Under Vespasian, and his successors, architecture again flourished, to which the remains of the Coliseum abundantly testify. This was commenced by Vespasian, and completed by his son Titus, and its erection is said to have occupied no greater space of time than two years and nine months ; it covers nearly six acres of ground, and was reported capable of containing 100,000 spectators. The reign of Titus is also remarkable for the erection of the baths and triumphal arch which bear his name. Trajan is the next name worthy of record, as a liberal patron of architec ture, and amongst his works may be mentioned the forum, triumphal arch, and column which has never yet been sur passed. His bridge over the Danube, which was destroyed by Hadrian, was a bold undertaking; it is reported to have consisted of 20 stone piers, 60 feet wide, and 150 in height, the arches between being not less than 170 feet in span ; his architect was Apollodorus, who fell a victim to his master's jealousy, for blaming his architectural plans. Few princes erected a great number of edifices than did Hadrian, amongst which were the Maison Carree at Nismes, his villa and mausoleum, the amphitheatres at Capua and Verona, and the bridge over the Tagus at Alcantara. Besides these, he re-built Jerusalem, which he styled /Elia Capitolina, also part of the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens. In this reign also an aqueduct was constructed by Herodes Atticus to supply Truas with water, and, by the same man, a stadium at Athens 000 feet long, a stadium at Delphi, a theatre at Corinth, and baths at Thermopylae: Under the Antonines were erected the temple of Antoni nus and Faustina, the Antonine column, and that of Marcus Aurelius, besides many other temples and works in the pro vinces, amongst which may be enumerated the re-building of Smyrna, Laodicea, and other Asiatic cities. After this period architecture gradually declined ; a little improvement may be seen in the reigns of Septhnius and Alexander Seve rus, but taste had greatly deteriorated, and art had fallen to too low an ebb to be restored. Antoninus Pius is reported to have erected the vast edifices of Balbec and Palmyra, but the subject admits of a doubt. Dioclesian made a bold effort to restore architecture to its original position, but it was beyond his power, and although his buildings, his baths, and his palace at Spalatro were magnificent in point of extent, and a certain kind of grandeur, yet they bear evident tokens of the state into which architecture had fallen. The palace at Spalatro covered between nine and ten dues, one of the sides being 600, and the other 700 feet in length ; attached to it was a portico 500 feet long, embellished with painting and sculpture. Constantine was a great builder, but he transferred the seat of empire to Byzantium, and thus Roman architecture was superseded by- the new style which he intro. duced in his new capital. This change, however, is to be the less regretted, inasmuch as Roman art had already degen rated beyond hope of restoration, and new edifices of barba rous design had Iwgun to be erected at the expense of those of better design already in existence.
In comparing the relative merits of Greek and Roman architecture, there can be no question but that the former by far excels in matter of taste; and this, by many writers, seems to be the only question considered. But this is not fairly the whole point at issue between them ; there are other matters to be brought under consideration ; and such are— variety, as well in use as in design ; the capability of being adapted to different purposes of life ; as well as excellency and facility of construction. Now, although the Greeks far exceed their rivals in simple grandeur, chasteness of deco ation, and correctness of detail, still it must be remembered that their structures are chargeable with sameness and mono tony : their plans scarcely ever varied from the oft-repeated rectangle ; the only change consisting in the different arrange ment of the columns, and in the applications of the few orders of architecture which they possessed ; the only variation in plan which occurs, is to be found in the Erechtheum at Athens, and some smaller monuments, as the Temple of the Winds, the Choragic Monument of Lysierates, and such like. Grecian architecture was almost entirely devoid of composition ; and no attempt was made in them of grouping their several parts, so as to produce a varied, yet effective, outline.
