Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/893

I860.] Roman and Greek Dicelling-Houses. V2o read}- alluded, seems to us to be that whereas the great works of art of the former were mostly of marble and most highly and artistically finished, those of the latter, even some of the more magnificent, were constructed of much rougher and unpolished stone united by mortar, or sometimes of stone and brick in alternate courses. The Romans, however, excelled the Greeks in their perfect knowledge and application of the principle of the arch, with which the latter were unacquainted. We know that a kind of a pointed arch was in use among them, in corridors, but these are only met with in the Cyclopean mode of construction, and were, in all proba- bility, formed, not by building up stones arch-wise, but by cutting out a passage through the solid masonry, after being built up. Indeed there is no word in the Greek language for the word, arch. But its very frequent use by the Romans even in walls, where plain masonry would have been sufficient, evinces that among them it was a very favorite and common mode of construction. Some of the most splendid and magnificent remains of Roman Architecture at this day are those of the triumphal arches, built by the different Emperors to com- memorate victories. We may merely mention, as examples, those erected by Drusus, Titus Gallicanus, and Constan- tine, which still are to be seen. Although it is not pretended that either the Greeks or Romans ever attained to any very high proficiency in either machinery or mechanics, at any rate in no way at all approaching the standard which has been since reached, still it is a matter of history that the more common and simple machines, such as the lever, the capstan, the crane, pulle3 r , &c, were known to them, and used by them as by us for raising or ad- justing stones and other similar pur- poses, in their Architecture. The famous Trajan's bridge over the Danube is a very striking proof, too, that the Romans had acquired a very con- siderable skill in the art of Carpentry, as without such they never could have connected, by timber structures, arches so wide as in that bridge. We will now proceed to give a short description of the general form and ap- pearance of Greek and Roman buildings. We will begin with their dwelling houses, which, in neither case, in external ap- pearance had much pretension to beauty. Being built almost universally on one floor, they were devoid of that elevation or regularity which alone can produce a striking effect on the eye of the observer. In the Greek house there were two principal divisions, the men's and the women's quarters. The former was entered from the outer door through a narrow passage, and was in form an open quadrangle, surrounded by porti- coes, forming a kind of cloister which served for either exercise or meals. Round this quadrangle, behind the por- ticoes, were ranged the different cham- bers, dining-rooms, picture-galleries, libraries, bed-rooms, &c, At the end of this quadrangle opposite the front entrance was another door, leading through a narrow passage, into the women's quarter, which also was a quad- rangle, three sides of which were sur- rounded with porticoes, as in the men's ; on the fourth, usually fronting south, there was a vestibule, on either side of which were the principal bed-rooms. Be- hind these were large rooms, in which the women worked at their spinning, weaving or embroidery. The roof was usually flat, on which the inmates could either take exercise or bask in the sun. In some cases, although comparatively very rare, pointed roofs were given. The use of windows was also ex- tremely rare, and when necessary, such as when looking out into the street, were closed with curtains and shutters. Among the Greeks, fireplaces and chimneys were altogether unknown, and onty came into use by the Romans at a much later period. The Greeks were in the habit of heating their rooms by