Full transcript
0:24This next session follows our discussion
0:26of the architecture of ancient Greece.
0:28We will now look at Roman architecture with emphasis on the
0:32treatise for the late Republican period architect Vitruvius.
0:38In general, Roman Republican period architecture
0:41retained an essentially Greek understanding of
0:43buildings as sculptural objects arranged for
0:46maximum visual effect in loosely structured spaces.
0:51The image in this slide is a reconstructed view
0:53of the Roman Forum, but it could understandably be
0:56mistaken, at first glance, for a Greek sanctuary.
1:03The rise of Rome begins with the growing influence
1:06and eventual hegemony of a small agrarian town
1:09over its neighbors in the Italian peninsula.
1:12These neighbors included the Etruscans, who had adopted many
1:15customs and taste in art and architecture from the Greeks,
1:18who had established colonies in southern Italy and Sicily.
1:22Like the Etruscans, the Romans absorbed Greek culture,
1:25to the point of transforming their pantheon of
1:27gods to correspond closely with that of the Greeks.
1:32In the 3rd century BC Alexander the Great’s far flung
1:36empire in the east fractured into numerous smaller Greek
1:40kingdoms, which were continually at war with each other.
1:43Seizing their opportunity, the Romans asserted
1:46themselves militarily across the Greek world, including
1:50north Africa, and continued their march westward
1:53into Iberia and Gaul, and northward into Britain.
1:57At the height of the Roman empire the
1:59Mediterranean had become a Roman ‘lake’ of sorts.
2:07We ended our survey of Greek architecture by
2:09noting that the Romans adopted the Greek tendency
2:12to treat buildings as discrete objects set on
2:14large terraces that negotiated irregular terrain.
2:18An example of a Roman site that emulates a Greek
2:22sanctuary on a steep slope is the terraced temple
2:24of Fortuna Praeneste, at Tivoli, near Rome.
2:28You will note, however that in this case, there
2:33is an overriding axial, frontal symmetry to the
2:35complex, and a somewhat different attitude toward
2:38spatial enclosure, which is here more uniform.
2:45For all its similarities, Roman architecture diverges
2:48from that of Greece in a number of important ways.
2:52Besides their penchant for frontal symmetry and
2:54spatial uniformity, the Romans were inclined
2:57to classify and standardize things having
2:59to do with character, form and proportion.
3:03As this passage from Pliny the Elder’s Natural History
3:06shows, the proportions of columns are treated as definitive.
3:10Thus, Doric columns are made out to be six times
3:13as tall as their base diameter is wide; Tuscan are
3:17seven; Ionic are nine; and Corinthian are nine and ¾.
3:22Such standardization was never embraced in Greece,
3:25where buildings of the same type usually have
3:28parts with significantly different proportions.
3:37Another difference is in the understanding of
3:39the relationship between walls and columns.
3:43The Greeks thought of buildings as columnar structures,
3:45and used walls as infill between the columns.
3:53An example of this approach is the Monument of Lysicrates
3:55in Athens, where although the columns are engaged, and
3:59their back sides were designed to remain hidden from
4:01view, they were in fact finished in the round, and the
4:05spaces between them filled with individual wall panels.
4:13The building, in other words, was conceived as a columnar
4:16tholos, like the Tatton Monument in Yorkshire, which
4:20faithfully reproduces the ancient edifice, minus the walls.
4:28Temple F at Selinus in Sicily, at top right,
4:31also employs walls as infill partitions.
4:35By contrast, the Roman temple known as the Maison Carree
4:38in Nimes, France, shown below, treats the engaged columns
4:41as half-columns set against a single, uninterrupted wall.
4:47These two, radically different understandings of
4:50walls and columns produce thoroughly different
4:53results in the treatment of certain aspects
4:55of buildings, especially interior spaces.
5:03An example of such a difference is in the way Greek
5:06and Roman Doric entablatures handle external corners.
5:10In these paired images, you will note that whereas the Greek
5:13example on the left turns the corner with a triglyph, which
5:16represents a structural beam, the Roman Doric example on the
5:20right - which is actually an 18th century building treated
5:23in the Roman manner - does so with a metope fragment.
5:28This is because the Romans were more comfortable
5:30handling the problem of the corner triglyph
5:32at the level of the frieze, and treating
5:35triglyphs as attached decorative elements.
5:43You will also note the much less prominent
5:45echinus bowl in the Roman capital, shown on the
5:47right in comparison with a Greek example, and the
5:50introduction of a neck molding called an astragal.
5:54Note, too, the much narrower architrave, or principal beam.
6:03Still another difference between Greek and Roman
6:05architecture is in the conception of column responds.
6:13In the Greek examples on the left, which include Doric
6:16and Ionic buildings, the beams carried by free-standing
6:19columns are received at the walls of the buildings by antae.
6:24Although these devices have capitals and bases, their
6:27profiles are treated differently, so that they have
6:30more in common with the walls against which they are
6:32set, than the more sculpturally independent columns.
