In following the order of dates, an account of the basilicas and ancient churches of the lower empire, should have preceded my observations on St. Peter’s; for although most of them have been very much altered, yet there are still sufficient remains of the old work to trace the plan and distribution of the parts, and indeed every thing relating to the solid masses of the building; and in one or two, more or less of the original mode of fitting it up. The first of these in size and in reputation, is the Church of St. Paul without the walls, (fuori delle mura) and it has the advantage of having undergone very little alteration, so that most of the original construction is not only preserved, but is still exposed.^[45] It was founded by Constantine, A. D. 324, but not completed till A. D. 395, under the reign of Honorius. About the year 440, it was restored by Eudoxa, wife of Valentinian III., but one may suppose, that at so early a period it did not want any important repairs. Having afterwards been injured by an earthquake, it was again restored in 795, by St. Leo III. The wall, which at present divides the transept longitudinally, is thought to be part of this restoration. Under Clement VIII. (about 1600), a new ceiling (or roof?) was put to the transept, and in 1725, Benedict XIII. added the portico.

This church is one of the seven, as the guide books tell you, which are visited to obtain indulgences; of the four which have the Porta Santa; and of the five patriarchal churches of Rome. The seven churches, which are visited to obtain indulgences are, besides this, St. Peter’s in the Vatican, St. John Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore, Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, San Lorenzo, fuori delle mura, and St. Sebastian. They must all be visited in one day, but I cannot tell you what particular degree or term of indulgence is obtained by the performance of this task. The Porta Santa is a gate opened only in the years of jubilee. The others are at the Lateran, St. Peter’s, and Santa Maria Maggiore. The patriarchal churches should by their name be the seat of as many patriarchs; yet I do not know that Rome ever pretended to have more than one: the others are St. Peter, St. John Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore, and San Lorenzo.

On the outside, the Church of St. Paul is a great ugly barn: it would look better if many of the windows of the upper part of the nave, or clerestory, as it is called in Gothic churches, were not filled up; we should then have had one uniform range of openings, but now there is hardly any appearance of regularity or design in any part; for the lower windows are very capriciously disposed. In the upper part of the front is a large cove, ornamented with mosaics, which was frequently the case in these basilican churches, but perhaps it does not date from the erection of the building. The portico is not at all in harmony with the rest of the church, and it is become a useless appendage, since the road now passes by what was the back of the edifice, and you creep in by a narrow winding passage. Internally, the space is divided into two principal parts, the nave and transept; the apsis being merely a recess in the transept, formed of a portion of a circle less than half. I do not know whether I have not already praised this disposition: it is perhaps the finest of any in point of effect, if well managed; but this beau ideal in the management must be collected from different examples, there is no one, either at Rome or elsewhere, which will completely satisfy us. Two long colonnades, forming an avenue to the altar, support the nave. This part must not be dark, but should be illuminated by a chastened and sober light. The transept ought to be wide and open, and not very long; and a large window at each end, might pour the full blaze of light on a magnificent altar of highly enriched architecture, behind which the dark recess of the choir, or apsis, would give increased value to the principal light. This recess itself must be enriched. The eye will see that it is so, without precisely distinguishing the details, and the imagination is immediately excited to fill it with its own beauties. In all works of the fine arts, the artist who can call in the imagination of the spectator, and direct it in his favour, has accomplished a great object. In smaller churches, a single range of columns on each side, is sufficient; in larger ones two ranges, and double side aisles, enhance the variety and magnificence of the scene. At this church of St. Paul, we have such double ranges; and the whole is on a grand scale, since the nave is 80 feet wide, and the entire width exceeds 200. The columns which divide the side aisles are smaller than those of the nave, but there is the same number of each, i. e. twenty in each row. Twenty-four of the larger ones are of pavonazzo, a very beautiful marble, the ground of which is white, or with a slight tinge of red or buff, and marked with purple veins. They are finely proportioned, and perfectly well wrought, with capitals and bases of white marble. I did not get up to examine the former, but I am told that they are a good deal repaired with plaster. These columns are usually said to have been taken from the mausoleum of Hadrian, but I think Hobhouse has pretty clearly shewn, that there never were any columns there;^[46] but there can be no doubt that they are the spoils of a building of the best ages of architecture; and perhaps in attributing them to Hadrian, we assign too recent a period. The remaining sixteen are imitations of these, in a stone which is called at Rome marmo greco, and which I suspect to come from Paros, as the grain is very similar to that of the Parian marble; and in the latter, we may sometimes see vestiges of the faint, indistinct, gray stripes, which form the character of this marmo greco: it perhaps contains magnesia, and generally gives a faint unpleasant smell, when rubbed pretty firmly with the finger. The workmanship of these columns is extremely bad. We might forgive some imperfections in the capitals and bases, but the clumsy and irregular formation of the shaft, quite exceeds all previous calculation; and it appears, that the workmen of this period could neither make a straight flute, nor an evenly curved surface. The forty smaller columns are without flutes, and are perhaps even worse in point of execution than any of the larger ones. All these columns support arches, and though the philosophy of the art condemns them, the effect has a degree of lightness and elegance which always pleases, and which it is perhaps impossible to obtain in any other way. The wall of the nave, above these arches, is very much too high. Originally, there was a narrow circular-headed window over each of the openings below, a large proportion of which has been filled up. These walls have been painted in distemper, with a sort of architecture, whose divisions do not correspond with those of the building. In the panels thus formed, there were historical paintings, but the subjects are nearly obliterated. The roof is very well constructed, but is not a beautiful object, entirely exposed as it is to the church. It is a defect inherent to this sort of plan, that we cannot consistently make use of a vaulted roof, because the columns below can never seem sufficient to support it. It must therefore be coved, or flat, but the timberwork may be covered with panels, and ornamented with mouldings and gilding; here all is rude and naked. The pavement is composed of fragments of tombstones, and other slabs of marble, placed without order, occasionally overflowed by the inundations of the Tiber, and generally bearing the marks of such evils. The walls of the aisles are merely whitewashed, every thing breathes poverty and neglect, dirt and decay, yet nobody enters without admiring, without feeling impressed with the magnificence of the design. Nevertheless, the proportions are not good, or at least the size of the columns is not such as to correspond with the dimensions of the church, and to these columns it certainly owes its principal beauty. They divide the width without concealing it, and probably thus increase the apparent magnitude. With a system of square piers and arches, you would see directly across, just as well as at present, but the diagonal views would be lost, and these are perhaps the most pleasing, or at least they are those which most excite the attention; and they offer also a number of perspectives, instead of confining you to one. The imagination is gratefully exercised in successfully tracing the arrangement of the parts. The motion of the spectator produces a continual change of scene, and this change maintains a continued interest. The transept is divided longitudinally, by a wall with three large openings, which are adorned with columns of porphyry, granite, and marble, enriched with ornaments which do not belong to them. The whole interpolation, for this wall forms no part of the original structure, must be considered as a blemish, as it interrupts the breadth of light, which ought to detach the nave from the altar, and from the dark coloured apsis behind it.

