A History of Architecture in all Countries, Volume 1, 3rd ed. / From the Earliest Times to the Present Day

by James Fergusson

Composite Arcades.

The true Roman order, however, was not any of these columnar ordinances we have been enumerating, but an arrangement of two pillars placed at a distance from one another nearly equal to their own height, and having a very long entablature, which in consequence required to be supported in the centre by an arch springing from piers. This, as will be seen from the annexed woodcut, was in fact merely a screen of Grecian architecture placed in front of a construction of Etruscan design. Though not without a certain richness of effect, still, as used by the Romans, these two systems remain too distinctly dissimilar for the result to be pleasing, and their use necessitated certain supplemental arrangements by no means agreeable. In the first place, the columns had to be mounted on pedestals, or otherwise an entablature proportional to their size would have been too heavy and too important for a thing so useless and so avowedly a mere ornament. A projecting keystone was also introduced into the arch. This was unobjectionable in itself, but when projecting so far as to do the duty of an intermediate capital, it overpowered the arch without being equal to the work required of it.

184. Doric Arcade.

The Romans used these arcades with all the 3 orders, frequently one over the other, and tried various expedients to harmonise the construction with the ornamentation, but without much effect. They seem always to have felt the discordance as a blemish, and at last got rid of it, but whether they did so in the best way is not quite clear. The most obvious mode of effecting this would no doubt have been by omitting the pillars altogether, bending the architrave, as is usually done, round the arch, and then inserting the frieze and cornices into the wall, using them as a string-course. A slight degree of practice would soon have enabled them—by panelling the pier, cutting off its angles, or some such expedient—to have obtained the degree of lightness or of ornament they required, and so really to have invented a new order.

This, however, was not the course that the Romans pursued. What they did was to remove the pier altogether, and to substitute for it the pillar taken down from its pedestal. This of course was not effected at once, but was the result of many trials and expedients. One of the earliest of these is observed in the Ionic Temple of Concord before alluded to, in which a concealed arch is thrown from the head of each pillar, but above the entablature, so as to take the whole weight of the superstructure from off the cornice between the pillars. When once this was done it was perceived that so deep an entablature was no longer required, and that it might be either wholly omitted, as was sometimes done in the centre intercolumniation, or very much reduced. There is an old temple at Talavera in Spain, which is a good example of the former expedient; and the Roman gateway at Damascus is a remarkable instance of the latter. There the architrave, frieze and cornice are carried across in the form of an arch from pier to pier, thus constituting a new feature in architectural design.

185. View in Courtyard of Palace at Spalato

In Diocletian’s reign we find all these changes already introduced into domestic architecture, as shown in Woodcut No. [185], representing the great court of his palace at Spalato, where, at one end, the entablature is bent into the form of an arch over the central intercolumniation, while on each side of the court the arches spring directly from the capitals of the columns.

Had the Romans at this period been more desirous to improve their external architecture, there is little doubt that they would have adopted the expedient of omitting the entire entablature: but at this time almost all their efforts were devoted to internal improvement, and not unfrequently at the expense of the exterior. Indeed the whole history of Roman art, from the time of Augustus to that of Constantine, is a transition from the external architecture of the Greeks to the internal embellishment of the Christians. At first we see the cells of the temple gradually enlarged at the expense of the peristyle, and finally, in some instances, entirely overpowering them. Their basilicas and halls become more important than their porticoes, and the exterior is in almost every instance sacrificed to internal arrangements. For an interior, an arch resting on a circular column is obviously far more appropriate than one resting on a pier. Externally, on the contrary, the square pier is most suitable, because a pillar cannot support a wall of sufficient thickness. This defect was not remedied until the Gothic architects devised the plan of coupling two or more pillars together; but this point had not been reached at the time when with the fall of Rome all progress in art was effectually checked for a time.