Letters of an Architect, From France, Italy, and Greece. Volume 1 [of 2]

In my last I gave you some account of the buildings about the Forum, or perhaps I should say, about the Campo Vaccino, for the ancient forum was of much less extent from N. W. to S. E., which is its present direction, and greater from N. E. to S. W., reaching as far as the circular church of St. Theodore, supposed to have been a temple of Romulus; but not apparently to the building called the temple of Vesta, or even to the arch of Janus; as these stood, not in the great Forum, but in the cattle-market, or Forum Boarium. The church of St. Theodore above-mentioned, is a circular brick building, or at least coated with brick, for the interior is probably rubble. We have no reason to believe any of the present remains to be of very high antiquity, or if there be any thing of the sort, it is concealed by the more recent covering, which is supposed to have been made, or much repaired, at the time the building was converted into a Christian church. According to Manazzale it was ristabilita by Adrian I. in 774, rifabbricata by Nicolas V. in 1450. Among the arguments used to prove it to have been the ancient temple of Romulus, or at least to have occupied its site, is a fancied similarity between St. Theodore (usually called San Toto), and the founder of the Roman state; and the custom still existing, of carrying to it sick children for the recovery of their health, since it appears that the same practice prevailed in ancient times, with respect to the temple of Romulus. This argument is of some value, since the Romans still retain many local heathen superstitions. Behind this building is a small fragment of wall of opus incertum, against the Palatine hill, which we may pronounce more ancient than the temple itself, and probably of a republican period. The pavement of the yard in front, and of a considerable portion of the street, is formed of what is usually called serpentine; but I believe it has no affinity with the stone now so named by mineralogists, but is rather a green porphyry. One finds in Rome, however, another stone called green porphyry, very different from this, and agreeing with the red porphyry in every thing but its colour.

In the neighbourhood of the ancient Forum Boarium, are the remains of five edifices; the first in our route is the Arch of Janus, which I need not be very particular in describing, as it has little pretension to any sort of beauty. The mouldings, without being good, are better drawn, and better executed than those of the arch of Constantine, which were made for the building. One or two fragments seem to have belonged to something else, but in general there is a uniformity of design and execution. Close by this is the Arch of the Goldsmiths, dedicated to Septimius Severus, which, in spite of the name, is in fact, no arch at all, but consists of an entablature supported on two piers, which are ornamented with pilasters of the Composite order; it is covered with a profusion of ornaments in bad taste, but producing, nevertheless, some richness of effect.

The Cloaca Maxima is so little visible that one can hardly form a decided judgment concerning its construction. It is said to be of peperino, or rather of what Brocchi has called tufa litoide, repaired in many places with travertine. We see only two ends of a short piece, running perhaps two hundred yards, from the neighbourhood of the arch of Janus into the Tiber. At the upper end only one course of arch stones, of peperino, or tufa is seen, and the joints seem somewhat loosened by time; in front of this is another arch of brick, springing from a higher level, but apparently of ancient workmanship. The older arch is filled up with silt to somewhat above the springing. Towards the land, the modern sewer varies its direction, and the old one is entirely filled up. Close by the sewer is a good spring of clear water, and a little higher up, another more copious one. They are so far distinct, that the use of the upper as a washing-place does not affect the lower. The upper spring appears from beneath a brick arch, and may therefore be brought from some distance; the lower rises under rocks. The position of this spring is of importance in settling the topography of ancient Rome, as it must have supplied the lake Juturna, and have been the place where Castor and Pollux were seen watering their horses after the battle of the lake Regillus. Some have supposed another spring, in order to put the lake of Juturna, and consequently the temple of Vesta, at the foot of the Palatine, just by the three columns of Jupiter Stator; the arrangement is doubtless convenient, but the evidence is defective. The outlet of the Cloaca into the Tiber has three courses of arch stones of peperino, as perfect as if done yesterday, and of excellent masonry, but in so exposed a situation it is hardly credible, that some restorations should not at times have been necessary. It appears among the remains of an ancient wall, which is also of peperino, or tufa, but of a softer variety and less perfect workmanship. We may suppose all this prior to Augustus, but between the kings and emperors there is a very wide interval, and there seems no mode of fixing a precise date for any of the restorations; what evidence we possess is certainly in favour of its having retained the form and arrangement given to it by the Tarquins.

