destructions and minor repairs of the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, in 1527 the architect San Gallo was employed to erect huge bastions on the wall of Rome, which he placed chiefly between the Porta Ostiense and the Porta Appia. In 1628 Pope Urban VIII. restored the walls on the left bank, and subsequently in 1642 he proceeded to erect the walls which now stand between the Porta Portese and the Porta Cavallegieri, where the arms of that Pope are still affixed to the walls. This was the final important addition to the main walls of the city.

III.—Roman Building and Architecture.

The earliest form of Roman masonry, consisting of rectangular tufa blocks placed in layers alternately parallel to and across the line of the wall, so as to bind the mass together firmly, may be best seen in the ancient fragments of the Servian wall on the Aventine and the Quirinal Hills and in the ruins on the western slope of the Palatine. This kind of building is the natural product of the peculiar parallel cleavage in the tufaceous rocks of the Roman hills. In those parts of the Campagna where basalt rather than tufa becomes the usual material, as at Præneste, we find polygonal masonry. One specimen of a mode of construction anterior to the introduction of the arch into Roman masonry is left us at Rome. This is the vault of the old well-house near the Capitol called the Mamertine Prison, where we find overlapping horizontal blocks of stone which originally met in a conical roof, but are now truncated and capped by a mass of stones cramped together with iron. That the principle of the arch was known in the regal period of Rome is shown by the great arch of the Cloaca Maxima. But no arches remain of so early a date which are not subterranean, and it is not likely that the arch was used in the early temples at Rome. These were, as we learn from Vitruvius, constructed in the so-called Tuscan style, which was the Italian contemporary of the Greek Doric. It is possible that the columns in the walls of S. Maria in Cosmedin, which are placed at unusual distances from each other, may have been an imperial restoration of the Temple of Ceres, after the old Tuscan fashion (Fig. 1). The next modification of architectural style, which is usually called, from the general influence of the Greek colonists on Latin art, the Tusco-Doric order, may be seen in the lowest range of columns and bases in the Theatre of Marcellus. The shaft of these columns is much more slender than in the Grecian Doric, and only partially fluted, if at all; while a cima recta is substituted for the echinus of the capitals (Figs. 2 and 3). The position of the triglyphs and the proportions of the cornice were also much changed, and the whole effect became less massive and bold than that of the Tuscan temples.

Larger Image

The ancient Tuscan arrangement of the interior of temples remained after this modification of their columns and capitals. The three ruins which now occupy the most prominent place at the northern end of the Forum, the Temples of Saturn, of Concord, and of Vespasian, all retain the plan called prostylos by Vitruvius. The Temple of Concord is especially remarkable for the union of a broad Tuscan cella with a narrow Greek portico. An alteration peculiarly Roman was made in the cella of the Greek temple. Instead of surrounding this part of a temple with rows of columns, the Romans clothed it with pilasters, thus introducing the mode of construction deservedly stigmatised by Vitruvius, under the name pseudoperipteral (Fig. 4). This may be seen in the ruin commonly called by the name of the Temple of Fortuna Virilis at Rome.

Fig. 1.

The Greek Ionic order became known and employed by the Romans early in the third century B.C. The Tomb of Scipio Barbatus shows the Ionic volute and dentil mixed with the Doric triglyph and gutta. The Roman alterations in the Ionic capital may be best seen in the pillars of the Temple of Saturn, and in the second range of columns surrounding the Theatre of Marcellus and the Coliseum. Specimens may also be seen in the basilica of S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura, and in the church of S. Maria in Trastevere, which have been transferred from the ancient temples. The distinctive Roman modification was the position of the volutes diagonally instead of laterally (Figs. 5 and 6).

Fig. 2.

It is supposed that the first introduction of the Greek Corinthian order into Rome was brought about by the barbarian act of Sulla, in transporting the columns of the Temple of Zeus from Athens to the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter. Of the remaining specimens of this order in Rome, the portico of the Pantheon is the oldest. In that building the capitals appear somewhat shorter and broader than in the later examples, at the ruins of the Temple of Castor in the Forum (Fig. 7), and in the peristyle of Nerva’s Forum called the Colonnacce.

Fig. 3.

The Composite capital, for it can hardly be called an order, as there is nothing in the entablature or the base to distinguish it from the Corinthian, was formed probably under the patronage of the early emperors. The earliest instance we have of it now extant in Rome, is in the Arch of Titus (Fig. 8) and there are only three other ruins where it is found. These are, the Arch of Septimius Severus, the Arch of the Goldsmiths, and the Baths of Diocletian, at Sta. Maria degli Angeli, where it is mixed up with Corinthian capitals. The peculiar combination of which it consists, the superposition of the Ionic volutes upon two rings of Corinthian acanthus leaves, is not generally considered a very happy artistic design. Hope says of it, that “instead of being a new creation of genius, it gave evidence of poverty to invent and ignorance to combine,” and Fergusson is hardly more complimentary to the Roman architects.

Fig. 4.

But though we must deny to this Roman adaptation of Greek forms the credit of originality, or even of symmetrical design, yet its rich appearance was peculiarly suited to the lavish ornamentation with which the Roman emperors delighted to trick out their palaces and halls, and it well represents to us the character of the Roman imperial architecture, with its indiscriminate combination of mouldings and profusion of gaudy detail.

The three great triumphal arches of Titus, Septimius Severus, and Constantine at Rome, and also the Arch of Drusus, are decorated with an unmeaning and foreign dress. In the Arch of Constantine alone, the columns which stand in front are in some measure justified by the statues they support.

Of the minor archways at Rome, that of Gallienus has Corinthian pilasters in the roughest style of art, the Janus