The ancient Basilica of St. Peter was entirely destroyed to make room for the present majestic edifice; but the plans and elevations have been handed down to us, and they exhibit a church of the same general arrangement as that of St. Paul; two ranges of columns on each side of the nave, and a transept crossing it at the end, in the centre of which is the apsis, opposite to the central nave. This apsis is a large semicircular niche, not a continuation of the architecture of the nave; and in this sense only I use the word, since, however loosely the term may have been used at different periods, it is now very desirable to have an appropriate name to a very distinct and characteristic feature in the earlier ecclesiastical architecture. The columns supported architraves, as in Santa Maria Maggiore, and not arches; the wall above them was very high, with small windows; and the timbers of the roof were left naked. The dimensions were smaller than in St. Paul’s. The elevation probably exhibits the original distribution of the front of these basilicas, but not with all the details. A court entirely surrounded with porticos, precedes the entrance; above this, are two ranges, each of three circular-headed windows; which windows are filled up in a manner somewhat similar to those of Orsan Michele at Florence, and it is not improbable that they may have been among the restorations of Nicholas V., which would be about the same period. Over these ranges, in the pediment, was a small rose, or wheel window. This front was enriched with paintings, or perhaps mosaics; but it has not in these representations, that large, advancing, enriched cove, which is still seen at St. Paul’s, and at Santa Maria Maggiore, and which appears at one period to have been very generally adopted. It is possible also that this may have been destroyed by Nicholas V.

The Church of St. John Lateran is attributed, like that of St. Paul, to Constantine, and the epoch assigned to its foundation is also 324. The original plan was very similar, consisting of a nave resting on four ranges, each of twelve columns, of which the central division was 72^[47] feet wide and 272 long, and beyond this an open transept 70 feet wide, with a semicircular apsis 50 feet wide, opposite the opening of the nave. This perhaps is not the original apsis; at least the mosaics with which it is adorned, and the circular Gothic corridor behind it, seem to belong to a later period, and are probably coeval with the court of the convent behind. This church and the adjoining palace were burnt in 1308, and the roofs, the pavimenti sacri preziosi, and every thing combustible was destroyed. Clement V., who was then residing at Avignon, sent considerable sums of money for its restoration; but it was reserved to Innocent X. to employ Borromini, to transform it into the ugliest, and worst proportioned church, that ever existed. He built up the columns into enormous piers, which are almost perforated by monstrous niches, the receptacle of huge, sprawling statues. There is nothing deserving of praise in the body of the nave, no taste, no feeling; if the marble columns were, as is said, too much damaged by the fire to be trusted to for the support of the building, it would have been better to have removed them, than to have cramped the plan by accommodating the piers to their disposition; and as at present they are totally invisible, the lover of antiquity cannot be gratified by their preservation.