The next antiquity I shall notice, consists of some columns in the church of Santa Maria, in Cosmedim. The church itself is a basilica of very early date, and presents nothing of pagan antiquities in its general appearance externally, excepting some ancient fragments of architecture in the portico, and a large stone, supposed to have been the covering of a sewer, representing a huge round face with an open mouth. It is called the Bocca della verità, because if you assert a falsehood with your hand in this mouth, it will close upon you.

Within side are nine large columns, which have evidently formed part of the peristyle of a temple, and probably remain in their original position. Seven of them have very beautiful Composite capitals, which may probably be considered the best examples of that order in Rome. The church contains a very rich pavement of the sort called Byzantine, composed of tesselated marbles, and there are about twenty other small marble columns, the spoils of various buildings, with capitals of all ages, from the time of Titus to that of Constantine, and perhaps later. From some appearances, one might imagine that the larger columns were shaken by an earthquake. One of their capitals was wanting, and has been supplied from some other ancient building; but even this alteration must have been prior to the date of the present church, in which neither columns nor capitals are of any value. There are some walls of the ancient temple behind the choir. This church also preserves its ancient marble pulpit and reading-desk; and there is an ancient picture, which we are told floated of itself by sea from Greece, about the year 800.

I shall now proceed to a more beautiful and more perfect remain, usually called the Temple of Vesta. The antiquaries here are pretty generally agreed that it has no right to the appellation, though there are some arguments in its favour, and rather assign it to Hercules Victor, built A. U. C. 480. For my part I doubt, as every body must be content to do, who troubles himself with the names of the Roman antiquities, and believes only according to evidence. It is a small cell, partly of brick, and partly of stone; the latter ancient, the former modern; surrounded by a peristyle of twenty elegant Corinthian columns of white marble, some of which have capitals in the Greek taste, and some rather more in the Roman. I believe I have already noticed this distinction, but I will now in a few words endeavour to explain to you in what it consists. In the Greek order, the abacus is not cut off at the angles; the general form of the capital more or less resembles that of a bell; and in the foliage of the leaves, one part does not lie over the other, but the divisions merely touch each other at the points. In the Roman, the angles of the abacus are cut off; the general form is that of a funnel; and the lower divisions of the leaves usually lie over the upper. What I here call Greek foliage is frequently designated as consisting of the leaves of the acanthus; while the Roman is considered to be imitated from olive leaves; there is little resemblance to either, yet the olive branch may have suggested the idea of the Roman ornament; while the Greek resembles some sorts of thistle, rather than the acanthus of Linnæus, but it is probable that the Greeks intended a thistle by the name acanthus, though the mollis Acanthus of Virgil seems to belong to some other plant, and his evergreen acanthus must again be different.

When the Romans first began to feel the beauties of Grecian architecture, they probably were obliged to make use of Greek artists for its execution, and to such a period I attribute the present edifice. About the time of Augustus, the Romans had formed to themselves a style decidedly their own, and differing in many particulars from their Greek models. From that emperor to Trajan, or perhaps later, we do not find any capital, or other ornamental part of public buildings, in which the taste of the details is Greek; but as skill in the fine arts seems to have utterly disappeared in Italy, sooner than in Greece, the Romans of the latter age had again recourse to the chisel of Greek artists. In the time of Trajan indeed, Apollodorus grecised, but in a different manner. The forms of the mouldings in the forum of Trajan approach to those of the Greeks, and they are executed with Grecian truth and delicacy of workmanship, but the ornaments are such as were usual at Rome. In the temple of Vesta the ornament is Greek, but it is not particularly well executed. The entablature is entirely gone, nor are there any fragments by which to restore it. Pieces of the soffite of the portico however, are found, and some antefixæ have been dug up, which perhaps belonged to this edifice. The bases are in the Roman taste, and well designed, though rather smaller than usual; they have no separate plinths, but are set on one which is continued round the building, and forms the upper step.

Before the first volume of the Ionian antiquities, published by the Dilettanti Society, had made us acquainted with really fine specimens of the Ionic order, the Temple of Fortuna Virilis was cited as one of its best examples. As usual, the Roman antiquaries are agreed about nothing but that this edifice is misnamed. It is of a clumsy overcharged architecture, but looks rather better in reality than in the drawings, because the relief of the ornaments is very small. Part of the old work having been much defaced, new mouldings have been badly executed in plaster, without the ornaments.

I have mentioned a sepulchre of Pontius Pilate at Vienne, in Dauphiné. His palace is at Rome, if you believe tradition, and a very curious palace it must have been, whimsically made up with fragments of better times. The edifice has been more reasonably supposed the habitation of Rienzi, tribune of the people in the fourteenth century, whose curious history you have read in Gibbon. The authority for this is an inscription which states it to have been erected by Nicolas, son of Crescentius and Theodora.

