The great distinction between the last mentioned and the Roman style is in the employment of the arch. The use of the arch gave the Romans great advantage over all previous nations, and permitted of great variety in the construction of their buildings. This people aimed rather at utility than ornament ; and although many of their buildings are well worthy of admiration on account of their appropriateness to the purposes for which they were intended, and even of some degree of beauty, yet they may not be compared with the purity and grandeur of Grecian taste. The Greeks were lovers of art for its own sake, the Romans for the sake of the benefits it afforded them. We must not, however, consider the Romans as devoid of taste or original concep tion, for they may claim the Corinthian order almost entirely as their own, and this says not a little for their appreciation of the beautiful. They had this advantage also over the Greeks, that whereas the latter were confined to one plan, the parallelogrammic, which gave their structures a mo notonous appearance, they, on the contrary, could vary the form in any way they deemed suitable ; and this intro duced the practice of grouping, or composition, as it is called. The introduction of another practice we owe to the Romans, namely, that of internal decoration. Thus, while the Greeks may claim the palm for purity of taste, the Romans take precedence in utility and variety of construction.
Having thus considered the history of our subject from its earliest commencement to the perfect development of the great principles of construction, we deem it advisable to postpone the consideration of the later styles to their respec tive heads. We have now arrived at the grand model of all
future eras, and to which all modern styles owe their origin. The Romans, owing to their wide-spread dominion, have introduced their knowledge of the arts throughout almost the entire world, and so their architecture has been the grand prototype of all succeeding ages. For although the variation of different styles from each other, and also from their com mon pattern, be considerable, yet there can be no doubt as to the source from whence they all had their origin. It is true that, at first sight, the elaborate edifices of the style known under the name of Perpendicular, seem to have but little affinity to the heavy Norman structure ; and yet when the intermediate links arc added to the chain by which they are connected, few persons will be found to question their imme diate relation; and certainly the step between the Norman and late Roman requires but little explanation. Considering, therefore, the Roman as the foundation upon which medi eval, as well as modern architecture was erected, we leave each style to be considered under its separate title.
It is our intention to enter into a more minute investiga tion of this subject under the following heads :—BABYLONIAN ARCHITECTURE, BYZANTINE, CELTIC, CHINESE, EGYPTIAN, ENGLISH, ETRUSCAN, GOTHIC, GREEK, HINDOO, ITALIAN, MEXICAN, MOORISH, NORMAN, PELASGIAN, PERSIAN, POINTED, and ROMAN.