But if in the nave itself we can find nothing to admire, there is a side chapel of the Corsini family which is highly beautiful. It was designed by Alexander Galileo, a Florentine, who adopted the form of a shortened Greek cross, with a dome in the centre, and ornamented it with rich marbles, painting and gilding. The porphyry urn, found in the portico of the Pantheon, forms one of the depositi of this chapel. In the crypt underneath, is a very admirable Pietà of Bernini. The front of the church is a design of the same Galileo, and in spite of numerous faults, it is certainly impressive. These faults, as I often remind you, are not mere offences against rule, or such as contradict some theory; the rule may be false, and the theory groundless, but they are errors which are against the character and expression of the building, and counteract its magnificence. The northern entrance to the transept is a design of Domenico Fontana. It consists of a double arcade, each of five arches, the lower decorated with the Doric, the upper with the Corinthian order; a handsome structure in itself, but it recalls the often repeated question, why employ the appearance of two stories without, when there is only one within; and when this division gives the effect of small rooms, instead of one spacious hall, and consequently is opposed to magnificence.

There is a fine court, surrounded with cloisters at St. Paul’s, and another very similar one attached to this church; openings are formed by little arches supported on doubled shafts; these shafts are plain, or twisted, or have spiral flutes, or are ornamented with mosaics, with which the whole architecture abounds. In its original state, this court has had considerable grace and beauty, and it is well worthy of observation, that similarly beautiful effects may be produced by many, may we not say, by almost every style of architecture; all becomes gold in the hands of a skilful architect, but the finest parts, and most exquisite proportions, turn again to dross, in the hands of ignorance and insensibility. Some large piers have been added here to strengthen the work, and they very much injure its beauty.

In walking round this cloister, we are shown, 1st, the mouth of a well of white marble, said to have stood on the well at Samaria, where the woman talked with Christ. 2nd, A marble base on which the cock stood, when his crowing awakened the apostle Peter to a sense of his fault. 3rd, The stone (a marble column) split into two on our Saviour’s crucifixion. 4th, A slab of porphyry, on which the soldiers cast lots for his garments. 5th, A slab of granite, fixed at the exact measure of our Saviour’s height. 6th, The ancient marble chair of installation for the popes. It is impossible not to feel indignant at the monstrous fictions encouraged, if not approved, by the Romish church. They deprive us of the power of believing where the circumstances are more probable, and in so doing, they take from us a very great pleasure. I feel it sometimes like a personal injury.

Near the church of St. John Lateran, is an edifice called Scala Santa, of which the principal object is a staircase, said to be composed of the very steps which our Saviour ascended in the house of Pilate, and which were afterwards sent by St. Helena to Rome. Indulgences are granted to those who ascend them properly on their knees, but the wear of the marble has been so great, that the steps are now covered with wood. On each side is a flight of stairs for the devotees to descend, and for those to go up and down, who prefer the more commodious use of the feet. Here too I saw indulgences declared for those who recite daily, certain prayers to their Guardian Angel; and a distinction made in matter of indulgences between those who perform their tasks after confession and absolution, and those who execute them only with a firm purpose to confess;^[48] these notices are the advertisements, the affiches of Rome. The general disposition of the front of this building is not bad, but Fontana never succeeds in details. Close by is the Triclinium of Pope St. Leo III.; a fragment of the ancient palace, but not in its original situation.

I must not omit to mention among these objects, the Baptistery of Constantine. It consists of a small octagonal centre of two orders, crowned with a lantern of the same form; the surrounding aisle occupies the height of both orders, which are separated merely by an architrave, without any floor. The eight lower columns are of porphyry, some of them very ill worked, and none deserving of much praise; the eight upper are of white marble. This arrangement is not without beauty, though, take it altogether, I think no one would copy it. There are some side chapels which are not of the date of the building, but the vestibule on the side towards the church is of Constantine’s time; the external doorway to this is enriched with some very beautiful fragments, which as usual, are not very well disposed. The capitals in particular, are of a very fine and peculiar Composite, bearing strong indications of Greek taste and workmanship; and they are I think, as beautiful as any Composite capitals in existence, but as different from the usual distribution of that order, as from the Corinthian. The entablature does not belong to them. It is hard and dry, but carefully cut, and not much weatherworn. The style seems something like that of the ancient fragments, in the so called temple of Concord.

The Church of the Holy Cross was built in order to receive the true cross, found by Helena, mother of Constantine, in Jerusalem, together with many other relics, and a quantity of earth from that city; for which reason it has received the name of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, as if Jerusalem itself were brought to Rome, and the church erected in the transported city. It was restored in the eighth century by St. Gregory II., and again in 903; but it is said to have been rebuilt from the foundations in 1144. Nevertheless, the plan has been precisely that of one of Constantine’s basilicas in miniature, except that the diameter of the apsis is considerably greater than the width of the nave. Its present state dates no farther back than 1744, when some of the columns were built up in piers, in order to support the vaulted roof; four on each side are still exposed, and these are the only parts of the ancient building now visible. A singular porch is built at the entrance: it is not good as it stands, but some useful hints may be derived from it.

The Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere, is said to have been the first dedicated to the Virgin; and the superstition must have begun early, if it be true that Pope Callistus began this erection in 224; but in fact, what he built was an hospital, with perhaps a small chapel attached to it, and not a church. After several alterations, or refabrications, Adrian I., about 772, added two navate, by which I suppose the side aisles are meant; but till there were side aisles, columns would not be wanted, and to him therefore, we may attribute the form and disposition of the church, which is still that of the basilica; but the transept is narrow. In 1139, Innocent II. is said to have brought it to its present state, but there is no knowing the precise import of these expressions. We are told that the present ceiling was designed by Domenichino, but I know not on what authority. The painting in the middle is undoubtedly his, but the disposition of the coffers is very intricate, and therefore bad. The portico was added in 1702. The interest we find in this church is more from the collection of antique fragments which enter into its construction, than from any merit of its own. Noble shafts of granite from different buildings, some of which are adorned with highly enriched, and very beautiful Ionic capitals, separate the nave from the side aisles. Others are less ornamented, but perhaps not less beautiful; there are three varieties of these capitals, besides some bad imitations of later times; others again are Corinthian, and some Composite. None perhaps of the very best period of art, but certainly of a time when it had preserved all its splendour and magnificence, if not all its purity. The general fault indeed, is that of too much enrichment. Instead of modillions, fragments of ancient cornices are used, and there are other morsels of ornamental sculpture. The altar columns are very small. There are some scraps of friezes and mouldings, of very fine design, though rather of clumsy execution, in the present doorways of this church. Where this is the case, it is perhaps frequently the result of the imitation of more perfect workmanship.

It is rather doubtful whether the Church of Santa Maria di Ara Cœli stand upon the site of the ancient temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, or whether that edifice occupied the opposite summit of the Capitol, above the Tarpeian rock. I have already mentioned to you the two divaricating flights of steps, which rise nearly from the same point at the foot of the Capitol; the one leading to the Intermontium, and the other, more lofty, and consisting of a hundred and twenty-four marble steps, said to have been formed of the materials of the temple of Quirinus, to the church of Ara Cœli. The front is of unornamented brickwork, and seems never to have been finished; but it offers a fragment of Italian Gothic, perhaps of the date of 1445, when the church and convent were given by Eugenius the Fourth to the Reformati di San Giovanni di Capestrano of the Francescan order. From the style of ornament I should more willingly assign it a later than an earlier period, perhaps 1464, when the church is stated to have been repaired. The body of the building is supposed to have been erected about the sixth century, and from the tenth to the thirteenth, it was called Santa Maria in Campidoglio, but since that, has been named Ara Cœli, from an altar pretended to have been dedicated on this spot by Augustus. It is divided into a nave and two aisles, or as the expression is here, into three naves, by twenty-two marble columns, which have been taken from ancient edifices. They are of different sizes and materials. Some plain, others fluted; two of them have semicylindrical ribs on the flutes. The capitals are cases of gilt stucco, of a detestable Ionic, laid over the old work. The inequality of the original size was such, that it was impossible to reduce them all to one precise measure, and consequently some are made larger than others, but in other respects they are alike. The old workmanship of these capitals was as different as the columns on which they are placed; nor are the bases less so, some being Corinthian, some Attic, some of an unnamed order; one with an enormous projection, the next hardly relieved, and as the columns are of different lengths, these are placed on pedestals of different heights, in order to make the total elevation the same in each. These columns support a range of arches which have no correspondence with those of the side aisles behind them. It would be difficult altogether to find a much more ugly church, and the magnificent flight of steps leads only to a small lateral door at the side of the tribune, so that every thing is bad. I long excessively to pull down church and convent, examine all the antiquities thus exposed, and then to erect a magnificent temple-formed cathedral, the church of the Roman people; and by clearing away a few rubbishing buildings, I could make this appear to crown the Corso, and attract the eye from the first entrance into Rome.

The Church of San Grisogono is another of these basilican churches, supposed to have been erected at the time of St. Sylvester, but more certainly restored by Gregory the Third, about 740. This also has three naves supported on twenty-two columns of oriental granite, not all alike, yet without any very striking differences. Two of porphyry support the great arch, and four of alabaster adorn the altar; but all this is nothing at Rome. The granite columns sustain an entablature, and above the entablature is a wall, with straight-headed windows, and a flat, panelled and gilt ceiling, the only sort consistent with the arrangement below.

The Church of the Quattro Santi Coronati, is supposed to be of the fourth century, but rebuilt in the seventh by Honorius the First. One never knows how much is to be understood by this rebuilding, and there is so little difference of style in the early churches, that the architecture furnishes little or no assistance. If indeed each building were a complete creation of the period to which it chiefly belongs, some judgment might be formed, but they are all alike made up of the fragments of better times; nor will the date of the latest fragment determine that of the mass of building, as it may have been inserted in some of those alterations to which all have been subject. In common with the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, this of the Quattro Coronati has the apsis greater than the width of the nave; and in this instance it is larger than in the former, occupying nearly the whole width of the church; there are, I believe, no other examples of such an arrangement. Like St. Agnes, the side aisles are of two stories. Here are granite and marble columns in the court, as well as in the church, but walled up; and neither inside nor out has it much pretension to beauty; but the whole mass of building, including the annexed convent, from its situation on the brow of the Cœlian hill, and from its size, forms a fine picturesque object in some points of view, especially on the side towards the Coliseum. Here is a tesselated pavement, with fragments of inscriptions, and vases of granite and porphyry; but we pass over without notice at Rome, things which would be thought to merit whole volumes anywhere else.