6:41Roman buildings, on the other hand,
6:42use pilasters for column responds.
6:46These are treated like rectangular
6:47replicas of the columns in front of them.
6:51The images on the right show 18th and 19th
6:53century buildings designed in the Roman manner.
7:00Another important difference between Greek and
7:02Roman buildings is that, whereas Greek temples
7:05stood on a krepis or krepidoma of three steps,
7:08as shown in the left-hand images, Roman buildings
7:12were raised on a podium, and approached and entered
7:15axially by way of a frontal flight of steps.
7:19The podium, which was usually proportioned to be
7:21about 1/3rd of the height of the columns above, was
7:24introduced as a way to protect temples and other
7:27buildings from occasional flooding of the River Tiber.
7:31The example in the upper right-hand
7:33image is the Maison Carrée.
7:36It was eventually abbreviated as a pedestal, as in
7:39the columns on the Triumphal Arch of Constantine
7:42in Rome, shown in the lower right-hand image.
7:49Yet another difference between Greek and Roman
7:52buildings is seen in the treatment of the Ionic capital.
7:55In the Greek examples on the left, the channel
7:58connecting the two volutes is curved or pulvinated,
8:01whereas in the Roman examples on the right, it
8:04is straight and horizontal, and called a canalis.
8:11One last difference which we will note, that
8:14distinguishes Greek and Roman-mannered buildings
8:16from each other, is the nature of railings.
8:23Greek buildings employed a latticework called clathri
8:26to support handrails, as can be seen in the upper story
8:29of the Stoa of Attalos in Athens, shown on the left.
8:34Although in truth Roman buildings used similar devices,
8:37which were called transennae -an image of which is shown
8:40at the top left- later Renaissance architects who revived
8:44Roman forms mistakenly assumed that small column-like
8:48candelabra that were frequently found in the ruins
8:51of ancient buildings were used to support handrails.
8:56Despite the erroneous association, these devices,
8:59which came to be called balusters in English, were
9:01worked into the Renaissance vocabulary of forms.
9:08The right-hand images show typical Renaissance
9:10‘potbellied’ and ‘double potbellied’ balusters.
9:13On the left are 19th and 20th century
9:16examples of Greek-style clathri.
9:19It is considered wrong to use balusters on
9:22buildings employing a Greek formal vocabulary.
9:25Clathri may however be used on Roman-style buildings.
9:33Having outlined the principal differences between
9:35Greek and Roman architecture, we will now take a close
9:38look at the contents of the Roman architect Vitruvius’
9:42Ten Books on Architecture, the De Re Architectura.
9:46This document is unique for being the only
9:49one dealing with architecture to have survived
9:51from antiquity, and the first one to treat of
9:54architecture as a complete body of knowledge.
9:57For although Vitrvius consulted numerous older Greek
10:00treatises, by architects like Hermogenes, Pytheos,
10:04Rhoikos and Theodoros, and others whom he named,
10:08which are now lost, these dealt with individual
10:11buildings that were designed and built by the authors.
10:14For this reason, the De Re Architectura is an
10:17invaluable resource that casts a huge amount
10:20of light on both Roman and Greek architecture.
10:28Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, or Vitruvius as he is more
10:31commonly known, was a 1st century BC Roman military
10:35engineer whose career took him on campaigns to,
10:38among other places, the Ionian region of Greece.
10:43His treatise, which is dedicated to the Emperor
10:45Augustus, deals with the design and construction
10:48of buildings, but also such things as military
10:51machines, sundials, clocks, etc., which a Roman
10:55engineer at the time was also expected to produce.
10:58His Ten Books were re-discovered in the year 1416
11:02AD by the Italian scholar Poggio Bracciolini,
11:05in the library of the monastery of St.
11:07Gall in Switzerland, and it exerted an enormous
11:10influence on Italian Renaissance architecture.
11:14Because the material in the Ten Books is extensive and
11:17organized in a manner peculiar to the mind of a Roman
11:20military engineer, the best way to begin becoming acquainted
11:23with it is to first consider the table of contents.
11:31It will be useful to note that of Vitruvius’s
11:33Ten Books, only the first four directly
11:36concern architectural form and composition.
11:39Books 5 and 6 describe exemplary buildings that Vitruvius
11:43was familiar with, Book 7 deals with finishes, and the
11:46remaining three Books concern such things as locating
11:49well-watered sites on which to found new towns, and the
11:53building of sundials, clocks, and military machines.
11:57We shall therefore concentrate on Books 1 through 4.
12:01In general, Book I can be described as dealing with Theory
12:04and Design; Book 2 deals with Assemblage, and includes
12:07an account of the Origin of the Arts and Building,
12:11and descriptions of building materials; and Books 3
12:14and 4 deal with Formal elements, which are categorized
12:17in typical Roman fashion in terms of columnar types.
12:21These are discussed mostly in
12:23connection with the design of Temples.
