Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/389

FIFTH PERIOD.] ARCHAEOLOGY 3G7 more than one subject which can be positively identified as local. Nor would they have avoided so systematically as they have done subjects from the national Roman legends, which were then in high favour, and attracted poets like Virgil and Ovid. But while a complete dearth of imagina tive power may be denied them, these painters were pos sessed of a fine eye for pictorial effect, and of a refined taste in the management of their colours (Helbig, Wandge- mcilde Campanicns, to which is prefixed an elaborate in quiry into the technical processes employed ; and Helbig, Campanische Wandmalerei, 1873, where the sources from which these painters drew are fully pointed out). Medics. Closely allied to painting is the art of mosaic-working, which, though occasionally employed for the pavements of the earlier temples, as in the pronaos of the temple at Olympia (Expedition de la Moree, i. pi. 63), did not till after the time of Alexander assume an importance which entitled it to be ranked as an independent art. The first mosaic artist of consequence whom we hear of is Sosus of Pergamus, celebrated as having introduced the practice of decorating floors of houses with imitations of characteristic objects, such, for example, as the accompaniments of a feast in a dining-room. From Pergamus, Ephesus, Alex andria, and the chief towns of the Macedonian period, the art was afterwards transferred to Rome, where the nume rous villas and palaces furnished it with abundant occu pation. As an example of the work of this later time we have the large mosaic found on the Aventine in 1833, and now in the Lateran, which bears the name of Heraclitus as its author, and which, with its representations of all manner of remains from a feast, is an illustration of the class of subjects introduced by Sosus. We still possess a splendid example of their rendering of historical subjects in the mosaic found in 1831 in the Casa del Fauno at Pompeii, representing a battle between Alexander and the Persians (Miiller, Denkmiiler, i. pi. 55, No. 273). Arehitcc- What was said of the progress of architecture at the ture iii c i ose O f } a st period should be here borne in mind, as it continues to apply to the first half of the period now before us. While the building of Alexandria supplied a model and an impulse, which the successors of Alexander availed themselves of, in the construction of new towns, the example of boundless luxury, in the decoration of even temporary monuments, which was set by Alexander in the erection of a funeral pyre for Hephoestion in Babylon, was also eagerly followed by his successors. From the work of Callixenus on Alexandria we have (Athenians, v. p. 196) a description of the tent erected by Ptolemy Phila- delphus for a Dionysiac festival, and of the splendid colossal barge of Ptolemy Philopator on the Nile (ibid. p. 204, d). Still more magnificent and stupendous in its dimen sions was the ship of Hiero of Syracuse, with its granaries, dwelling-houses, towers, gymnasium, and park, for the construction of which Archimedes and the Corinthian Archias were employed. Greece proper, however, shared little in this prodigality. Thebes was, indeed, restored after its destruction by Alexander ; and Athens, still the eye of Greece, obtained many marks of favour from the princes of the time, who sought to identify their names with her glory by erecting public monuments of various kinds. Architeo The presence of countless specimens of Greek art in Rome, carried off by plunderers like L. Mummius, pro duced a general craving for Greek architecture also. The first step in this direction was taken by Q. Crccilius Metellus, who brought a Greek architect, Hermodorus of Salaniis, to Rome to build a temple to Jupiter Stator in the pure Greek style. The public favour with which this was viewed may be gathered from the fact, that shortly after we find D. Junius Brutus employing Hermodorus to Greece. ture in lionie. build a temple to Mars. Of the Roman architects who during the republic adopted the Greek style, the most distinguished were Cossutius and C. Mutius. The Greek had either supplemented or become blended with the native Roman architecture when the extraordinary activity in building, of which Pompey and Cuesar were the leaders, set