Abbildungen der Seite
PDF

dark; on the contrary a pleasant light is diffused throughout, and darkness is not found in any corner of it. This is a subject well worthy of consideration, and one which we pro

pose hereafter to turn to practical account.

Fig. 120. PORTICO OF PARTuik NON.

217. The Temple of Peace has been reserved by us to close the notices of the Roman temples, because of its deviation from the general form of other Greek and Roman temples, which in the quadrangular species are so formed on one general plan that ab uno disce omnes is the expression applicable to them. The figs. 121. and 122. represent the plan and section of this

[ocr errors][merged small]

building. The former will be seen to have been rectangular, with a porch extending along the whole

| breadth of the building in front.

This was vaulted, the summit in

[blocks in formation]

the central one was a rectangular salone of the whole length of the temple, whose breadth was one third of its length. The roof of this was a vault with three groins, formed by the intersection of semicylindrical vaults at right angles to the cempavement was about 116 ft., and

We shall not however pursue the verbal description of this edifice, which will be much better understood by an inspection of the diagrams. We will only add, that although the columns in the interior are entirely gone, and the building is in a sad state of dilapidation, enough has been discovered to prove that the restoration here submitted to the reader is not very far from the truth. In many cases the restorations of Palladio, whose works it is the fashion amongst half-instructed architects and still less informed amateurs to decry, are not to be wholly relied on in his capacity of antiquary, and certainly must not be taken for granted; but his restoration of this temple cannot widely differ from the truth. It ap_D= Fig. 1+2. Traff-iss to pears to have been founded by Claudius, F- rairls of pracr. and finished by Vespasian after the conquest of Judea, and seems to have been the depository of the spoils of the temple at Jerusalem. It is uncertain by what accident in the reign of Commodus it was destroyed, but it is conjectured it was restored during his reign. It may not be here altogether out of place to notice that the temple in question seems in some measure to have furnished the hint for the nave of the Italian Duomo with its side aisles. It was but in the addition of the transepts and choir, whose type is indicated even in the basilicae of the first Christians, that a variation is to be seen. If the cross, however, be not sufficiently apparent in the basilica, it cannot be mistaken in the churches but little later. 218. Fora. -2. The Forum of the Romans is described generally in Vitruvius (Book vi. chap. 1.). He directs that it should be a large rectangular area, whose breadth is to be about two thirds of its length. The basilica or court of justice, serving also as an exchange for the merchants, is to be attached to it. The forum in a Roman city was the arena on which business, politics, and pleasure were equally transacted, discussed, and enjoyed. Among the Greeks it was called the ayopa, signifying a place in which the citizens were collected. It is here to be observed, that the fora of the Romans were of two sorts: Fora Civilia and Fora Venalia; the former whereof were designed as well with the object of ornamenting the cities in which they were erected, as for admitting a site for the public courts of justice, and other public buildings; the latter were intended to provide for the necessities and conveniences of the inhabitants, and no doubt bore a resemblance to our markets. The great Forum at Rome was seated between the Palatine and Capitoline hills. Though its boundary cannot now be satisfactorily traced, there seems little doubt that it included the Arch of Septimius Severus, the Temple of Concord, and the Curia or senate house, as well as the building of the Temple of Jupiter Stator, which has been above noticed. Restorations of this have been imagined by more than one artist, and more particularly by an ingenious French artist of the name of Caristie, who has published a thin folio volume on the subject, well deserving the attention of the architectural student; but as we shall presently place before the reader a forum from Pompeii in which less uncertainty exists, we shall not stop here in our enumeration of the other fora of Rome. The Forum of Nerva is said to have been 367 ft. long, and 164 ft. wide. At one end were five arched entrances, and at the other the Temple of Nerva. The Forum of Trajan, built by the emperor whose name it bears, was erected from the foreign spoils taken by him in his wars. The coverings of its edifices were all of brass, and the porticoes and their columns constructed in an exceedingly splendid style of execution. Ammianus Marcellinus (Hist. lib. xvi.) describes, with much force, the delight of Constantius on contemplating it when he made his triumphal entry into Rome. The representations make its length 1150 ft., and its mean breadth about 470 ft. In it was the emperor's magnificent column (fig. 111.), at one end was the Temple of Trajan, and at the other his Triumphal Arch. This Forum contained the celebrated and splendid Basilica Ulpiana. The other example we shall mention was at Fano, and we mention it because it contained a basilica by Vitruvius himself. He describes the portico of the Temple of Augustus as joining that side of the basilica which was furthest from the centre of the Forum, and a temple of Jupiter as standing at the opposite end. He goes on to describe the Treasury, Prison, and Curia, as placed on the longer sides of the Forum exteriorly to the shops which surrounded the area. The commentators on Vitruvius have been at considerable pains to make out the plan of the basilica of this building from the verbal description of it by the author, – perhaps none of them with greater success than old Daniel Barbaro. 219. But no words convey the description of a place so well as a diagram of the object under consideration; and as there exists at Pompeii a forum so perfect, that all the rules given by our great master are exemplified in it, we here place the plan (fig. 123.) of the forum there before the reader, so that he may have a complete notion of the arrangement. Entering from the gate of Herculaneum, the principal street leads to its north-west corner, whence the access to it is by a flight of steps downwards, through an arch in a brick wall, still partially covered with stucco. It has been conjectured with probability, that the entrances to it were occasionally closed, from the remains of iron gates having been found at some of them. A smaller passage occurs to the right of the arch just mentioned, and a fountain attached to the wall between them. A is supposed to have been a temple of Venus; B, a public granary; C, a temple of Jupiter; D, probably a Senaculum, or council chamber; E, a temple to Mercury; F, a Chalcidicum; G G, curiae; H, treasury; I, triumphal arch; K, araeostyle portico with ambulatory above.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Fig. 123. Fortúm or Pomprit.