12:26In Book I, Vitruvius gives the Principles of
12:29Architecture, the famous ‘Vitruvian Triad’, in which
12:32he says that architecture consists of Firmness,
12:35Commodity and Delight [Firmitas, Utilitas, Venusitas].
12:41Also listed in Book I are the ‘Terms of Architecture’,
12:44which are best thought of as design principles, similar to
12:48those applied today by architects during the design process.
12:52These are Ordering, Disposition, Shapeliness,
12:55Symmetry, Correctness, and Allocation.
12:58Book III opens with a discussion of the Principles of
13:01Symmetry, which include ideal proportions and ratios,
13:04and anthropomorphic analogies, for instance the fact
13:07that the human figure can be inscribed in a square
13:10and a circle, and gender associations of the columnar
13:13types, according to which the stocky Tuscan and Doric
13:16types are thought of as masculine, and the more slender
13:19Ionic and Corinthian types are imagined to be feminine.
13:23Vitruvius then proceeds to describe the layout of temples,
13:26giving typical plan types, and distinguishing what he
13:29calls species, by which he means intercolumniations.
13:34Books III and IV continue with detailed descriptions
13:37of the Ionic, Corinthian, Doric and Tuscan types.
13:42The contents of the first four books
13:43are detailed in the right-hand column.
13:46You will notice some subjects are indicated in blue font.
13:50These passages are the so-called ‘excursi’,
13:53in which Vitruvius offers short stories or
13:57anecdotes that underscore points he is making.
14:00We will review some of these as we delve into the treatise.
14:09In his first book, Vitruvius talks
14:11about the Education of the Architect.
14:14He urges professionals to acquire
14:16both manual skill and culture.
14:19An architect, he says, “must have both a natural gift and
14:24a readiness to learn… He should be a person of letters,
14:28a skillful draughtsman, a mathematician, familiar with
14:32scientific inquiries, a diligent student of philosophy,
14:35acquainted with music; not ignorant of medicine,
14:39learned in the responses of jurisconsuls, familiar with
14:43astronomy and astronomical calculations.” He goes on
14:48to include mathematics, optics, geometry, and history.
14:56In order to illustrate the importance of a broad education,
14:59Vitruvius offers the first of his anecdotal ‘excursi’,
15:03which is the story of the Caryatids, or Women of Caryae.
15:06He recounts a passage in the history of the
15:08Persian Wars, when the Greeks had defeated
15:11the invading forces of king Xerxes of Persia.
15:15A Greek state called Caria had sided with the
15:17Persian enemy, and for this reason its men were
15:20put to the sword, and the women were enslaved.
15:24In order to further humiliate Caria, the Greeks required
15:28that married women continue to dress as if they were wedded.
15:32In designing the Erechtheum in Athens, the
15:34architect Mnesicles depicts these matrons
15:37condemned to forever carry the heavy lintel of the
15:40eponymous porch on the south side of the building.
15:43Although it is now thought that Vitruvius was recounting
15:46a fanciful legend about the Caryatid porch, that had
15:49arisen in the four centuries that had elapsed since
15:51the Persian Wars, he offers the story as a way of
15:55saying that Mnesicles could not have created a building
15:58of such beauty had he not been well-read in history.
16:06The passage in Book I that has resonated most profoundly
16:09in Western architecture is the so-called Triad, which
16:13are the principles of Firmness, Commodity and Delight.
16:16The Triad evokes the form of a tripod, which
16:19relies on all three legs to stand upright.
16:22Accordingly, a well-executed building must
16:25be equally sturdy, practical, and beautiful.
16:28What distinguishes the architect from the engineer, is
16:31the ability to imbue buildings with Delight, or Venusitas.
16:34Vitruvius’ Book 2 deals with the
16:42assemblage and materiality of buildings.
16:45As in Book I, the section opens with an ‘excursus’,
16:48an account that sets up the discussion that follows.
16:51The story he tells is that of the architect Dinocrates,
16:55who wished to follow Alexander the Great on his march
16:57to India and beyond, and serve as his architect.
17:02After many unsuccessful attempts to
17:04communicate his intentions to the king,
17:06Dinocrates resolved to seek him out in person.
17:10He devised a clever ruse to make it
17:12past the guards in Alexander’s camp.
17:16Being a man of impressive stature and build, Dinocrates
17:19dressed up like the demi-god Hercules, complete with
17:22lionskin and club, and strode resolutely into the camp.
17:28The guards did not challenge him,
17:29thinking he might in fact be Hercules.
17:33When asked by Alexander who he was, Dinocrates introduced
17:36himself and tried to impress him by describing his
17:40plan to shape Mount Athos into the figure of a man,
17:44in whose left hand an entire city would be built.
17:48Intrigued, Alexander then asked if there were fields about
17:51which could supply produce to sustain the inhabitants.
17:54When Dinocrates admitted that there were none, Alexander
17:57praised his vision but criticized its impracticality.