The last of these basilican churches having transepts, or at least a wide open space before the altar, which I shall mention, is that of San Pietro in Vincolis. You know that when St. Leo compared together two chains, with one of which Peter had been bound by Herod at Jerusalem, and with the other in the Mamertine prison at Rome, the links united and formed a single chain; to preserve which chain, and in commemoration of the prodigy, St. Leo, in 442, built the present church. It has had many alterations and embellishments, but probably retains the original form, and the singular Doric columns of marmo greco, which at present sustain the nave. The restorations have been ill managed, the columns support arches, and at some distance is a cornice, which is cut by the windows; both nave and side aisles are vaulted, the former with an elliptical arch. The columns themselves are not handsome, being of a very ill understood Greek Doric; so that in spite of its ranges of twenty similar columns, and its correct arrangement, no person seems to admire the building. Opposite the side aisles are two smaller semicircular recesses, differing only in size from the apsis. This disposition occurs also in one or two other instances, but I think the square end to the aisles is preferable.

I must not leave San Pietro in Vincolis without mentioning to you the monument of Julius II. and the famous figure of Moses. The architecture of this sepulchre is very bad, and the figure of Julius himself unnaturally and ungracefully twisted. Religion is a beautiful figure, but the attitude is rather awkward, and the opposite figure is also good, though somewhat clumsy in its proportions. These were by Raphael di Monte Lupo. The whole design is attributed to Michael Angelo Buonarotti, but the colossal Moses alone was executed by him. He is represented sitting, and seems severely reproving the people for their idolatry. The attitude and expression have too much consequence to possess real dignity; the whole figure as well as the head expresses a wish to impose, in the French sense of the word; and the muscles, for a state of bodily rest, appear overcharged. Milizia says, it has the head of a satyr, but if so, it is a satyr of royal breed. He reproaches it with the hairs of a hog, which is not just, for the exuberant beard is of the finest and softest texture. It is a fine, a very fine statue, but it has been praised as a sculpture of the first class, whence its want of simplicity and graceful nature, must for ever exclude it; but in the subordinate excellences of strong character and expression, and anatomical truth, it will hold a high rank. I now come to those churches, which resembling basilicas in many respects, are without any indication of a transept in their original disposition; and the two first of these which I shall mention, differ in some respects from all the rest, and are certainly the most interesting monuments of the lower empire, which exist in the neighbourhood of Rome (for they are both out of the city), I mean the churches of Santa Agnese, and San Lorenzo, fuori delle mura. The first of these is supposed to have been built by Constantine. We enter it by a descending flight of forty-eight steps. Numerous inscriptions are placed in the walls of this staircase. The central part of the church is a parallelogram, surrounded by two stories of columns on three sides, and having an apsis at the extremity, whose height is about equal to the width of the nave, and between this and the roof, is a space about equal in height to one fourth of that width. The ceiling is flat, the disposition and proportions are highly beautiful, and so are many of the columns. Some of these are of pavonazzo, two of granite, two of porta santa, that is, of the same marble as that employed in the Porta Santa at St. Peter’s. One of them has an ogee introduced on each side of each flute, of which there are twenty, giving a confused appearance of a hundred and forty flutes. The upper columns are of similar materials to those below, and some of the capitals are very Greek in their foliage. One or two are of a reddish marble, not polished, perhaps the rosso antico, which shows its colour very imperfectly in a rough state.

It has been said that the columns at the end, as well as at the side, and the double stories of aisles, give this church a peculiar resemblance to the ancient basilicas; yet neither of these circumstances are found in St. Paul’s, in the ancient St. Peter’s, or in St. John Lateran, all of which, as we are assured, were built precisely upon that model. I suppose nevertheless, that the comparison is correct, since it is thus exemplified at Pompei, and Vitruvius indicates two stories on the sides of a basilica, and makes no mention of any thing like a transept, unless the chalcidicum be considered as one.