220. Triumphal Arches. The Romans were the first people who erected triumphal arches; their earliest examples being extremely simple and plain. A plain arch with a statue of the victor and his trophies on the summit, was for a long period the only method practised. The arch by degrees expanded in after times, the style became enriched, and the whole was at length loaded with a profusion of every sort of ornament. Latterly they were a rectangular mass (see fig. 124. of the arch of Constantine), penetrated by three arches, a central and two smaller side ones. The upper part consisted of a very high attic, frequently covered with inscriptions and bas reliefs, statues, triumphal cars and ornaments of that kind. The keystones were sometimes decorated with figures of victory. Of the triumphal arches that remain there are three classes: —first, those consisting of a single arch, as the arch of Trajan at Ancona, and Titus at Rome; second, those in which there are two arches, as in the example at Verona; third, those with three arches, whereof the central was the principal one, and those at the sides much smaller, as the arches of Constantine, Septimius Severus, &c. The most ancient of the remaining arches is that of Augustus at Rimini. It was erected on the occasion of his repairing the Flaminian way from that town to Rome. The erection of these triumphal arches afforded the means of gratifying the extraordinary vanity of the people with whom they originated. Many of them are in very bad taste; a remark that applies even to the Arch of Titus, which was erected before the arts had more than begun to droop. The orders applied to them we do not think it necessary to describe in detail, because inapplicable except under precisely similar circumstances.

221. Bridges. – There is perhaps no single point in the history of architecture by which the civilisation of a people is so easily recognised as by that of their bridges. Latterly, in this country, the division of science as well as labour has so changed, that it seems almost necessary to refer to other works for knowledge on this subject; but as this is one in which architecture in all its branches must be considered, we shall here, as in the other sections of this work relating to the point in question, treat it in such manner as to give the reader some notion of the subject. The history of the bridges in every nation is connected with local causes, which have great influence on their construction; and though in other respects a nation may in the arts have attained a high pitch of excellence, yet it is possible that in bridge building their progress may be very limited as respects science. The matter will dependentirely on the nature of the country. In our view of Grecian Architecture this subject has not been even mentioned. and it is nearly certain that Greece boasts no

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

Fig. 121. Fr.AN AND view OF THE ARch of coxstax rise.

bridge whose date is anterior to its occupation by the Romans. But, independent of its want of acquaintance with the arch, the circumstance may be accounted for by the country not being intersected by any river of magnitude. Those to which one might be inclined to attach the name of river, are rather mountain torrents than sheets of water rolling their streams down to the ocean. A single arch in most cases would be all that was necessary to connect opposite banks, and the rocks themselves would form abutments for the single arch that was to connect them, without danger of failure. 222. In Italy, however, a country watered by many and considerable rivers, the study of the architecture of bridges was indispensable, as well for the accommodation of the cities with which it abounded, as for the service of the constant military expeditions of the restless and craving people who inhabited its surface. From its very earliest foundation, no city in the world would sooner have been placed in the predicament of requiring bridges than Rome herself; besides which, skill was required in their construction over a river like the Tiber, rapid and liable to be swelled by sudden floods. The earliest bridges of the Romans were of timber: such was that which joined the Janiculum to the Mons Aventinus, called the Pons Sublicius from the sublicae, stakes (Liv. i. c. 33.), whereof it was composed. It is not here our intention to enumerate the ancient bridges of Rome; but the ruins of those which have come under our observation exhibit skill and science not inferior to the most extraordinary examples which modern art can exhibit; witness the Pons Narniensis on the Flaminian way near Narni, about sixty miles from Rome. It was built by Augustus, and at the present day there remains, as though standing to mock modern science, an arch of a span of 150 ft., whose intrados is 100 ft. above the level of the river below. But of the works of this kind executed by the Romans we know of none, either in ancient or modern times, that is comparable with that erected by Trajan over the Danube, whose piers from their foundation were 150 ft. in height, and the span of whose arches was 170 ft., and to the number of twenty. The bridge was 60 ft. in width. This work, whose existence is scarcely credible, putting in the background all that of which in the present day it is our habit to boast, is reputed to have been destroyed by Hadrian, the successor of its founder, under a pretence that if the barbarians became masters of it, it might serve them as well