Now, on the other hand, the Romans were not so much a sentimental as a practical people ; and this fact, we think, will account in a great measure for their different appreciation of the art under consideration. During the earlier period of their history, it will be found that they constructed only works of public utility and convenience, and whose only claim to beauty consisted in their magnitude, their grand conception, the mechanical skill employed in their construc tion, and their perfect adaptation to the purposes for which they were intended. The effect produced by them is rather surprise and admiration than pleasure ; they awe by their grandeur, rather than satisfy by their display of taste. Such works would not be classed in the present day under the term architecture at all, but under that of engineering—two terms which are perfectly distinct in this application, although both applied to works of construction, to buildings, or arti ficial erections, the one, however, applies more especially to the science, the other to the art, of building ; not that science is absent in either ease, but that art—that is, fine art—in the one case stands pre-eminent, as scientific skill does in the other. Under the term engineering we should
include the roads, bridges, aqueducts, and sewers, for which the early Romans are so noted, and whose mode of construc tion was probably learned from the Etruscans, who seem to have been a people of similar character, though of improved civilization, to the Romans. This practical character to which we allude, the Romans never entirely lost, even after they had become acquainted with the voluptuousness of Greece, and during the luxury of the court of Augustus and the succeeding emperors ; for although at this period they began to cultivate architecture simply as ono of the fine arts, still not even then did they lose sight of utility in their With the Greeks, religion was almost the sole purpose for which architecture seemed to exist ; with few exceptions, we have no other examples hut temples : on the other hand, the temples of the Romans were neither so extensive nor so numerous as their works of public utility or convenience ; and this also arises from their peculiarities ; for tht!y were neither so religious, nor so philosophical and eontempla tive, as the Greeks. Amongst Roman remains, besides the engineering works which we have above alluded to, we have fora, baths, palaces, circi, theatres, amphitheatres, libraries, halls of justice, triumphal arches, commemorative columns, mausolea, and such like. The requirements which were necessary for such buildings as these, led, no doubt, to the practice of composition and grouping, for it is very certain that one uniform plan of building would not have been suit able for such a variety of purposes ; hut this was not the only cause of variety in their buildings, although, perhaps, the principal one. Another may be observed in the employ ment of the arch, which allowed much greater latitude of construction than the entablature of the Greeks ; with the latter the intercolumniations were fixed to a certain gauge, or at least limited within a determinate range ; whereas, with the former, every facility was afforded for increasing or diminishing the space between the piers to almost an unli mited degree. It is not improbable, too, that the semicir cular tbrm of the arch, which was in such constant use, assisted in the development and frequent employment of cir cular plans, or of plans in which circular and curved lines were introduced ; for it is not unlikely that the existence of a form or figure in the elevation should suggest its applica tion to the plan likewise. This employment of the circle in the plans of their buildings led inevitably to that which was quite a new feature in architectural design, the dome—a feature, too, which gave a totally distinct character to the buildings in which it was employed, and introduced an impor tant element of variety into architectural design. Of this arrangement the Pantheon is the most remarkable example; and it requires none other, to attest to the importance of the change then introduced. The effect of the interior is strik ingly different from anything which had before appeared ; a vast area, such as that of the Pantheon, covered over by a single hemispherical dome, must, at the time of its erection, have produced a most wonderful and novel abet. Nor is the exterior devoid of novelty or eharacte•—a fact which is espe cially observable in the rectangular portieo—projeeting from a larger circular building. Such a combination forms a striking contrast to the uniformity of Grecian edifices. In the instance of the Pantheon, the exterior is destitute of columns, except in the portico. But there arc many build ings in which the circular plan was carried out with an external peristyle : such, for instance, is the temples of the Sibyl ; or, as it is otherwise named, that of Vesta at Tivoli. Buildings of this class were roofed with hemispherical domes, or with lesser segments of a sphere • but these were not visible on the exterior, being concealed by the projecting colonnade. Even in the Pantheon, where the dome is hemi spherical, and of so great diameter, it does not form a con spicuous object on the outside, for its springing line is situ ated at about the level of the lower cornice ; and its external height is still further reduced, by the base of the outer por tion of the dome being formed into several courses of steps. Ilad the entire height of the dome been visible from the exterior, it would have borne by fir too great a proportion to its base. In the time of Constantine, the circular plan was employed with an internal colonnade, as in the church of San Stephan° Rotund°, and that of Sta dostanga ; in both which cases, the circular portion within the colonnade is of greater elevation than that portion embraced between the. colonnade and external walls, and is covered with a dome ; but in Stn. there is a further peculiarity, for the columns are not only coupled, but arc arranged in an unusual manner, in pairs, one behind the other: the columns serve to support iu areado. Loth the-se edifices have been claimed as heathen temples, (the one as dedicated to Faunns, and the other to Bacchus,) but seemingly without any other foundation than conjecture, and the existence of some decorations which are • applicable to the Christian religion, as well as to the heathen mythology. A more notable example of the circular form is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, built by the empress 'Helena, mother of Constantine.