The ancient Pons Palatinus was built, or at least begun by Marcus Fulvius, who was censor in 575; and terminated by Scipio Africanus in 612, A. U. C. It was thrown down in 1598, and the present fragment is for the most part a papal structure of the seventeenth century. A little, and but very little, of the ancient Roman work is visible. A stranger is perhaps more struck by the nets turned round by the action of the water, than by the remains of the bridge. These nets are intended for large fish, and principally sturgeon, whose nature it is to push quietly against the obstacle; the weight of the fish prevents the motion of the net, till the person appointed to watch it can take possession of his prey.

Before we reach the theatre of Marcellus, we have to hunt out the ruins of three temples, which stand close together, almost indeed touching in some parts, but not placed symmetrically, or even parallel to each other. One of these is supposed to have been the Temple of Filial Piety, erected on the site of the prison where the story recorded by Pliny occurred, of a father nourished by the milk of his daughter; but nobody has yet attempted to determine which of the three. The present church of S. Nicola in Carcere, seems to preserve in its name some memory of the tradition, and this occupies the whole space of the middle temple, while parts of the peristyles of the two others are built up in its side walls. The middle one was a hexastyle, peripteral temple, of the Ionic order, built of peperino. Of that on the right of the spectator, we may see a range of five of the columns of the flank. They have a sort of Corinthian capital, but I would not venture from the little that is seen of the architecture, to guess at the date. The third was Doric, and much smaller.

We may next visit the Theatre of Marcellus, of which but little is seen, as it is encumbered with the formless mass of the Orsini Palace, and that little is occupied by a range of dirty shops. Enough remains to show that the architecture has been such as we might expect from the date of its erection. It formed for a long while the model of the Doric order, and is still considered as the finest example remaining of what is called Roman Doric, although the introduction of dentils in the cornice is esteemed very licentious. The Roman Doric, however, is an order of which we have so few ancient examples, that our choice is extremely limited. Of the Theatre of Pompey nothing is to be seen but a few vaults, and a range of houses, whose circular form points out that they have been erected on the ancient foundations.

The Portico of Octavia is a fine fragment, in an awkward, dirty, disagreeable situation. The order has not much ornament, but it is well proportioned. The effect is spoiled by the brick walls and arches, which have been erected to supply the place of the deficient columns, and some of these are as early as the reign of Severus. Several of the antefixæ of this roof still exist, but I believe they have fallen down and been put up again, so that we cannot determine what was their precise situation.

This portico anciently enclosed two temples, and with a long neck you may contrive to see the Composite capital of a column of one of them, which is supposed to be the most ancient specimen of the order in existence; I can venture no criticisms on what is so imperfectly visible.

There are some vestiges of the baths of Agrippa in stables behind the Pantheon, upon which I shall not stop to speculate, nor upon the more conspicuous Arco de’ Ciambelli, which is also supposed to have belonged to them, but transport you at once to the Pantheon itself, the most perfect and majestic edifice remaining, of the good time of Roman architecture. I must according to my plan, begin with what may be learnt or guessed relating to its history. For a long while, the prevailing opinion was, that the body of the edifice was of the time of the republic, and the portico an addition made by Agrippa: indeed there were some very mysterious dreams about the purpose and antiquity of this temple. I have already mentioned the investigations of M. Achille Le Clerc; the cell seems to have formed a complete circular building itself, not essentially attached to any thing, except at the back, where some remains, attributed to the baths of Agrippa, appear to be united with it, but there is no trace of a door, or other opening, to form a communication between them. In front, the two masses of brickwork which at present support the turrets, are added to bring out a straight line to receive the portico, leaving between them a space which is covered with a vault, and which may be termed the pronaos. To these the portico is added, but there is no intimate union either between the circular part and these projections, or between the latter and the portico. A brick wall, rising considerably above the roof of the portico, is supported on the arch over the pronaos, which occupies the space continued from the three middle intercolumniations of the portico; and on this wall there is a pediment, or part of a pediment, for the top is cut off, and it seems uncertain if it ever formed a complete triangle; and it is this pediment, and the detached construction of the different parts, which have afforded the antiquaries a motive for believing the present portico a posterior addition. If, reasoned M. Le Clerc, the building was originally finished without a portico, we shall find traces of the method of completing it without one either on the circular cell, or on the face of the two additional masses of brickwork. He examined both with the greatest care, and in both was perfectly satisfied, from the interruption of the mouldings, and also from the offsets of the work, that no finishing could ever have taken place on either, but that the present portico, or something analogous to it, must have existed from the first.

