Characteristics of Laic,- Roman Art.—But neither at Rome itself nor in the extensive realms over which it ruled were temples the most splen did examples of Roman architecture. When, toward the close of the Republic, immense luxurious buildings were erected in which storey towered over storey, in which neither the simple ground-plan of the temple nor its dimensions could be made serviceable, in which its del icacy of form no longer found application; when the character of the building could no longer be expressed exclusively by colonnades, but by stupendous wall-masses to which life must be given by a wealth of detail,— then it became necessary to connect by means of arches piers formed out of the To break up and give life to these piers, a system of columns and entablatures was applied as an external covering. The columns no longer had really to bear the entablatures: this work was per formed in a greater degree by the walls; therefore the intercolumniations were widened until they approached Etruscan proportions.
Tuscan Ordcr.—The details, used more for effect, lost the Grecian refinement of proportion; the delicate and energetic line of the Doric echinus was no longer expressive, the tapering shafts of the Doric columns stood in too severe a contrast to the perpendicular lines of the piers, and the absence of a base could in a many-storeyed building no longer be made to express energetic strength; and thus the Doric order was in a sense worked over and the Etruscan or Tuscan formed out of it. In lofty storeys parapets between the piers and arches were necessary. These on the one hand, and on the other the purpose of the structure, made it allowable to lighten the forms of the applied architectural frontis piece. Thus the columns became more slender and the entablatures less heavy; in many cases the columns did not reach the full height of the storey, but were furnished with a stylobate, or pedestal reaching to the level of the parapet.
This storeys were built one over the other, and the modified Doric order applied to the lowest, the Ionic to the next, and the Corinthian to the third (pl. fig. 6). This system is usually considered Roman, and is contrasted with the Grecian—properly so, in the sense that the Greeks were no longer the ruling race, that their centres of influence were not in Greece, but that it was imperial Rome that decked herself with these monuments; but yet improperly so, since Greek masters and the Greek spirit erected those works for the Romans, and since every deviation was not a departure from the Greek sentiment of form, but was based upon the necessities of the purpose. We do not see the union of Etruscan and Grecian architecture into a specific Roman style, but a wider phase of the Grecian, or, if we wish to use another term, of the classic. The influence
of the Etruscan was so small that it cannot be considered as transforming, and Etruscan art itself had been influenced by the Grecian in its develop ment. Grecian construction was as well acquainted with the vault as was Etruscan. Both may have derived it from the same Oriental source, with which the relations of the Greeks were certainly sufficiently near.
The Tabularium.—The Consul O. Lutatius Catulus built the Tabula riumn (73 E. c.) on the southern side of the Capitol, opposite the upper side of the forum. This was the Hall of Archives and Treasury of the State, and consisted of a base TO metres (32'-'1 feet) in height, upon which stood a magnificent arcaded portico, the piers of which were set with Doric half columns, while above the arches ran a Doric entablature with four triglyphs in each intercolumniation. The attached columns are simply facetted upon their lower third, but fluted on their upper two-thirds.
Theatres.--To the middle of the last century before Christ, when prominent men endeavored to gain power by flattering the people of the Capital, belong a series of magnificent structures which were erected for popular favor in the most costly manner—particularly theatres, which, though built of wood, had their stage-walls covered with ivory, silver and gold plating, and other more or less costly materials, while purple curtains spanned the auditorium. In 58 B. c., Marcus Seamus built a theatre to contain eighty thousand spectators; in its costly decoration there were employed three thousand bronze statues and inlaid work of marble and gold. In 55 B. c., Pompey built the first stone theatre at Rome, seating forty thousand persons; above the seats rose the Temple of Venus Victrix. In 54 B. C., L. .zronilius Paulus constructed the Basilica and also the most stupendous structure of the forum, the Basil iea –Emilia, which was completed in 31 B. C. ; to this Cesar subscribed a equal to about fifteen hundred thousand dollars. In the year 5o B. c. a partisan of C. Curio, built two adjoining theatres of wood, which served by day for the drama, but in the evening were revolved, with all the spectators, on pivots, so as to front each other, and thus formed an amphitheatre, the arena of which furnished new enjoyment to the people. In 46 B. c., Cmsar himself built a wooden amphitheatre covered with a silken canopy; lie also constructed a colossal edifice arranged to form a huge artistic reservoir for the display of naval combats.