Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/892

 724 The Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal. [May, GREEK AND EOMAN DWELLING HOUSES. IN the following considerations I do not intend entering into any de- scription of the Architecture of Greece and Italy, as exhibited in the numerous splendid remains still extant, and which bear the most indisputable evidence, if any were required, of the very high degree of proficiency to which these two great nations of antiquity had attained in this Art. All that I now purpose doing is to describe as briefly as possible the different modes of construction which were in common use at that remote period, and their application to the everyday uses of life. There can be no doubt that the very earliest struc- tures erected by either of these nations were of the very rudest and most prim- itive nature — simply lath and plaster. In localities where timber was abundant, Tog-houses were of common occurrence. As the art of building flourished, and in proportion to the increasing civilization of the age, brick, marble and stone began to be used in building; until fi- nally, those most splendid works of art, the ruins of which challenge the admir- ation of even our day, bear evidence of a solidity and accuracy of construction in the stone and marble columns and walls which have rarely, if ever been since excelled. The Cyclopean is the earliest form of masonry iu use among the Grecians of which any remains have been discov- ered ; this is distinguished by the walls being formed of huge massive stones, the interstices of which were filled in with smaller stones. Among the most remarkable specimens of this style, the walls of Mycena may be particularly mentioned ; in some places, the walls are said to be full}" sixtjr feet thick. There is another form of this st3le sometimes called the second Cyclopean, which varied from the other by the blocks or stones used being polygonal in shape, of fully as huge dimensions, and fitted together with the greatest accuracy and precision ; but, in neither instance, united by mortar. Still another mode of construction was facing a rubble wall with square stones, arranged in a wedge-like manner on their angles. This form was united with the more common one of hori- zontal courses, thus making a kind of a pattern, which produced a very pleas- ing effect, and which we sometimes see imitated in our times. A very common way of forming thick walls among the Romans was by fac- ing the outer and inner surface with squared stones, or with brick, filling in the interior with rough broken frag- ments, thoroughly cemented together by means of the excellent mortar for which they seem to have been famous. For the purpose of binding together the outer and inner face of the walls, large thorough stones were introduced at regu- lar intervals, extending through the whole thickness of the wall. The temples of Athens, Corinth, and other Greek cities prove that the de- scription of masonry which we call ashlar was known to them. The stone or marble blocks, after being quarried, were most accurately worked by the chisel, and made to fit so that the eye could scarcely distinguish the sev- eral joints. These blocks were con- nected with those above them by dove- tailing them with those lying side, by side by iron cramps fixed with lead. In one instance, iu a marble temple at Cyzicus, the lines of union of those blocks were found to have been covered with gold ; and consequently these an- cient remains have proved a rich mine for excavators. The most striking difference between Greek and Roman masomy, as seen from the remains to which we have, al-