« ZurückWeiter »
entrance, and was surmounted by a pediment roof. The temple now stands in a private rden. so We have reserved for the last example of a circular temple the celebrated Pantheon, supposed to have formed at one time a portion of the baths of Agrippa; but whether with truth we must decline investigating, as unconnected with our present purpose. Our own belief is, that the body of the temple was erected in the time of the republic with simple large niches, as in figs. 118. and 119., in the left sides whereof it is shown as originally built, and on the right sides as now standing, and that the portico was appended by Agrippa about A. D. 14, at which time the columns were added to the niches, and other alterations made, as seen on the right half of the plan and section. The interior is circular, and about 139 ft. diameter, measuring from inside to inside of the columns, which are about 33 ft. high. At a height of 75 ft. from the ground in the interior springs the hemispherical dome, which has five horizontal ranks of caissons or panels, the top of the dome being terminated by what is technically termed an eye, or circular opening, about 27 ft. diameter. All that is found in the temple is of the Corinthian order. (216.) Fig. 120. is an elevation of the Pantheon, with the portico of the Parthenon below it, for the purpose of comparing the relative sizes of the porticoes of the two buildings. The portico, it will be seen, is octastyle, and projects 62 ft. from the circum| ference of the circular part of the Fig. 118. : G|| edifice. The shafts of the columns Eris' are plain, and the portico is surmounted by a pediment similar to that on the wall of the building. The columns are 47:03 ft. high, and their lower diameter 4-79 ft. The entablature is 10-22 ft., or nearly, not quite a fifth of the height of the column. The profile of the order is bold and well conceived, and the execution in a good style. It has been stripped of its ornaments, many whereof were bronze, by the cupidity of the possessors of power at various times. Though the present interior is comparatively modern, we think it right to give the following particulars of the order: — The columns are 34.67 ft. high, the lower diameter being 3-64 ft. The shafts are fluted, and have what are called cablings up one third of their height. It will be seen on inspection of the plan that these columns are placed in front of the great niches. We are not aware that the circumstance whereto we are about to advert has been heretofore noticed, and we give the result of our calculation in round numbers only, as an approximation to the truth. The rules for lighting apartments will form the subject of a future section. We shall here merely observe, that the contents of the building, measuring round the inner convexity of the columns, and not calculating the niches, is about 1,787,300 cubic feet, and that the area of the eye of the done is about 32 square st., from which it follows that 2226 cubic ft. of space in this building are lighted by 1 foot superficial of light. The building is neither gloomy not
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.
217. The Temple of Peace has been reserved by us to close the notices of the Roman tem: ples, 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 building. The former will be seen to have been rectangular, with.” porch extending along the whole
breadth of the building in frontThis was vaulted, the summit,” teriorly being 35 ft. high; and,”
front were seven semicircular-headed
i apertures serving as entrances: The
length of the temple outside, not
including the depth of the porch, * was 294 ft.; depth of the porch 39
ft. ; width of the building 197 ft. The wn of the tour g divided
the central one was a rectangul"
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—so Fig. 12? Taxiri-e ur peace pears to have been founded by Claudius, ----- - 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 Cirilia 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 Ponipeii 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.
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 rect: angular 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 section* 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 depend entirely 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
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