At a very little distance from this church is a circular building, which has had the name of a Temple of Bacchus, on the very equivocal evidence of a sarcophagus of porphyry sculptured with the vine, now removed to the Vatican, and of some mosaics on the walls, relating also to the vintage. Other writers maintain that it was a baptistery erected by Constantine for the baptism of his sister and daughter, who are said also to have been buried here. The account is not improbable, as we have many instances of ancient baptisteries of this form, but some uncertainty seems to be thrown upon it, by its occupying a distinguished and symmetrical position, in a large oblong area, circular at one end, or perhaps at both, which has been called a Hippodrome, and which does not seem exactly suitable for a mere court to this building. All the external ornaments have disappeared; internally, we have a dome resting on twenty-four columns, which are placed in pairs on the radii of the circle, and surrounded by an aisle. Twenty of these columns are of gray granite, and four of red. The capitals are Composite, not very good, but evidently, as well as the columns, the spoils of some more ancient building, except one or two, which serve to shew the incompetency of the artists of the time of Constantine. The columns support a clumsy entablature, from which spring the arches; at a considerable space above these, is the dome. The effect is not good, but I do not think we can conclude any thing from it against this mode of arrangement, though the management of the radiating vaults supported on the columns, and larger externally than towards the centre, will always be a great difficulty. The columns here are too small, and too far apart, and not beautiful in themselves, nor in their bases and capitals. In adopting such a disposition, the detached entablatures are certainly to be rejected, and the small arches should spring, either from a mere architrave, or immediately from the capitals; and it is probably better to make the dome spring from the same point without any intervening drum, and to let the arches groin into it.

The Church of San Lorenzo was originally built by Galla Placidia, but restored from the foundations by Pelagius the Second, before 590. This church, whether of Pelagius or of Galla Placidia, was similar in form to that of St. Agnes, which I have already described to you, but Adrian the First, about 772, stopped up the old doorway, and took down the tribune, to join the old building to a new nave which he erected; thus completely reversing the church, and placing the altar before the ancient entrance. To this period I believe we are to refer the porch, though that may have been something later, as its frieze, with circles of mosaic work, nearly accords with that of the cloisters of St. John Lateran, and St. Paul; but the cornice, which consists of only a Welsh ogee, is rather in a singular style; and the ornaments, composed of bulls’ heads and palm trees, though not beautiful, are deeply and cleanly cut. The bases are Corinthian, and all alike. The capitals also are all of the same form, but they are badly worked, while the shafts are well executed. The nave has on each side eleven columns of Egyptian and oriental granite and cipollino, with Ionic capitals, differing in size, drawing, and workmanship. Pliny relates that Saurus and Batrachus, two Spartan architects, were employed by the Romans in the time of Augustus, to erect a temple, and not being permitted to inscribe their names on the building, they sculptured a lizard and a frog (which in Greek are called by the same names as these architects) on one of the capitals, to commemorate their exertions. On a capital in this nave, we find these animals engraved. The style of ornament and execution found in them, indicates rather the period of the erection of the porch, with which it nearly corresponds, than the time alluded to by Pliny; but the coincidence is remarkable.

The most interesting, as well as the most ancient part, is the present choir, where we have ten ancient columns of considerable size, and very beautiful workmanship; though the excellence of the proportion is not now easily perceived, as a considerable part of them is buried. Two of these are of Greek marble, with Composite capitals; the rest are of a white veined marble, with beautiful Corinthian capitals. The latter perhaps formed part of the peristyle of an ancient temple, and are still in their original places. The entablature is made up of fragments, among which we trace pieces of a door jamb with a rich and bold scroll; but the finest are parts of a small frieze, and they are very beautiful, but there is not the most trifling fragment corresponding with the columns. In the gallery above, there are twelve smaller columns, also antique.

From this church is an entrance to extensive Catacombs. I did not enter them, for one thing of the sort is enough; and I had visited those at St. Sebastian.

We will now proceed to some other churches, which, though likewise called basilicas, have neither originally had a transept, nor yet two stories of side aisles. Of these, by far the largest and most magnificent is that of Santa Maria Maggiore, which indeed in every respect is one of the finest churches in the world, both for the beauty of design, and the perfection of materials. The outside however, which is a work of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, does not deserve this praise; and it is remarkable, that in all the experiments the Romans have made in architecture, and the magnificence with which they have executed their undertakings, they have never hit even upon a moderately good design for the outside of a church. The front is contemptible; the back erected under the direction of Rainaldi, has considerable merit, and the character of a public building, but not of a church; but I am running into description before I have given you any sketch of the history of the edifice.

The Church of Santa Maria Maggiore was erected by Giovanni Patrizio, and by the Pope St. Liberius, in consequence of a vision, and of a miraculous shower of snow, which fell on the spot on the 5th of August, and marked out precisely the plan of the building. It was dedicated in 352, and rebuilt in 432 by Sixtus the Third. This rebuilt is a vague term, and as the fall of snow is probably, like so many other stories of the Roman church, an invention of the middle ages, it will give us no reason to suppose that the original distribution was exactly preserved. In 1189, Nicolas the Fourth erected the tribune, and adorned it with mosaics. The present front was added by Benedict the Fourteenth, in 1741; at which time not only all the internal finishings were renewed, but the columns of the nave were repolished, and reduced to one size and length, and uniform Attic bases, and Ionic capitals, were applied to them. Paul the Fifth erected in front, the only remaining column of the great hall of the temple of Peace, and placed upon it the bronze statue of the Virgin. Sixtus the Fifth displaced two of the northern range of columns to make a larger opening to the chapel which he erected; and Benedict the Fourteenth, in 1741, made a similar interruption in the opposite range, to form a correspondent opening to the chapel of Paul the Fifth; the back was erected under Clement the Tenth, about 1670.