[graphic]

for making incursions on the empire, as for the empire in repressing those incursions. But other less creditable motives have been attributed to Hadrian for its destruction, one of them the envy he had of the name of its founder. There are still partial remains of an ancient Roman bridge over the Tagus near Alcantara. This consisted of six arches, each 80 ft. span, extending altogether 800 ft. in length, and some of them 200 ft. high above the river. We do not, in closing our brief view of the bridges of the Romans, more than mention the extraordinary temporary bridge which Caesar threw over the Rhine. 223. Aqueducts. – It is obvious that of all the requisites for a city, the supply of wholesome water is only equalled by that of discharging it, which latter we have before seen was well provided for in the Eternal City. The aqueducts by which the Romans supplied their cities with this necessary element, are among the largest and most magnificent of their works. Their ruins alone, without other testimony, supply the means of estimating their extraordinary power, skill, and industry. They are works which sink into nothingness all other remnants of antiquity, not even excluding the amphitheatres, which we shall soon have to notice, because they were for the comfort, not the pastime, of the people. The earliest aqueduct was that of Appius Claudius, which we have above noticed as constructed in the 442d year of the city. It conveyed the Aqua Appia to Rome, from a distance of between seven and eight miles, by a deep subterraneous channel upwards of eleven miles in length. We shall here digress for a moment, by observing that upon the discovery of good water at a distance from the city at a much higher level than the service therein indicated, it was the practice to supply by means of a channel raised at any height as the case needed, through a stone-formed trough raised on the tops of arches as the course of it required over valleys, and otherwise became necessary from the nature of the face of the country, such a quantity as the source would afford. Hence the arcades raised to carry this simple trough of supply were often of stupendous height, and their length was no less surprising. In the present day, the power of steam has afforded other means of supplying a great city with water; but we much question whether the supply afforded by all the concealed pipes of this vast metropolis can compete in refreshment and general utility to its inhabitants with those at the present day poured into Rome, without becoming a burthen to the respective inhabitants, and this principally from the means which their predecessors provided. 224. The aqueduct of Quintus Martius, erected 312 years before Christ, is among the most extraordinary of the Roman aqueducts. Commencing at a spring thirty-three miles distant from Rome, it made a circuit of three miles, and then, after being conveyed through a vault or tunnel of 16 ft. in diameter, continued for thirty-eight miles along a series of arcades 70 ft. in height. It was formed with three distinct channels, one above the other, conveying the water from three different sources. In the upper one was the Aqua Julia, in the next the Aqua Tepula, and in the lowest the Aqua Martia. The Aqua Virginia was constructed by Agrippa, and in its course passed through a tunnel 800 paces in length. The Aqua Claudia, begun by Nero, and finished by Claudius, of which fig. 125. shows several arches, conveyed water to # Rome from a distance of thirty-eight # miles; thirty miles of this length was - # subterraneous, and seven miles on arcades, # and it still affords a supply of water to the # city. The Anio was conveyed to Rome # by two different channels: the first was carried over a length of forty-three miles, and the latter of sixty-three, whereof six miles and a half formed a continued series of arches, many of them upwards of 100 ft. in height above the ground on which they stood. At the beginning of the reign of Nerva, there were nine great aqueducts at Rome. That emperor, under the superintendence of Julius Frontinus, constructed five others, and at a later period there were as many as twenty. According to Frontinus (de Aquaeductibus) the nine earlier aqueducts supplied 14,018 quinaria daily, which are equal to 27,743,100 cubic ft.; and it has been computed that when all the aqueducts were in delivery, the surprising quantity of 50,000,000 of cubic ft. of water was afforded to the inhabitants of Rome, so that, reckoning the population at one million, which it probably never exceeded, 50 cubic ft. of water were allowed for the consumption of each inhabitant. More magnificent Roman aqueducts are, however, to be found in the provinces than those that supplied the city. That of Metz, whereof many of the arcades remain, is one of the most remarkable; extending across the Moselle, a river of considerable breadth where it crosses it, it conveyed the water of the Gorse to the city of Metz. From the reservoir in which the water was received, it was conducted through subterranean channels of hewn stone, so spacious that in them a man might stand upright. The arches appear to have been about fifty in number, and about 50 ft. in height. Those in the middle of the river have been swept away by the ice, those at the extremities remaining entire. In a still more perfect state than that at Metz is the aqueduct of Segovia,

Fig. 125. aqua Claubra.

[graphic]
« ZurückWeiter »