History of Ancient Art

by Franz von Reber

All these structures were emphatically works of engineering; the building of walls, gateways, drains, and vaulted roofs presented nothing to elevate them into independent and artistic monuments of architecture. Among the Roman temples of this period only two appear to have been of importance for the history of art—the national shrine of Diana upon the Aventine, and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; both built by the last three kings, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus. The first of these structures has been compared to the Artemesion at Ephesos, the national sanctuary of the Ionians; but it would be wrong to draw from this a conclusion in regard to the style of the Latin temple of the same goddess, which was most probably Tuscan, as that of the Temple of Jupiter is known to have been, from descriptions given by ancient writers as well as from the recent excavations of Jordan. According to Dionysios of Halicarnassos, the substructure of this latter building—eight hundred Roman feet in circumference—was only fifteen feet greater in length than in width; these dimensions agree well with the proportion of five to six given by Vitruvius for the temple architecture of the Etruscans. The cella of the Capitoline temple was divided into three ædiculæ, another peculiarity assigned by the Roman writer to the sacred edifices of Etruria; it had three ranges of columns, of six each, before the cella, which provided a portico equal in depth to half the entire length of the building. The ornamentation, which will be treated more fully in the section upon Roman sculpture, was wholly the work of the Etruscans. This race had, indeed, settled in Rome between the Capitol and the Palatine, where the name of Vicus Tuscus preserved, until late historical times, the memory of their settlement and of the considerable part taken by them in the peopling of ancient Rome. It is even stated by Pliny (xxxv. 12, 45, and 154) that, for seventeen years after the expulsion of the kings—namely, until the building of the Temple of Ceres upon the Circus—all the sanctuaries of Rome were Etruscan; that is to say, were not only built in the Tuscan style, which might more properly be called the ancient Italian, but were erected by Etruscan artificers, or, at least, under the direction of Etruscan artists.

Even the Temple of Ceres appears to have been Tuscan in general disposition, its cella having been triply divided and its intercolumniations excessively great, as may be seen by the remains of a later restoration still existing in S. Maria in Cosmedin. In this temple, however, the influence of Greek architecture, introduced through the Hellenic colonies of Magna Græcia, had already begun to gain ground in the arrangement and the details, though the ancient Italian traditions were too deeply rooted to permit it essentially to alter the original distribution. The structure remained nearly square, being equally divided between the portico and the cella. This is illustrated by the Temple of Concord, erected by Camillus upon the Forum at the foot of the Capitol in 367 B.C. The limited area, defined by the neighboring buildings and by the steep slope of the hill against which it stood, prevented even later restorations from elongating its plan. The extended oblong of the Hellenic temple was naturally adopted, in place of the heavy proportions of the Tuscan temples, as soon as the execution of the entablature in stone rendered the excessively wide intercolumniations impossible, and placed insurmountable difficulties in the way of the broad front. Still, the Etruscan or ancient Italian division of the building was retained, inasmuch as the columns were usually restricted to a pronaos of great depth, such as is shown by the ruins of four temples in the Forum Romanum. The Roman prostylos, as Vitruvius terms a temple thus planned, may be regarded as the first compromise effected between the ancient Italian and the Hellenic disposition. (Figs. 267 and 271.)

The early Italian manner of abutting the undeveloped back of the building upon the circuit wall of the temenos, or against a cliff, seems to have long remained in practice; but, in cases where this was impossible, the bare sides and rear of the cella appeared intolerable when compared with the outstanding wings of the Greek peripteros. Although, in some instances, the prostylos plan was adopted in later ages, as in the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (Fig. 268) in the Forum, where the enclosing walls of the cella are treated with pilasters, this was only in cases where the sanctuary was so crowded by adjoining buildings that little else than the portico could be seen. In completely isolated structures the desire of approaching the peripteral effect led to the application of engaged columns to the side and rear walls of the cella, thus attaining, in the so-called prostylos pseudoperipteros, the highest stage of that development of sacred architecture which was peculiar to Rome. The purely peripteral form was naturally adopted in later times, primitive cellas being enclosed by outstanding ranges of columns; but two fundamental peculiarities were always retained: the pronaos always formed a deep portico, and the naos always remained a spacious hall, the peripteral columns being fitted to it, and made of subordinate importance. The dimensions of the cella were thus not restricted by the pteroma, as was the case in the temples of Greece, and especially in those of Sicily; for the chief difference between the architectural tendencies of the Greeks and the Romans was that the former devoted their attention almost exclusively to the perfection of external appearance, creating monuments of unequalled beauty, while the latter held material usefulness to be of the first importance, assigning to technical excellence a second place, and to artistic design but a third, thus creating imposing interiors admirably adapted to their purposes.

The details of their architecture were with the Romans purely decorative and applied. The Doric style, which had predominated in Lower Italy and Sicily, and must have offered the most numerous models near at hand, was nevertheless least employed. It would be difficult to decide whether this is to be ascribed to the similarity of the Tuscan and Doric styles, and their derivation from a common prototype, or to the development of the two manners of building in different directions; certain it is that the channelled shaft was not employed, and the Doric entablature appeared only in an attenuated and purely ornamental imitation, above the wide intercolumniations of the ancient Italian façade. The Tuscan (Fig. 269) became somewhat higher in proportion to its diameter, and was slightly altered in detail. The epistyle was diminished to a narrow band, and, in the smaller temples, was usually carved from one stone with the frieze of triglyphs, thus destroying the separate importance of these two members. The diminutive triglyphs were frequently increased in number above the intercolumniations; the chamferings were terminated above by a straight line, while the guttæ were lengthened and had a more marked conical form. The proportionally small metopes were either entirely without sculptured ornament, or were provided with rosettes, disks, and the heads of oxen; which last were introduced as a reminiscence of the barbaric custom, prevalent in early times, of affixing the skulls of the sacrificed animals to the wooden entablature. The corona was usually not inclined like this member in the Doric cornice; the mutules lost their guttæ, and became simplified to plain consoles. (Fig. 270.) In some instances Ionic elements were introduced into the Doric entablature, as in the sarcophagus—now in the Vatican—of L. Corn. Scipio Barbatus, who was consul in 298 B.C., where an Ionic cornice surmounts the frieze of triglyphs, and Ionic spirals decorate the lid. The Theatre of Marcellus displays a similar combination; and, in other cases, Doric forms are entirely supplanted by simplified Ionic members.