Internally, a single row of marble columns on each side divides the nave from the side aisles. These columns sustain a continued entablature, but they are here, as in so many other places, too small in proportion to the rest of the building, and the range of pilasters over them consequently too high. The general proportion of the room is perhaps a little too long and a little too low. In a design of this sort there must always be a difficulty in keeping down sufficiently the upper part, for it is in that, that the windows must be placed, and a considerable space must occur between the windows and the columns, in order to admit the roof of the side aisles. Another fault in this church arises from a comparatively recent alteration, interrupting the perspective of the ranges of columns, by arched openings into the two principal side chapels. The nave is above 50 feet wide, and about 280 feet long, and except for this interruption, exhibits an unbroken range of parts, all uniting into one rich and harmonious design. I hope you always keep in mind in considering these dimensions, that the nave of our St. Paul’s is but 41 feet wide. The side aisles are vaulted, which is bad; a continued vault will always look too heavy for columns; and besides, it does not correspond with the flat ceiling of the nave. This ceiling is in five panels in width, without irregularities, nobly disposed, and with a richness of carving and gilding well suited to its character.

The Chapel of the Presepio (that of Sixtus the Fifth) is spotty, from the injudicious disposition of its marbles and gilding. The other chapel is less enriched, and on that account more beautiful; both are very fine chapels, each of them having the form of a Greek cross, with very short arms.

One other chapel in this church deserves attention; it is a simple parallelogram with Corinthian pilasters, the whole face of which is repeated at each angle. The architecture and the painting of the altar-piece seem to come from the school of Michael Angelo Buonarotti.

At the Church of Santa Sabina on the Aventine, you may see a great stone, which the Devil in a passion flung one day at St. Dominic. You are also shewn a chapel which the saint used as an oratory, and an orange tree planted by him six hundred years ago; but perhaps you do not care much about these things. The usual entrance is on the side, by a little portico of four columns, two of which are of a very dark granite, or perhaps I should say sienite, for they are chiefly of hornblende, but one has a vein of red, and the other of light-coloured granite. In the capitals here, and in those within the church, the divisions of the leaves are not cut through the marble, but merely worked in relief, the outline of the undivided leaf being preserved. The bases are Corinthian, and as the apophysis of the column is very large, the small mouldings of this order look trifling. Internally, the nave is formed by twenty-four fluted marble columns, with Attic bases, said to have been taken from the temple of Diana, but I much doubt if the capitals of these belong to the building mentioned by Horace. As there was also a temple of Juno in the neighbourhood, the columns of the porch may have belonged to that. The columns of the nave support arches, and there is no entablature; indeed it is quite clear, that there ought never to be both, although Brunelleschi was of so different an opinion, that in such cases he made use of two entablatures, one in fragments, and one continued; and placed his arches between them. In this church also is a beautiful marble door-case, probably belonging to the same edifice as that from which the columns were taken. The ornamented face is not exposed in the church, but in a hall, which forms a communication between it and the cloisters; and in this hall are small columns with twisted flutes. It is difficult to say precisely when this fancy began; but in small ornamental objects, it is doubtless of great antiquity. We may observe in the present day, that an architect gives himself more licence in small edifices, and in internal decorations, than in the more solid construction of large buildings; and it has always been so. Fancies in ornament please on a small scale, before they are generally adopted on a larger. The cloisters of this church are surrounded by single and coupled columns placed alternately, and supporting small arches, as in those of St. Paul and St. John Lateran. I say nothing of the history of this church, for in fact, the accounts we have of the construction of many of these edifices, is even more alike than the buildings, and you can seldom determine the date of any part with confidence.

Our next object will be St. Clement’s, where I shall conduct you into the church by the principal and regular entrance, and through the court, a way at present seldom used. The first object is the Prothyron, where four granite columns support two corbels; upon these is an arch advancing beyond the columns, and over the arch a pediment. There is a little antiporch of the same nature, at the church of Santa Maria in Cosmedim. It is perhaps of the time of Adrian I., who restored this church in 772, but the original foundation of the building is attributed to the time of Constantine, and in 417 Celestius was condemned in it by the Pope St. Zosimus. You will observe that a large portion of the earlier popes were saints, though in later times this is seldom the case. From the Prothyron we pass into a court 58 feet long, and 48 wide, surrounded by porticos, which are supported on three sides by small granite columns. As a court, the dimensions are small; yet it seems a separation between the church and the bustle of the world, and is extremely pleasing in architectural effect. I do not mean in this church in particular, but as to the general idea. It appears that the width of the court from wall to wall never much exceeded that of the church with its side aisles, and it is probably much better that such should be the case. A small space makes the principal building look large; besides a small court evidently belongs to the church; a large one becomes an opening in the city. Leaving this court you enter the church, the nave of which is formed as usual of plundered columns of different materials; and in the nave is the circuit in marble of the ancient presbytery, with its two pulpits; and the altar and apsis behind it, just as it was left in the twelfth century, when Cardinal Anastasius, under Pope Honorius the Second, restored the building, and had the apsis ornamented with mosaics. Somewhat of a similar presbytery, and in particular the two ambones, or pulpits, is also observable in San Lorenzo, but this is the most perfect example. It is said by Uggeri to be suited to the Greek ritual. I do not know why, or what differences the ancient Latin ritual would have required. Some authors I find apply the term ambo not to the pulpit, but to the whole of this enclosure for the presbytery; I do not pretend to decide which is right.

