ROMAN ARCHITECTURE. It can hardly be said that the early Romans had any style of architecture of their own, since they borrowed their ideas of building first from the Etruscans and afterward from the Greeks. In the time of Romulus their dwellings were of the rudest description, being chiefly corn posed of straw; and at a later period, their temples were only small square buildings, scarcely large enough to con tain the statues of their deities. The first king who constructed works of a large class requiring architectural skill was Ancus Martius. His first attempt was the building of the city and port of Ostia, at the mouth of the Tiber. Dur ing the time of Tarquin the Elder the city was much improved by the skill and enterprise of the Etruscans the great Circus was built, and the walls of the city constructed of large hewn stones. The great Cloaca, or public sewer, was also commenced, together with the tem ple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The decora tion and improvement of the city was greatly increased during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus; but the Capitol was not finished till after the expulsion of the kings. During the first two Punic Wars many temples were erected; but they do not appear to have been of great magnificence. Altogether, very lit tle taste had been shown in the Roman buildings till their conquests extended and they became intimate with the more costly buildings of their enemies. Metel lus Macedonicus, the contemporary of Mummius, the victor of Corinth, was the first who built a temple of marble at Rome; but from that time most of the larger edifices were built of that mate rial. Grecian art and architects were also introduced about the same period. Under Julius Cesar, many new and magnificent buildings were erected; and during the Golden Age, under Augustus, most of the finest edifices were built; architects flocked from all quarters, and especially from Greece, to beautify the city. It was said of Augustus "that he found Rome built of brick and left it of marble." Under Vespasian and the An tonines architecture flourished, as the remains of the Coliseum and the temples of Antoninus and Faustina testify. Af
ter this period, however, architecture declined till Constantine transferred the seat of government to Byzantium, when a new style was introduced.
In comparing Greek and Roman archi tecture there can be no doubt that the former greatly excels in the matter of taste. Among the Greeks, moreover, re ligion was almost the sole purpose for which architecture seemed to exist; while among the Romans their temples were neither so extensive nor so numerous as their buildings of public utility or con venience. Besides a large number of engineering works, there are still the remains in Rome of fora, baths, palaces, circi, theaters, amphitheaters, libraries, halls of justice, triumphal arches, com memorative columns, mausolea, and sim ilar buildings. The requirements of such edifices as these naturally led to the practice of composition and grouping, as one uniform plan of building would not have been suitable for such a variety of purposes. Another cause of variety lay in the employment of the arch, which allowed much greater latitude in com positions than the entablature of the Greeks. The semi-circular form of the arch next led to quite a new feature in architectural design—namely, the dome —a feature which gave a totally distinct character to buildings in which it was employed. The Pantheon is the most re markable example of this arrangement. The circular plan of building became also a favorite one for tombs and mau solea. Among the most noted of these was the mausoleum of Hadrian, remains of which now form the well-known castle of St. Angelo; and the tomb of Metella. A characteristic feature in Roman architecture, and one that en tered largely in the system, is the em ployment of order above order in the same building. The style of architec ture called the Roman order was in vented by the Romans from the Ionic and Corinthian orders; and hence it is sometimes called the Composite order.