Some differences in the materials and in the workmanship, the want of correspondence in the design, and the partial settlements which have taken place, are all adverse to the opinion that the whole building was executed at once, and two circumstances induce me to suppose that the cell is even posterior to the portico. The first is, that the use of burnt bricks was only recently introduced into Rome at the time of Agrippa, as appears from the manner in which Vitruvius speaks of them; and the first effort would scarcely be one of this magnitude and importance. My reasons for believing the use of burnt bricks to be adopted in Rome at so late a period, I mean to give you more in detail in a future letter. Perhaps we may use a similar argument concerning the form of the edifice, for though we have no precise idea of the date of the first introduction of domes, yet it seems probable that it must be assigned to about this period, and it would not be easy to imagine that the first erection would be on so large a scale; at the same time I must acknowledge, that we have no dome remaining of any size, which can put in a probable claim to a greater antiquity than the Pantheon. The second circumstance is, that the marble employed in the portico and pronaos, is the Pentelic, while that within is of Carrara. I do not think the passage in Pliny determines the first use of Luna, or Carrara marble in Rome; he may, perhaps, only have alluded to the discovery of a whiter and more beautiful bed, but I think we have sufficient remains to show that the employment of Greek marble in Rome, generally preceded that of the Italian. It has however, been contended, that the body of brickwork was erected before the portico: that this followed, and that all the marble finishings of the inside were added afterwards. The argument for this is the want of any correspondence between the marble finishings, and the openings and distribution of the brickwork. I will oppose to it a particularity in the construction of this brickwork. The Romans appear to have been early accustomed to the use of discharging arches; they introduced straight arches, (that is, an arrangement of bricks acting against one another as wedges, but kept in a line, nearly, or quite straight) over their openings, instead of solid stone lintels; but aware of the weakness arising from this method of employing the materials, they formed over them a semicircular arch, by which means the weight of the superincumbent wall was thrown upon solid parts which were able to bear it. In the earliest buildings which remain, and in general, even down to the time of Caracalla, this practice was used reasonably, and with moderation; but in later times, arches were employed, not for use, but for affectation; straight arches were employed where there were no openings, and discharging arches, which threw the weight rather on a weaker than on a stronger part. The brickwork of the Pantheon displays abuses of this sort, which is certainly a reason for assigning as late a date to its erection as is consistent with what we know of its history. Nevertheless, a cloud of witnesses establish the whole as the work of Agrippa, and perhaps, all that we ought to conclude from the want of correspondence in the different parts is, that different architects were employed, whose views were not altogether the same. Septimius Severus performed considerable restorations, but principally within side, and we have nothing to guide us as to the particulars of what was then executed, except the character of the work itself. This building, which seems to have contained no woodwork, except perhaps a small portion entirely concealed in the roof of the portico, is said to have suffered from fire; one proof among many that I could cite to you, that brick, stone, and bronze, were anciently combustible. After the transfer of the seat of empire to Constantinople, the Pantheon became an object, not of care, but of plunder. Constans robbed it of its covering of bronze tiles, and other depredations were made on it. About 608, Pope Boniface IV. consecrated it as a Christian church, but this did not preserve it from further spoliation. A little plaster now often serves to supply the place of the metals or marble taken away.