18:00In the end, the young king welcomed Dinocrates as his
18:05architect, and he went on to design the great city of
18:08Alexandria in Egypt, but he had been taught by the king
18:11that great works are always the product of collaboration.
18:15The point of the story is that architects should always
18:18be ready to recognize the limitations of their knowledge.
18:26Immediately after the story of Dinocrates, Vitruvius
18:28follows with a discussion of the Origin of the Arts and of
18:31Building, in which he tells the story of the Primitive Hut.
18:35According to the Roman author, in primitive times,
18:38humans constructed their first shelters by assembling
18:41branches and other available natural materials,
18:44to create a rudimentary roof and enclosing walls.
18:48This logical rustic edifice, argues
18:50Vitruvius, is the ancestor of all buildings.
18:53In the 18th century frontispiece by the French
18:56architectural theorist Laugier, shown on the left,
18:59a female personification of architecture points
19:02to the Vitruvian Primitive Hut as a reminder
19:05that all buildings ultimately harken back to it.
19:09On the right are two modern examples of
19:11pavilions that emulate the Vitruvian hut.
19:19In his discussion of the Principles of Symmetry,
19:21the Roman author explains how the proportions of the
19:24various parts of the human body relate to each other.
19:28For instance, there are so many hands, heads,
19:30feet and arms, in the height of a typical person.
19:34Many of the measurements used by the Greeks and Romans
19:36were derived from the human body; the inch, or uncia,
19:40for instance, is a word meaning ‘thumb’ in Latin.
19:44The digit, palm, foot, and cubit, or arm, are
19:47other examples of Greek and Roman anthropomorphic
19:50units of measurement, which we still use today.
19:55The metrological relief from Salamis in Greece, shown in
19:58the upper left-hand image, shows these standard units.
20:02Vitruvius backs up his discussion with references to
20:05a lost treatise by the Greek sculptor Polykleitos,
20:09known as the Canon, in which he explains the
20:12arithmetic relationship of human body parts, including
20:15subtle differences in male and female figures.
20:20The images used here and in some
20:22of the next slides are from Prof.
20:24Ingrid Rowland’s translation of Vitruvius,
20:27illustrated by architect Thomas Noble Howe.
20:29Vitruvius’s discussion in Book III of the hidden ratios
20:37in the human body have been made famous by Leonardo Da
20:40Vinci’s drawing of the Vitruvian man, showing how our
20:44height is equal to the length of our arms from fingertip
20:47to fingertip, and how our navel is the center of a circle
20:51described by the ends of our extended arms and legs.
20:55In Rowland and Howe’s modern illustration on the right,
20:58a more accurate image is shown of smaller, localized
21:01circles centered on the shoulders and hips, but the
21:04larger outline generally organizes around the navel.
21:12Also in Book 3, are descriptions
21:14and terms of temple Types, or plans.
21:18As every well-informed builder
21:19today still knows, these types are:
21:26-In antis, meaning temples with a single frontal
21:29porch and columns between antae, or wall ends.
21:38-Prostyle, meaning temples with a forward porch
21:40of free-standing columns [remembering that in
21:43Greek, stylos means column and pro means forward].
21:51-Amphiprostyle, meaning temples
21:53with prostyle porches on both ends.
22:00-Peripteral, meaning temples with
22:02surrounding colonnaded ptera or wings.
22:11-Dipteral, meaning temples with two
22:12layers of surrounding colonnades.
22:19-Pseudodipteral, which are dipteral temples with an
22:21omitted inner colonnade that widens the ambulatory.
22:30and -Hypaethral, which are temples without
22:32roofs, usually colossal buildings that
22:34were too large to span with ordinary beams.
22:42In listing the Species of temples, Vitruvius describes
22:46colonnades employing different intercolumniations.
22:50These were given as distances between the edges of columns.
22:54In Thomas Gordon Smith’s illustration on the left,
22:57the following Vitruvian intercolumniations are shown:
23:05-Pycnostyle, meaning columns set
23:07one and half base diameters apart
23:13-Systyle, which are set two base diameters
23:16apart-Diastyle, set three diameters apart
23:28-Araeostyle, set more than three diameters apart
23:36… and -Eustyle, set two and a quarter diameters apart.
23:42According to Vitruvius, this last intercolumniation
23:45was considered most satisfying, hence its Greek
23:48name, eustylos, meaning ‘beautifully spaced column’.
23:56In Chapter 3 of Book III, still speaking of columns in
23:59elevation, Vitruvius describes the neck contraction or
24:03diminution, wherein column shafts become more slender
24:06at the top, and entasis, which is the characteristic
24:10swelling of the diminishing shaft as the column rises.
24:14To explain how this parabolic curve was
24:16delineated, Vitruvius refers to a drawing,
24:19which however did not survive in his treatise.