You will think these basilican churches will never come to an end, but I must still trespass on your indulgence for a short description of two or three more. In that of San Martino de’ Monti, otherwise St. Martin and St. Sylvester, are twenty-four columns of different marbles, which have been all reduced to one size; but the capitals are not all alike, and some of them are gilt; they are said to have been brought from Adrian’s villa at Tivoli. The part above the order is too high in proportion, as is perhaps the case in all the basilican churches; but on the whole it is a very handsome church, and well worth visiting for its architecture alone. It is not however by this that strangers are principally attracted; the walls are adorned by the fresco landscapes of Gaspar Poussin, with figures by Niccolò. They are much damaged, and the colours have probably changed; perhaps they never were very good, yet they merit an examination. Here is a very handsome modern chapel, with a semidome well ornamented with ribs diverging from the centre.

Another source of interest at this place is a subterraneum, said to have formed part of the baths of Trajan, afterwards to have been used as a church by St. Sylvester, who was made Pope in 314. It is sometimes added, that the baths of Trajan formed an appendage to those of Titus, and that St. Sylvester used this crypt in a time of persecution: two things hard to be believed. But at any rate these high gloomy vaults exhibit some fine picturesque effects. There is no architecture in them, and nothing remarkable in their construction.

In the Church of Santa Pudenziana the old columns are built up into niches in as ugly a manner as you can conceive; but it contains the relics of three thousand martyrs, and it is perhaps to correspond with this number, that we see on its walls, for those who visit it, an indulgence of three thousand years, and the remission of a third part of their sins. “Visitantes hanc ecclesiam, singulis diebus consequantur indulgentiam trium millium annorum et remissionem tertiæ partis peccatorum suorum.” I ask sometimes how long purgatory lasts, and what people do when they are discharged from it; but I cannot get any satisfactory information. The Church of Santa Prassede (a lady) is more famous for the rosso antico employed in its steps, than for its architectural merit. The effect, such as it was, has been spoilt by the arches thrown across the nave.

Santa Maria in Domnica has a front erected by Raphael. The design is graceful, and the lower arcade well proportioned, but the upper part is not so well managed. Internally, some small figures on the frieze by Giulio Romano demand as much attention as the eighteen columns of black and green granite, which Manazzale mentions. In front of this church, stands on a pedestal, a marble model of a boat, but its date is rather uncertain. It was placed by Leo X. in its present position.

In the portico of the Church of San Giorgio in Velabro are four small columns, one of granite, two of marble, and one of cipollino; the latter alone corresponds with the capitals, which are all alike, of the Ionic order, with larger volutes than is usual in the fragments remaining at Rome, of good general proportions, but not good in the detail. The doorway exhibits nearly the whole width of a frieze, the moulding and upper face of an architrave, and the corona and upper members of a cornice, in a bold and good style, resembling in character the remains we have in the church of Santa Maria in Cosmedim. The inside is not very easy of access, and contains little to reward us when we have procured admission, for mere antique columns, and even handsome ones, are too common in Rome to obtain much attention. The tower, which is an edifice of the eighth century, being erected under Pope Zacchary, stands very insecurely on part of the arch of the goldsmiths, and one angle seems almost to rest on the edge of a single slab of marble. I pointed out this circumstance to a lad who was preparing the church for the festa. “Well, then,” said he, “I suppose the first earthquake will throw it down.” I replied, that such a result was extremely probable. “Well, it does not signify, I dare say there will be nobody here.”

This tower, though far from beautiful, merits a more particular description, because it is of a style very common in Rome, and its date is well ascertained. The lower part is entirely plain, excepting the small moulding which terminates it, and is nearly hid by the body of the church. Above, there are four nearly equal stories, each crowned with a cornice, of which the uppermost is the largest; the lower of these has three recesses on one side only. The next has had three arches on each side, but they are now filled up; the third has likewise three arches, and these are still open. The upper has also three arches on each side, but these, instead of being separated by square piers, are divided by two columns, each of which supports a corbel immediately under the springing of the arch. The diameter of the column is very much less than the thickness of the wall, perhaps hardly above one third, so that the arches considerably overhang their supports. This fashion seems to have been widely spread, and to have lasted long, for the examples are very numerous at Rome and elsewhere. It would be difficult to determine how long, but I suspect some of them are as late as the eleventh century. When it was rare to build any thing of consequence, the desire of distinction did not require the frequent alteration of design, which takes place when more is executed; and architecture seems to have changed its type but little from the fourth or fifth, to the beginning of the eleventh century.