Modern buildings so surround the body of this edifice, that it is only very imperfectly that we judge of its merits as a whole; enough however is seen to prove the majestic and impressive character of this simple form. Its great distinction, in comparing its proportions with those of modern structures, is in the lowness of the dome, both as a whole, and in the circular part, which is left exposed. If we consider the roof of a modern church as a basement, we shall find the proportions of the drum and cupola more lofty than those of the Pantheon. In St. Peter’s, and in St. Paul’s, the architects have had recourse to a double, or triple construction in order to obtain this elevation, without producing internal deformity, and to this again a lantern is added, in order to give a still greater elevation to the design. This has been done with correct judgment, because the lower part of the edifice does not merely in picturesque effect act as a basement, but because it is united with the upper into an acutely pyramidal form, which it is important to preserve. If accessories were added to the Pantheon it would be necessary to give the general composition a very obtusely triangular outline. The Gothic artists aspired to a form more acutely triangular than those of the Italian architects. Each disposition has its beauties; the Gothic arrangement conveys the idea of power by the appearance of height, the ancient Roman, by that of extent. The modern Italians have attempted the union of the two. The obtuse triangle gives more the impression of strength and durability, and has also the advantage of producing a building of which a much greater proportion can be applied to internal use and effect. Three cornices surround the circular part. Palladio has introduced two stories of pilasters in the upper divisions. I know not what authority he might have had for this, but what we at present see is a rough brickwork, which was certainly covered in some way. The two turrets are modern, but it seems to me there must have been some additional elevation given to these parts in the original work. All our modern restorations agree in exhibiting a square mass behind the portico, which would look particularly bald and disagreeable, especially as it would be seen over the two pediments. The portico has eight columns in front, surmounted by a pediment, and is the only antiquity now remaining here, sufficiently perfect to exhibit the effect of this simple and beautiful arrangement. We have such things in the recent architecture of England, and some of them are very handsome, though in general they want depth. In Italy, I do not believe that it has ever been imitated by the moderns. We might, perhaps, find a reason for this in the very existence of such beautiful remains in the buildings of antiquity, and something must be allowed for the strong predilection for intricacy of form, which seems always, more or less, to have influenced the architects of this country. The same perfect simplicity of design is not preserved within the portico, it is divided by columns into something like three naves, and the centre of the great niche, on each side, is opposed to the centre of a column, and not to that of one of the spaces. The Romans began to spoil Grecian architecture as soon as they adopted it; substituting variety of form, and richness of material, to the simple elegance of arrangement, and the delicacy and beauty of finish which they found in their models. Simplicity may be carried to an extreme, and persons of the best and purest taste will differ as to the precise degree of it required. The interior of the portico of the Pantheon does not pass the limits of what a great number of amateurs would consider, not merely as an excusable, but as a desirable degree of intricacy; and compared to modern edifices, to the front of a Roman church for instance, or to the portico of St. Geneviève, at Paris, it is extremely simple. The columns are of granite, and it appears that, originally, those in front were of a granite with white felspar, which is usually called here oriental granite, and the internal ones of a granite, or syenite, containing red felspar, which is said to be brought from Egypt; of the reason of this difference I can give no guess. By a restoration of modern times, one of the columns of red granite has got in front. In some of the columns, the granite has scaled off by the action of the weather, parallel to the curved surface. They are all finely wrought, the bases and capitals are of white Pentelic marble, and the latter by no means all of equal excellence in point of execution. Urban VIII., who restored one of them, has inserted his bees instead of flowers in the abacus. The pilasters are of Pentelic marble, and in short all the other ornamental parts belonging to the portico and pronaos. The marble coating which once covered what is now naked brickwork, is gone nobody knows where, and the bare walls, and naked roofs, add to the grandeur of the edifice something of the melancholy of a ruin. The ceiling of the portico was of gilt bronze, but how this was disposed is a question which has been much agitated, the probable opinion is, that it formed a panelled vault over each division. Urban VIII. took away this bronze, then, as it appears, in a very decayed state, formed from it the four twisted columns which support the canopy over the high altar at St. Peter’s, and cast several cannon from the remainder. One of the nails, weighing forty-seven pounds, is said to be in England; the whole weight of nails was nine thousand three hundred and seventy-four pounds; the metal altogether weighed four hundred and fifty thousand two hundred and fifty pounds.

The marble doorway corresponds, both internally and externally, with the architecture of the portico, and not with that of the Pantheon itself: the opening is about nineteen feet wide and thirty-eight high, but within this, are pilasters of bronze which form the actual doorway. On these hang magnificent doors, also of bronze, and over them is a grating of the same metal. All these evidently form one thing, and belong to each other, and probably to the place where they are fixed: though it has been said that the original ones were carried away by Genseric, and that these were supplied from some other edifice.

