It is sometimes said that
the arch originated with the Romans. This should be
differently stated; the arch itself they did not originate,
but they applied it with great skill and success to various
works of utility, and made it a universal feature in civil
buildings. Their triumphant use of the arch was reached,
however, in the dome of the Pantheon, which edifice may in a
sense be claimed as an example of a new style of architecture.
Its simple grandeur has not been surpassed. Its style demanded
the invention of appropriate details, which the Romans failed
to produce; but the Pantheon and the ruined Temple of Peace
were the two Roman edifices which indicated the progress of
the Romans towards the invention of an architecture
distinctively their own.
The
Romans not only demonstrated their power to adapt what already
existed to many purposes in their use of the arch, but in that
of the various orders of architecture also; they not only
employed these in ways not before known, but they combined
features of different orders, and created the so-called
composite capitals and bases. In the Colosseum, for example,
we see two styles most inappropriately used. The entire
structure is arched, and a net, as it were, of Grecian
columns, supporting an entablature, applied to it. The first
glance reveals its faults, and a regret that buttresses were
not used is involuntary; these would appear to sustain the
whole, and would have added an effect of vast strength as a
constructive element; while the columns used have the effect
of sustaining the entablature only, and of adding their own
burden to what the arches already had to bear.
The
Roman Doric, derived from the Greek, differs from it through
the introduction of an independent base, and certain
ornamental additions to the capital. This order was used in
Roman forums, courtyards, etc., and in the three-quarter
columns in arcades, as well as for useful supports in civil
buildings; but no purely Greek temple existed in the entire
Roman territory. It would seem that these exquisite edifices,
in the perfection of Greek refinement, were too sublimated in
effect to please the ruder Romans.
The
Ionic order suffered absolute degradation at the hands of the
Romans, who appear neither to have understood nor appreciated
this column. However, their structures were so lofty that they
found it necessary to use the three orders of pillars, one
above the other, and so placed the Ionic in the centre. Two
capitals from the Temple of Concord, now in the Palace of the
Conservators, having a pair of rams' heads at each corner,
show the degeneration to which Ionic capitals were subjected.
It is to be deplored that the two orders which had reached
perfection in Greece were not appreciated and properly used at
Rome.
With
the Corinthian order it was quite different. That was still
incomplete in the estimation of the Hellenes; for while
exquisite in design and grace, the Greeks had not given it the
strength which is an indispensable feature of a supporting
architectural member. This the Romans accomplished, or perhaps
it would be more just to say that Greek artists perfected this
order in Rome. Within the Roman territory the Corinthian order
underwent many modifications; and it is stated that as many as
fifty varieties of Corinthian capitals were produced for Roman
uses during the three fruitful centuries mentioned above. They
vary from the elegant simplicity of the Greek artistic taste
to that florid ornamentation loved by the Romans. Those in the
portico of the Pantheon have fine capitals, not
over-ornamented; but the incongruity of a plain shaft with a
Corinthian capital affords an example of Roman methods.
The
composite capitals of the Romans combined the lower half of
the Corinthian with the upper half of the Ionic capital.
Although the result was a rich and strong capital, it had the
grave defect of exposing the junction of the two portions, and
never became popular.
The
Assyrian base was introduced at Rome too late for the
perfection of such a column as might have been made with it,
together with a Composite or Corinthian capital. This base was
used in the church of S. Prassede, and one can imagine that
for internal architecture it would be very acceptable with
either an Ionic or Corinthian column.
Another
use of a composite architecture, made by the Romans, was that
of placing two columns about as far apart as they were high,
and resting a long entablature on them, which, requiring a
support, was supplemented by an arch resting on piers. A
keystone projecting from the arch to support the entablature
was necessarily longer and heavier than was in keeping with
the proportions of the arch; and the whole arcade thus
produced was clumsy and unsatisfactory. Various experiments
for its improvement resulted in abolishing the piers and
springing the arch from the pillars themselves; very handsome
and dignified arcades were constructed in this manner.
Without
reviewing the different steps in the advance from wooden huts
and mounds of earth, such as were used in the earliest years
at Rome, to the splendid architecture gradually developed
there, we may say that not until an acquaintance with the
Greeks gave them models from which to work, and introduced to
them such tools as they had not before seen, was any use made
of stone, or, in fact, anything accomplished that merited the
name of architecture. From the Greeks the Romans borrowed not
only orders and designs, but also the ordinary methods and
implements of construction, such as the preparation of mortar,
the artificial lattice-work, the measuring-rod, and the use of
iron, which they had not before known.