24:27Nevertheless, we know from archaeological sites that
24:29preserve traces of the method of construction, that the
24:33curve was achieved by first drawing a circle using a
24:37compressed vertical scale, as shown in the lower left-hand
24:41image, where the center of the circle is the intersection
24:44of the line bisecting the one formed by connecting
24:48the base and neck, and the extension of the base line.
24:52By measuring outward from the center line and translating
24:56the compressed vertical scale to actual size, workmen
24:59were able to define a proper parabolic curve – the
25:03shaft’s entasis, which in Greek means ‘tension profile.’
25:13In Chapter 5, Vitruvius sets out the details of the Ionic
25:16type, including the capital, down to the smallest component,
25:20on the basis of equal subdivisions of larger parts.
25:28For instance, the eye of the volute is 1/18th the
25:31base diameter, and set 1/3rd of a base diameter
25:34down from the bottom of the architrave, in
25:36alignment with the edge of the lower diameter.
25:41As in his description of entasis, Vitruvius
25:44references a drawing to show how to delineate the
25:47Ionic volute, but the drawing did not survive.
25:49This led to the development of various Renaissance
25:52solutions, some more successful than others.
25:59In the 20th century, the Roman method of setting
26:01out the volute was determined on the basis of
26:04certain antique fragments that preserved the
26:06original compass points in the eye of the volute.
26:10One fragment from the Emperor Hadrian’s
26:12Villa near Rome shows four center-points
26:15for arcs swung consecutively around the eye.
26:22Elsewhere in Chapter 5, Vitruvius lays out
26:25the Ionic entablature, using proportions
26:27derived from the column base diameter.
26:34Thus, for instance, the height of the
26:36architrave is a half column base diameter.
26:39An example of an Ionic entablature built in the 18th
26:42century is shown below right, complete with faceted
26:46architrave, simple frieze, dentils and cornice.
26:55Continuing on, Vitruvius describes an Asiatic Ionic
26:58base, which is to say a base of the sort used by
27:01the Ionians of Asia Minor, shown at the top of the
27:04slide; and an Attic base, favored by the Athenians.
27:09The Asiatic type comprises, from bottom to top, a plinth,
27:13surmounted by the sequence: scotia, scotia, torus.
27:18The Attic type consists of plinth, torus, scotia, torus.
27:28Vitruvius continues by describing how to
27:29construct a pediment in the manner of the Greeks.
27:32He sets the apex of the tympanum, which is the
27:35inner triangular surface, up by 1/9th the width of
27:39the horizontal corona at the base of the pediment.
27:42Although Romans often made their pitches
27:44steeper, Vitruvius offers only this method.
27:49His description shows his bias
27:51for Greek details and techniques.
27:57Moving on to Book 4, past his account of the
27:59Ionic type, Vitruvius returns to his discussion
28:02of symmetries in architecture, and their
28:04derivation from the proportions of the human body.
28:08He speaks of Doric and Ionic systems as
28:11masculine and feminine, on the basis of their
28:13different proportions, and refers to Polykleitos’
28:15ideal body ratios as set out in his Canon.
28:23This curious interpretation of the columnar types would
28:25have baffled the ancient Greeks who developed them, and
28:28saw them simply as tectonic devices proportioned and
28:31articulated in accordance with their tribal sensitivities.
28:33Vitruvius was especially interested in justifying the ratio
28:36of column diameter to height, on the basis of the foot
28:40to height ratio of idealized male and female body types.
28:45So, for example, he says of the Doric: “Finding
28:49that the foot was the sixth part of the height
28:51in a man, they applied this proportion to the
28:54column… So the Doric column began to furnish the
28:57proportion of a man’s body, its strength and grace.
29:02Afterwards also seeking to plan a temple of Diana in
29:05a new kind of style, they changed it to a feminine
29:09slenderness with the same measurement by feet.
29:12And first they made the diameter of the column the
29:15eighth part of it, so that it might appear taller…
29:19This type because the Ionians made it first, was
29:22named Ionic… But the third type, which is called
29:25Corinthian, imitates the slight figure of a maiden.”
29:33Also in Book 4 is Vitruvius’s story of the invention
29:36of the Corinthian capital by the Athenian Architect
29:38Callimachus, who observed an acanthus plant
29:41growing around a basket set on young child’s grave.
29:47We have already summarized this account in
29:49our discussion of the Greek Corinthian type.
29:52Here again, Vitruvius appears to be sharing
29:54a later mythographic embellishment -what
29:57today we would call an ‘urban legend’.
30:04As we noted earlier, the Greek Corinthian
30:06capital varied from building to building, but
30:09the version that was developed by Polykleitos
30:12at Epidauros, shown on the left, appears to have
30:14served as the model for the Roman Corinthian type.
30:18The capital on the right is from
30:19the interior of the Roman Pantheon.
30:22Like other Roman Corinthian capitals, it is
30:25more foliate than the Greek types, and the
30:27underlying bell is therefore less visible.
30:30The fleuron, or flower-like motif at the top of
30:33the capital, is now made to overlap the abacus.
