The circular form was also a favourite one for tombs and mausolea, amongst the more remarkable of which are those of Augustus and Hadrian. The former consisted of four cylindrical stories, the diameter of each being somewhat smaller than that below it, and the uppermost crowned by a colossal statue of the emperor. The latter is now the well known castle of St. Angelo, and originally consisted of a cylin drical building, placed upon a square base, the height of which was about half that of the superstructure. No remains are now left of the uppermost stage of the building, which was also circular, and was surmounted with a peristyle of 34 Corinthian columns ; its diameter being about one-third that of the larger cylinder. Of a similar form is the tomb of Cecilia Metella, but devoid of the upper story. A more enrious example is the sepulchral monument at St. Rollie, which consists of three stories, the lowest a square base, raised on gradini, and covered on each side with sculptures in relief ; the next square, with an attached fluted Corinthian pillar at the angles, and an open arch on each side ; and the uppermost a Corinthian rotunda, forming an open or monop teral temple, in which are two statues. The tomb of Virgil consists of a square base, surmounted by a conical structure ; and it cenotaph at Constantina, in has the lower story cylindrical, surrounded by a peristyle ; while the upper is a lofty cone, formed in receding courses or steps. Edifices erected on polygonal plans were not uncommon, of which the octagonal were most feequent ; the latter form was commonly employed in saloons to public baths ; and there is an octago nal temple in Dioclesian's palace at Spalatro. Buildings of six sides were not common ; but there is one at Balbec of peculiar form, two of the sides measuring 110 feet each, and the four remaining only 8S feet. There is also a curious circular temple at Balbec, of curious design ; it is placed upon an octagonal base, the sides of which are curved inwardly, presenting a concave face ; and at the angles of which are placed columns bearing an entablature, which is curved in a similar manner to the base.
We have alluded to the previous examples, for the purpose of showing how infinitely varied Roman edifices were in the arrangement of the main parts, and how readily a different distribution of the same or similar parts were made to exhibit a dissimilar effect. Many examples in proof of the same might be offered, were it within our limits to do so, and these on a more extensive scale, as witness the baths, fbra, &c., with their many courts, saloons, galleries, and porticos, each of which might present some different method of distribution. It will thus be seen, how, in point of practical utility, the Romans took precedence of the Greeks, and how they were enabled to erect buildings suitable for any purposes which might be required. In such matters, they undoubtedly have the pre-eminence, but in matters of pure taste, they must be content to yield priority to the Greeks ; for although in many cases they have shown proof of excellency of design, of which we need no other illustration than the Corinthian Order, which was fairly their own ; yet at the same time, the generality of their designs do not exhibit that purity and simplicity which is the mark of true excellence. But besides
this, many violations of true taste are constantly occurring even in their best works, indeed they scent to have been inherent in the system ; amongst these, we may mention the inconsistent employment of the arch and entablature in the seine design ; and it is to be lamented, that instead of endea vouring vainly to unite the two systems. they had not strunk out in a bolder course by themselves, and worked out a con sistent style of building. It is true that they employed the arch very freely, and sometimes probably more so than correct taste would warrant ; yet at the same time they did not take that advantage of the possession of such means of construc tion as they might have done in a scientific point of view ; they piled arch over arch, and seemed to be pleased with their acquisition, and content to make use of it, but not to apply it with any idea of improvement. But there are still one or two other points which merit reprehension, for instance, the employment of columns merely for the purpose of decora tion, as where they are half inserted in the walls, or where pilasters supply their place. Now, columns are evidently intended for support, and they should always manifest such intention ; and where they are used in positions where such support is not required, their employment is certainly objec tionable, and would not be admitted in accordance with strict taste : the construction of ornament merely as ornament, and especially when its employment is liable to deceive, is to be condemned. A forcible illustration of the above kind is to be observed in triumphal arches, in which, although the columns be entirely isolated, and standing in front of the wall, they serve no practical purpose, their only use being to sup. port a projecting portion of the entablature ; and if it lie asked for what purpose this projection is made, the most ready reply will be to give an useless column something to do. The fact is, that they are both added fur the sake of effect, pro bably for variety in outline and for the sake of the deep shadow which such a projection would east : but as far as construction goes, the whole thing is a sham, and deceptions in buildings indicate a low ebb of taste and science in archi tecture. Another characteristic of Roman art, and one which entered very largely into the system, is the employment of order above order in the same building, which illustrates at once its virtues and faults ; fur while on the one hand, such an arrangement is incompatible with the requirements of the highest standards of taste, yet still at the same time it proves their aptness of invention, and versatility of design.
We have now endeavoured to show in as fair a light as possible, the comparative merit of the two styles ; and while, as a question of taste, we must without doubt yield the palm to Greece, we are inclined to think with Mr. Freeman, that architecture would have flourished more successfully at Rome, had she remained unacquainted with that of her rival.
Descriptions of some of the principal Roman buildings will be found in the body of this work ; we may refer especially to the articles under the following heads AMPHITHEATRE, BALBEC, PALMYRA, &C. The adaptation of the orders will be found noticed under CORINTHIAN, DORIC, TONIC, ROMAN, and TUSCAN ORDERS.