I do not believe there is any person so insensible to the effect of architecture, as not to feel the surpassing beauty of this building internally; the simplicity and grace of its form, the beautiful colour of its marbles, principally of the giallo antico, and the delightful effect of its single central light, force themselves upon our admiration. The giallo antico is the most beautiful of all coloured marbles for the purposes of architecture, as its gentle glow is always harmonious, and the delicate variations of its tint are not such as to confuse the forms of the mouldings, while at the same time they are sufficient to relieve the deadness of a surface totally unornamented. Yet even here, the edifice has faults, and great ones. I do not mean by this, mere offences against arbitrary rules, but circumstances which are certainly injurious to its perfection, and to the agreeable impression on the mind of the spectator. The columns are rather too small in proportion to the size of the building; the entablature is disagreeably interrupted by two arches, and these arches on a curved surface are necessarily supine, that is, the crown falls back behind the springing, and this gives them an awkward appearance. The space above the columns, which is a modern alteration, so late as the last century, is altogether bad. Till then, an attic existed adorned with pilasters, formed not in relief, but by different coloured marbles. This was attributed to Septimius Severus, and not generally approved, but it seems to me to have been well calculated to preserve the general impression of the building, and to have contributed to give rather an increased value to the order below.

It would probably be better (internally) to make the upright part of a building of this sort, somewhat greater than the semidiameter of the circle on the plan; at least in the present case, the dome itself seems to come rather too near the eye, and to occupy too much of the view, especially in the condition it now is, presenting an overwhelming extent of whitewash. It is supposed that this was also covered with bronze panels, but the time of their removal seems uncertain. These panels would probably have followed the disposition of those now existing in the brickwork and stucco; that is, they must have been in square coffers, and in such a case the most obvious way of cutting the recesses is to make them at right angles to the surface of each part; or, to speak more mathematically, at right angles to the tangents of the surface, and consequently, all tending to the centre of the curve; here they are cut in almost vertically, or if they do tend to a common centre, it is to one below the eye of the spectator standing in the centre of the room. Some people affect to understand the reason of this; but the result is distortion, and if really intended to produce any pleasing optical deception, it must be attributed to great want of judgment, as it could only succeed from one spot, and must look ill everywhere else; whereas, without any such contrivance, the spectator himself would at once make allowance for situation, and the mind would be satisfied; for in architecture, and probably in all the fine arts, it is often rather what we understand than what we see, that produces the sensation of pleasure. In unusual situations some allowance may be permitted, but it should always be so limited, that a moderately practised eye will not perceive it. If, instead of being drawn to the centre of the hemisphere, which as I have said before, is the most obvious method of forming them, the lines of the recesses had been directed to a point eighteen or twenty feet below it, it is possible that they would have appeared to tend more correctly to that centre, than if they had been really drawn to it; but as they are, every body at once perceives that they are not so drawn. These panels are omitted for a circle of considerable width round the opening in the centre, but we cannot doubt that this part also, had originally its share of decoration. The little altars are all bad in design, and worse in execution, but not all equally so: the best of them are usually attributed to Septimius Severus.

I cannot leave the building without noticing some particulars of less consequence, which deserve notice, because in such a building, the defects as well as the beauties become lessons, and it is necessary, to an architect at least, carefully to examine and separate one from the other; for oddly as it sounds in theory, everybody knows that we have a strong tendency in practice, to copy without discrimination. In the interior order, the corona is too small, and the projection of the sima too great, giving to the cornice a thin and wiry edge. This appears to have resulted from a feeling common to the Roman artists, who endeavoured to produce a broad line of shade as high as possible on the cornice, while the Greeks on the contrary, endeavoured to obtain there, a breadth of light, with only one or two narrow, but distinct and sharply marked lines of shadow. In this instance, from the lofty position of the opening, the first distinct light is on the uncut dentil band, and here it is rather a defect than a merit. The mouldings are generally rather small; the panelling of the soffite of the cornice is in oblongs, not in squares, and this displeases, and the execution is not very perfect. In our books we usually see the curves of the mouldings described by portions of circles, but this is rarely the case. I think they were drawn by hand to please the eye of the artist, and not according to any system. On the roof of the building we still see some lead of the repairs of 1451, and the ancient marble slabs of the platform immediately above the upper cornice remain under the lead, but broken, and without the cover-tiles. Round the central opening parts of the ancient bronze cornice remain, and some of the gilding with which it was enriched.

In our way home we may stop to look at the Basilica of Antoninus, now used as the custom-house. It consists of a range of eleven fine, but much injured Corinthian columns. The frieze and cornice are modern, the former is swelled, and as it is of stucco, and shows no joints, you are assured by the Romans that it is all of one piece of stone. They pay the same compliment to the doorway of the Palazzo Sciarra, consisting of two columns, with their entablature, pilasters, &c.; because, being well executed, the joints are not readily distinguishable. On passing to the inside, we are struck with the vast masses of stone and rubble-work suspended over our heads, but nothing in fact remains erect but this range of columns, whose spaces are now filled up with modern chambers, and the part supported by them.