30:37Although in Republican Rome all three Greek types
30:40were used, in the imperial period, after Vitruvius
30:43dedicated his book to the Emperor Augustus,
30:46Corinthian was prescribed for all public buildings.
30:50The various parts of the Roman Corinthian capital
30:53are as follows: Rising from the moldings of the
30:57necking, in other words the astragal and fillet,
30:59there are two overlapping tiers of acanthus leaves.
31:03From behind the second tier, two cauliculus stems emerge,
31:08from the buds or junctures of which rise more fronds.
31:13These curl up under the corners of
31:15the abacus, and beneath the fleuron.
31:22For a base, Corinthian columns use a variant of
31:25the Greek Ionic, which from bottom up consists
31:32of plinth, torus, scotia, scotia, torus.
31:40However, the Attic base, shown below
31:41right, is also frequently employed.
31:48In Chapter 2 of his Fourth Book, Vitruvius offers a
31:51detailed description of the Doric type, including the column
31:54profiles and proportions, the entablature, and the cornice.
31:58He specifies the proportions of the various
32:01components as fractions or subdivisions of a
32:04half base diameter, which he sets as a module.
32:08In these images you can see that he indicates
32:10a metope fragment, rather than a triglyph,
32:13for the corners of the Doric entablature.
32:16Although his description is painstaking, the Roman
32:19architect was clearly not satisfied with some of the formal
32:22problems and contradictions in the Greek Doric system.
32:30Fluting of column shafts is an important
32:33aspect of the Western columnar types.
32:35In Greece, an unfluted column was considered unfinished.
32:39Romans sometimes omitted flutes, but used them
32:42more often than not, especially on interiors.
32:45Doric columns always have 20 flutes,
32:52whereas Ionic and Corinthian have 24.
32:56The Doric variety are shallow segments
32:58separated by sharp edges called arrises.
33:02They are described by raising an equilateral
33:05triangle between each arris, and using
33:07the apex as the center of an arc.
33:10The flutes are made to curve more
33:12tightly as they come closer to the arris.
33:16By contrast, Ionic and Corinthian flutes are
33:18separated by narrow bands, called fillets.
33:22A half circle is usually described between the fillets.
33:31A number of theories have been proposed
33:33to explain the origin of fluting.
33:36One these suggests that they are formalized
33:38striations left by a spade, during removal of the
33:41bark from tree trunks, to fashion column shafts.
33:45The Vikings are known to have used bark
33:46spades to prepare logs for use in buildings.
33:54Another theory is that the Greeks were inspired
33:56by Egyptian faceted columns, like the ones
33:59shown here, at the Tombs of Beni Hasan.
34:02The Egyptian examples, however, predate the
34:04earliest Greek fluted columns by more than a
34:07thousand years, and being tombs, are unlikely to
34:10have been visited by Dorian or Ionian builders.
34:17Still another theory is that the Greeks simply preserved
34:20their own traditions, as Mycenaean columns, which preceded
34:23the familiar Archaic and Classical period type by some
34:27500 years, are known to have sometimes included fluting.
34:31This was usually achieved by
34:33pressing rods into plaster surfaces.
34:40This tradition appears to survive in the
34:42occasional incorporation of convex members
34:45inside the flutes of Ionic and Corinthian shafts.
34:49A modern example of this detail, which is called
34:52reeding, is seen in the US State Department
34:55Treaty Room, shown below left, that was realized
34:57in the 1980s by architect Alan Greenberg.
35:04In Chapter 6 of his Book 4, Vitruvius
35:07provides details and proportions for doorways
35:09specific to the various columnar types.
35:12The Bank entrance shown in the slide is modeled
35:15after the Ionic doorway of the Erechtheum.
35:22In Chapter 7 of the Fourth Book, the Roman architect
35:25offers a brief description of the Tuscan type, which
35:28was used by the Etruscan people who once lived in the
35:31Italian peninsula alongside their Latin neighbors.
35:36Although Vitruvius considered the type to be a rustic
35:38variant of the Doric, his description served to
35:41validate it and, in the Italian Renaissance, to elevate
35:45it as one of the five accepted columnar systems.
35:50The map on the left shows the historic homeland
35:52of the Etruscans in Italian peninsula, in red.
35:57The areas in green, extending along the southern
36:00Italian and Sicilian coasts, show Greek territories.
36:08According to Vitruvius, the Etruscan temple
36:10typically had a deep hypostyle porch set in front
36:14of a cella with three separate compartments.
36:21The eaves and mutules or rafters projected out beyond the
36:25columns and walls by a quarter of the height of the columns.
36:29On the right is a view of the east
36:31porch of the 17th century Church of St.
36:34Paul at Covent Garden in London,
36:36by the architect Inigo Jones.
36:39The building is an attempt by Jones to faithfully
36:42reproduce an Etruscan temple, as described by Vitruvius.
36:50Always according to Vitruvius, Etruscan columns
36:53were seven times as tall as their base diameter.
