevations were utilized for mediaeval fortresses. Even foreign forms were employed; the so-called Tomb of the Horatii at Albano resembles that of Porsena, while the Egyptian pyramid is reproduced in the mausoleum of C. Cestius near the Porta di S. Paolo.

The conformation of the land presented but little opportunity for the execution of rock-cut tombs with a front carved in the cliff; but one remarkable example has been preserved upon the Lake of Albano, called, from the twelve fasces introduced in its decoration, the Tomb of the Consuls. In the mountainous provinces of the East these sepulchres were more common, as, for instance, in Petra, where numbers of facades hewn in the rock, with a kind of decorative temple-like architecture, betray magnificence rather than good taste. (_Fig._ 284.)

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 284.--Facade and Section of a Rock-cut Tomb at Petra.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 285.--Triumphal Arch of t.i.tus.]

The monuments commemorative of individuals do not, as in Greece, deserve to be treated in the section upon sculpture; in Rome the architectural pedestal was more important than the statuesque carving, and, indeed, the image was frequently supplanted altogether by inscriptions. Statues were often placed upon columns. These were often provided with characteristic decorations--as is the case with the prows of vessels upon the shaft of Duilius, erected in 260 B.C.--and were often of gigantic dimensions, thus withdrawing the figures upon their summits from close inspection. The most sumptuous example of these monuments is presented by Trajan's Column, the base of which contained the sarcophagus of that emperor. The surface of the shaft was either covered with reliefs of many figures which, like the interior staircase, ascended spirally upward, as upon the Columns of Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius, or were merely treated with architectural forms like the granite column of Antoninus Pius, the relief upon the pedestal of which is given below. (_Fig._ 304.) There are similar shafts, dating from the Roman occupation, at Cussi in France, at Alexandria, Constantinople, and Ancyra. In all these works the portrait was far exceeded in importance by the monument; sculpture was rendered subordinate to architecture.

This was the case in a still greater degree in the triumphal and commemorative arches. As the equestrian statues and quadrigas have disappeared from all the works of this kind now preserved, it might easily be forgotten that these figures were in reality the princ.i.p.al part of the composition, and the arches beneath them little else than pedestals placed above the streets, and consequently provided with pa.s.sages. Festive portals constructed of light timbers and decorated for gala-days doubtless afforded the prototype for these works. Triumphal arches were comparatively rare in the time of the republic, but very common under the emperors. They express the nature of Roman art better, perhaps, than any other cla.s.s of structures: the ma.s.s of masonry, encased in columns and entablatures which were merely ornamental features without constructive functions; the reliefs of small figures crowded together as in a chronicle; the numerous decorative statues above the columns as well as upon the top; the extended inscriptions upon the attic above the arches, which thus formed, in a more restricted sense, the pedestal of the crowning group--these all express characteristic tendencies, and present the best example of the solid but ostentatious construction which predominated in Roman architecture, subordinating ideal beauty to the temporary purpose. Augustus, Trajan, and Hadrian were the chief builders of these monuments, which have remained in all the provinces of Rome: at Benevento, Ancona, Rimini, Susa, and Aosta in Italy; at St. Remy, Orange, Besancon, Cavaillon, and Rheims in France; at Alcantara, Merida, Bara, and Caparra in Spain; at Theveste and El Casr in Africa, etc. There are four of these arches in Rome--two with a single pa.s.sage (those of Drusus and of t.i.tus [_Fig._ 285]), and two (those of Septimius Severus [_Fig._ 286] and of Constantine) with additional openings on either side. The Arch of Constantine surpa.s.ses its known predecessors in beauty of composition and proportion only because it was patterned after an arch of Trajan, and even built with the same materials. This arch is at once the memorial of one of the most important victories recorded by history, the battle near the Milvian Bridge, and of that unexampled poverty of artistic invention, or rather want of productive energy, which characterized all Roman intellectual life after the time of Constantine.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 286.--Triumphal Arch of Septimius Severus.]

The so-called Ja.n.u.s portals were erected above the streets and squares of Rome, much in the same manner as the triumphal arches. They were commonly simple, like the three Jani upon the Forum Romanum, but were increased at street-crossings to extensive quadrifrontes, or structures presenting the same face upon all four sides. The former bore two-faced Jani upon their summits, the latter a four-faced combination like that upon some figures of Hermes--an image well adapted to represent the watcher over the crowded thoroughfares. The Ja.n.u.s Quadrifrons upon the Forum Boarium (_Fig._ 263) is, with exception of the attic, particularly well preserved; it was richly ornamented by the statues of deities, no less than thirty-two niches being provided upon its walls.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 287.--Section.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 288.--Plan of the Primitive Roman Basilica.

Restoration by Reber.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 289.--Plan of the Basilica of Maxentius.]

The buildings which surrounded the public squares corresponded in lavish magnificence to the altars, statues, dedicatory columns, and triumphal arches. Broad colonnades with shops formed the enclosure, interrupted by temples, and courts of justice, or curias, which can have differed but little in external appearance from the sacred edifices. Most important among these public buildings were the basilicas, which, in name, purpose, and form, were derived from Greek prototypes. As halls of justice and places for commercial traffic, they may be regarded as covered extensions of the open squares. Several of these buildings, erected during the imperial epoch, are known by considerable remains, but they deviate so greatly in disposition as to have no plan in common beyond that of a hall surrounded by narrow aisles. The oldest Roman structure of this kind, the Basilica Porcia built by Cato in 185 B.C., was of an oblong shape, ab.u.t.ting with one of its ends upon the Forum, while the other was enlarged by a small exedra, or apse. (_Figs._ 287 and 288.) The chief s.p.a.ce was surrounded upon all four sides by two-storied aisles, the central hall, however, not rising above them, as in the Christian basilica, this being difficult of construction because of the slightness of the shafts, and not necessary for the introduction of light. A portico with a flat roof was erected above the entrance, enlivening the bare and extended front wall. Thus the Basilica Porcia did not differ in principle from the early Christian church, and the similarity appears also in the other basilicas of the Roman republic, all of which had their front upon the smaller side. In the courts of the imperial epoch, however, this primitive type was treated with great freedom, and nothing remained of the original arrangement but a large central hall surrounded by a double pa.s.sage of arcades upon piers, without columns and without an apse. The normal basilica, described by Vitruvius, with two-storied side aisles, faced with its greatest length upon the public square, and had an apse; the basilica at Fanum, built by the Roman writer, was similarly arranged upon the facade, but a clere-story supported upon gigantic columns rose above the lateral pa.s.sages. These pa.s.sages opened, from the end opposite the entrance, into an adjoining temple, the p.r.o.naos of which served as the tribune of the forensic court. The basilica at Pompeii, of which the narrow side was the front, had no apse, while the Basilica Ulpia had great exedras upon both ends, with the entrance portal upon the longer side. The Basilica of Maxentius (_Fig._ 289), which was completed by Constantine, was an exception in every respect, being entirely vaulted, and having two apses upon adjoining sides opposite to the two chief entrances. The whole formed one of the most remarkable and important halls of antiquity, with the consideration of which the history of Roman architecture may well be terminated. The original type of the basilica was wholly neglected by later architects, who treated the problem of a forensic hall without restrictions, utilizing the accidental formations of the ground, while endeavoring to combine suitability and the display of ingenious constructions with magnificent novelties of their own invention.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 290.--Section.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 291.--Plan of the House of Pansa in Pompeii.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 292.--Flavian Palace.

A. Tablinum; B. Lavarium; C. Basilica; D. Atrium; E. Dining-hall (cus); F. Nymphaeum.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 293.--Court of the Palace of Diocletian at Spalatro.]