in, not only in Rome, but throughout the provinces of the empire. The building of temples and monuments, which under Augustus had been the chief occupation of architects, gave way under his immediate successors to constructions of a more useful and sometimes of a colossal type, such as bridges, canals, aqueducts, and harbours. The enlargement of the imperial palaces on the Palatine, particularly the construction of the golden house of Nero, gave scope to the boldness of design and extravagance of execution possessed by the architects Celer and Severus. In the following times those of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian were characterised by a series of buildings which had not their equal in the architectural history of Rome, as, for example, the Colisseum, a building erected to con tain 87,000 spectators, and still in its ruins the most striking monument of imperial Rome. While the chief interest of Trajan was in the construction of roads, bridges, and harbours, his successor, Hadrian, was not only himself ambitious as an architect, but gave a new impetus to the erection of splendid buildings throughout the empire. From this time onward Roman architecture began to sink rapidly, its original tendency to florid decoration obtaining more and more free rein, till finally discrimination was abandoned. The rains of Palmyra and Baalbec (R. Wood, London, 1827), the arch of Severus, the baths of Caracalla and Diocletian, and the arch of Constantino, are evidence of this. For Etruscan Archaeology, see ETEUIIIA. (A. s. 1,1.) BIBLIOGRAPHY. The General Suljcct. Lubbock s Prehistoric Times, Lond., 1865 ; Tyler s Researches into the Early History of Mankind, Lond., 1870 ; Steven s Flint Chips, a Guide to Prehistoric Archaeology, &c., Lond., 1870 ; Fergusson s llude Stone Monuments in all Countries, their Ages and Uses, Lond., 1872 ; Lyell s Antiquity of Man (2d ed.), Lond., 1873; SouthaU s liecent Origin of Man, Philadelphia, 1875 ; Wilson s Prehistoric Man (3d ed.), Lond., 1876. England. Douglas s Nenia Britannica, Loud., 1793 ; Akerman s Archaeological Index, Lond., 1847, and Remains of Pagan Saxondoii), Lond., 1855 ; Bateman s Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire, Lond., 1848, and Ten Years Diggings, Lond., 1861; Roach Smith s Inventorium Sepulchrale, Lond., 1856 ; Wright s The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon (2d ed.), Lond., 18C1 ; Worsaae s Account of the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, Ireland, Lond., 1862 ; Davis and Thurnam s Crania Britannica, Lond., 1865 ; Brace s Roman Wall (3d ed.), Lond., 1867; Jewitt s Grave Mounds and their Contents, Lond., 1870 ; Evans s Stone Implements of Great Britain, Lond., 1874; Dawkins s Cave Hunting, Loud., 1874 ; The Transactions and Proceedings of the Society of Anti quaries, and kindred Societies, and the International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology held at Norwich in 1808. Scotland. Stuart s Caledonia Romana, Edin. 1852 ; Wilson s Prehistoric Annals of Scotland (2d ed.), Lond., 1863; Forbes Leslie s Early Races of Scotland, Edin., 1866; Stuart s Sculptured Stones of Scotland (Spalding Club), 1856-67 ; Simpson s (Sir J. Y.) Archaeo logical Essays, Edin., 1872; Maclagan s Hill Forts, Stone Circles, &c., Ancient Scotland, Edin., 1875 ; Trans, and Proceed, of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1781-1876 ; Catalogue of the National Museum of the Antiquaries of Scotland, 1876. Ireland. Wakeman s Handbook of Irish Antiquities, Dublin, 1848 ; Wilde s Descriptive Catalogue of the Antiquities in tho Museum of the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, 1857 ; O Curry s Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish, Dublin, 1875 ; Notes on Ancient Irish Architecture, by Lord Dunraven, edited by Mis.s Stokes, Dublin, 1875; The Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 1853-61; Proceed, and Trans, of the Royal Irish Academy, and of the Royal Hist, and Arch. Association of Ireland.

Denmark.—Thomsen's Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed, Copen., 1836; Worsaae's Alterthumskunde des_Nordens, Leipsic, 1847, and Nordiske Oldsager (2d ed.), Copen., 1859; Ellesmere's Guide to Northern Archaeology, Lond., 1848; Worsaae's Primeval Antiquities of Denmark, translated by Thoms, Lond., 1849; Engel-