36:57The capital and base were each proportioned
36:59to be ½ a base diameter in height.
37:03The capital comprised an abacus and
37:06echinus, like the Doric type, and the base
37:09consisted of a torus set on a round plinth.
37:16Although few original Etruscan columns survive, as
37:20they tended to be wooden, Etruscan wall paintings
37:23and other artworks occasionally represent columns.
37:27From these depictions it appears that the capitals
37:30originally comprised a deep bowl-like echinus, surmounted
37:34by an abacus, very much like Archaic Greek Doric examples.
37:40The echinus transitioned to the column shaft with a
37:42small necking piece, which may have been made of bronze,
37:46to judge from the green color that it is often painted.
37:51This device became deeper over time, so that
37:54later examples such as the one shown below left,
37:57feature a broad neck set between the echinus
38:00and an small round molding known as an astragal.
38:08An Etruscan-like capital was employed in
38:11the lower tier of the surmounted engaged
38:13columns of the Colosseum in Rome, shown here.
38:17This zone is sometimes erroneously referred to as
38:20Doric, on account of the more familiar vertical
38:23stacking of columnar types which involve a proper Doric.
38:30Note that at the Colosseum, the lower tier
38:32also lacks a frieze of triglyphs and metopes.
38:36There is no question that that columnar type used
38:39here is Etruscan; its incorporation into an ancient
38:42monument of such importance helped, together with
38:45the Vitruvian description, to establish the Tuscan
38:48type as one of the five canonical Renaissance Orders.
38:56Although Vitruvius does not mention it, the Composite type
38:59appears for the first time in the Augustan period or 1st c.
39:03BC, and was typically used in Triumphal Arches.
39:07It is thought to combine the three Greek types of
39:09capital, as a celebration of the Roman triumph over
39:12the Greek world, and its unification under Roman rule.
39:17Thus, the capital includes tiers of acanthus leaves,
39:20a prominent echinus, and large angled volutes.
39:21The frieze is sometimes pulvinated, and the cornice combines
39:21Ionic dentils with Corinthian-style brackets or modillions.
39:33Despite its name and the treatment of its capital,
39:36in its other details and proportions the Composite
39:39is closely associated with the Corinthian Order.
39:42It is sometimes called the Roman, or Italic type.
39:50It is a curious fact that Vitruvius, a Roman architect
39:53and engineer, does not describe arches in his Ten Books.
39:57Roman architecture often includes these devices,
40:00and the great arcuated aqueducts of the Roman
40:03Empire are still considered structural marvels.
40:06Vitruvius’s omission may be due to his Greek biases, for
40:10although the Greeks were familiar with the structural
40:12properties of the arch, and occasionally employed arcuation
40:16in their buildings, they relied primarily on trabeation,
40:19in other words a post-and-lintel vocabulary of forms.
40:24The Roman arch has a specific set of
40:26associated forms and terms, which the student
40:29of architecture should be familiar with.
40:32To begin with, arches are made either of radiating bricks,
40:35shown on the left, or wedge-shaped blocks called voussoirs;
40:39In some cases they employ a ‘bent architrave’ called
40:41an archivolt, an example of which is shown below right.
40:49This Roman arch is made up of
40:52voussoirs and a central keystone.
40:54The inside edge of the voussoirs is called intrádos,
40:58whereas the outside edge defines the extrádos.
41:02The arch springs from imposts, which are horizontal
41:05bands serving simultaneously as crowning members
41:08of the piers or abutments that support the arches.
41:12The elevational thickness of the impost blocks is
41:15usually 1/9th or 1/7th the width of the arch itself.
41:20The center of the arch is usually placed slightly above
41:23the top of the impost, to create a stilting effect.
41:27This elevates the arch and helps to make
41:29it look fuller, as its proper height can be
41:31obscured by the projection of the impost.
41:35For this reason, the lowest voussoir, or springing
41:37block, is also sometimes called a stilting block.
41:42Finally, the roughly triangular space
41:44between arches is called a spandrel.
41:50A motif that arose in Roman architecture and which is now an
41:53essential part of the classical repertoire, is the fornix.
41:57This is an arch flanked by columns, which is
42:00usually repeated across entire elevations, and
42:03is sometimes superimposed on different levels.
42:06One of the earliest examples of a building with
42:08a fornix theme is the Tabularium overlooking
42:11the Roman Forum, which is shown at top left.
42:16The fornix was typically used in stoas and the
42:22elevations of theaters like that of Marcellus in Rome,
42:25on the right, and amphitheaters, like the Colosseum.
42:33Rustication also entered the classical
42:35repertoire thanks to the Romans.
42:37Although the Greeks had used rustication for
42:39their fortification walls, under the Roman Emperor
42:42Claudius, the surface treatment was worked into
42:45formal compositions involving refined columnar
42:48expressions, fornix themes, and pedimented fronts.
42:53Examples include the Platform of the Temple
42:55of Divine Claudius, shown below left, and the
42:56Porta Maggiore in Rome, shown at bottom right.
43:05As mentioned at the start of this presentation,
43:07Roman urbanism initially followed Greek examples,
43:10that were either informal, as at the Roman Forum,
43:14or orthogonal in the Hippodamean manner, and
43:17aided by terracing when the terrain was irregular.
43:21As in Greece, civic and religious buildings were treated
43:24as free-standing structures to be appreciated in the round.
43:32On the accession of August Caesar and the establishment of
43:35the Roman Empire, public space was increasingly enclosed
43:39and structured about a principal axis of approach.
43:43Perhaps inspired by earlier Etruscan examples,
43:46temples were directional with frontal axes,
43:49although they continued to allude to the Greek
43:51peristyle type, through the incorporation of
43:54engages columns along the flanking cella walls.
44:02In this reconstructed model of ancient Rome, you can
44:05get a good understanding of the spatial qualities
44:08and directional nature of the Imperial forums.
44:15As the Empire expanded, permanent military
44:18garrisons were often established in conquered lands.
44:22The forts that housed the troops, known as castra,
44:25from which we derive our own word ‘castle’,
44:28were typically square in plan, and gridded.
44:32Soldiers were trained to erect them in a single
44:34day, sometimes no less that 5 or 6 hours.
44:42They included a main avenue, the Via Principalis,
44:45which intersected with the perpendicular Via Praetoria.
44:54At their intersection there were rectangular
44:56mustering spaces, including a forum and
44:59shops to cater to the soldier’s needs.
45:02Roman camps were essential small towns.
45:10Sometimes these impermanent castra would be replaced
45:13by durable buildings and transform into towns.
45:17New towns were called ‘coloniae’ and were
45:19laid out using the same guiding principles.
45:23Their gridiron street pattern survives in many places,
45:27for instance Torino in north Italy, shown on the right.
45:31In these examples, the two principal intersecting streets,
45:34known as the cardo and decumanus, can still be traced.
45:39As can be seen in the plan of the Roman colony of
45:42Timgad, in Algeria, shown on the left, the cardo
45:46usually terminated in a central forum, whereas
45:49the decumanus extended the full width of the town.
45:57The Hippodamean gridded approach is evident in the
45:59plan of the town of Pompeii, at the foothills of Mt.
46:02Vesuvius, near Naples, in Italy.
46:06Here the well-preserved urban fabric allows us to
46:09appreciate the layout of typical Roman townhouses.
46:13These tended to present simple walled elevations on
46:16the street, with few if any windows, and to deploy
46:19along an axis extending into the middle of the block.
46:28Along this axis were an atrium with four columns
46:31supporting an impluvium, or surrounding inwardly tilted
46:34roofs, which would direct rainwater to a shallow basin.
46:43The dining room, or triclinium, occupied
46:46the center of the axis and faced the atrium.
46:54Diners would recline in Greek fashion, but
46:56facing a central serving table or platform.
47:03Beyond the triclinum, one accessed a peristyle
47:07court, which contained a landscaped garden,
47:09often with fish ponds and fruit-bearing trees.
47:15The sequential arrangement of Roman houses is
47:17echoed in the layout of the Imperial forums,
47:20for instance the Forum of Trajan in Rome, and
47:23in Early Christian churches like the Old St.
47:25Peter’s basilica in Rome, which was
47:28entered through a peristyle court.
47:34Other urban building types included the insula, or
47:37apartment building, such as the example from the port town
47:40of Ostia, on the left, and public Bath houses, knows as
47:45Thermae, like the enormous Baths of Caracalla, in Rome.
47:50Roman cities also included theaters, council houses
47:54known as Curiae, stadia, hippodromes, and more.
47:59Many of these types originated in the Greek polis, or city.
48:06The rise of Christianity in the 4th century AD saw the
48:10transference by the Emperor Constantine of the Roman capital
48:13to the small Greek town of Byzantium on the Bosphorus, which
48:17is the channel connecting the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
48:22The town was renamed Constantinople, and grew into a
48:25second Rome, which stood for another thousand years.
48:30Because it was situated in a corner of the Greek
48:32world, the Byzantine empire, as the eastern half of
48:36the Roman Empire that was ruled from Constantinople
48:38came to be called, used Greek as its official language.
48:47In 1453, Constantinople fell to the invading Ottoman Turks.
48:52During the long siege of the city, a number
48:55of learned Byzantine Greek scholars like John
48:58Argyropoulos, shown at top right, and Cardinal
49:01Bessarion, below right, took refuge in Italy.
49:06On his arrival in Italy, Bessarion donated his vast
49:09collection to the Vatican and the Venetian Republic.
49:14This exodus of scholars and the remnants of ancient
49:16writings helped to spark the Italian Renaissance.
49:22This concludes our overview of Roman architecture.
49:26Our next session will focus on the architecture of the
49:28Italian Renaissance and the Baroque period that followed.