Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 2.djvu/126

 ETKUBIA. »pp«an to hxn remained prindptlly in the hands of the EtrnscHOs; hat it had fallen to a great degree into disrepate, and, thoagh an attempt was made by the eropeiw Glandioa to restore it (Tao. Arm, lu, 15)f it gradoally sank into contempt, and the Tuscan Harospex was regarded, like the Ghaldaean astrologer, as a mere vulgar impostor. The super- stition itself, however, oonttnned down to the httest ages of the empire, and is mentioned in A. d. 408 duing the wars of Alaric in Italy. (Zosim. v. 41.) YIL Arts and Sciences. It is espeeially from the still extant monuments and works of art d isc ov e red in Etraria that there has arisen in modem Umes a high, and in some d^ree certainly exaggerated, notion of the civilisatioa of the ancient Etruscans. But all accoonts agree in representing them as by far the most colthnted atod refined people of ancient Italy, and especially devoted to the practice of arts and handicrafts of variooa kinds. (Athen. XT. p. 700, c; Heraclid. 16.) It was from them that the Romans oonfeascdly derived many of the arts and inventions that conduced to the eomfbrt of daily lifts, as well as many objects of hxxnrj and magnificence. To the latter cJass belong the oraft- mental attire worn in the triumphal processions, -— > themselves probably an Etruscan custom (Appian, viii. 66), — as well as by the kings and chief magis- trates of Bome: the T(^ picta, the PraetexU, the golden Bulla, the ivory curule chair, &c. (Diod. v. 40; Fk>r. i. 5; Macrob. Sat, I 6; Liv. L 8; Strab. V. pu 220.) Tine numerous objects of an ornamental character found in the Etruscan tombs fully confirm the testimony of ancient writers to their proficiency in this branch of art, while the paintings on the walls of some of their sepulchres afibrd some insight into their halHts of daily life, and lead us to infer that they were really, as represented by the Greeks, a luxurious and sensoal people. The account of their abandoned vices and profligacy given by Theo- pompus (op. Atken, xii. p. 517) is obviously much exaggerated; but Virgil also bears testimony to the general belief in their habits of debaudiery (Aen. xL 736; see also Plant CitUlL u. 3, 20). Diodorus, however, represents these luxurious and voluptnoos habits as belonging to the d^enenu^ of the Etruscans, consequent on their long prosperity, and characteristic therefore only of their decline. (Diod. V. 40.) And it must always be borne in mind that almost all the extant works of art belong to a late period of their national existence. They were especially noted for their devotion to the plea- sures of the table, whence we find the Etruscans ridiculed in Roman times for their corpulencei Q'Pin- ^wTyrrhenus," Viig. G. il 193; "06««»Etruscas," OatuU. 39. 11.) In the higher departments of art, it is clear that the Etruscans had made great progress in archi- tectnre, sculpture, and painting. 1. Of Etruscan Architecture our knowledge is really but veiy limited. The so-called Tuscan order of archi- tecture, as applied to the construction of temi^es and similar edifices, is really nothing more than a modificatioa o. the Doric, which it resembles too closely to have had a separate and independent origin. The principal difference was m the greater width between the columns, which admitted <xily of the use of timber instead of stone for the architrave; and in the an-angement of the cella, which occupied only half the length of the interior area of the temple. The general effect was, according to Vi- ETRUBIA. 867 travios, nn&vonrable; the temples bnilt according to the Tuscan order (of which there were several at Rome, including that of Jujnter in the Capitol) having a low and heavy aspect. This must have heea aggravated by the custom, characteristic of the Tuscan architecture, of loading the outside of the pediment with statues. (Vitruv. UL 3. § 6, iv. 7 ; Plin. XXXV. 12. B. 45, 46; Miiller, Arch. d. Kuntt. § 169.) The external architectural decorations of some of the Etruscan sepulchres (especially the fa^es of those hewn in the rock at Castel dAseo^ Norchioj &c.) present the same close approximation to the Hellenic, and particularly the Doric, style. The existing monuments of Etruscan architecture are confined to works of a more massive and simple description, among which the most remarkable are the fragments of their dtj waUs, especially those of Faesulae, Volaterrae, Cortona, and RuseUae. In all these instances the masonry, which is of the most massive character, is composed of large irregular blocks, not united with cement, bat rudely squared, and laid in horizontal courses. There is, however, little doubt that the difference of oonstructiim be- tween these Etruscan walk and those of Latium and the Central Apennines is not a national charac- teristic, but results merely from the difference of material — the walls of Cosa and Satnmia, which are composed of the hard limestone of the Apennines, being of the same polygonal construction with those of the Latin and Volscian cities. (Specimens of both styles of Qonstruction are figured by Micali, PopoU Antichi Jtakianh pi. 9—12.) Of their edifices fur the exhibition of games, such as theatres or amphitheatres, we have no dbtinct knowledge : they oould hardly have been without something of the kind, as we are told that both the theatrical exhibitions of the Romans, and their gla- diatorial combats, were derived from the Etroscans, who moreover delighted in hovse-raoes and pugilistic contests. (Liv.i. siS, vil. 2; Athen. iv. p. 153; Val. Max. ii. 4. § 4 ; TertulL 4ie Sped. 5.) But the theatre at Faesulae (repeatedly referred to by Nie- buhr as a great Etruscan work), and the amphi- theatre at Sutrium, to which veiy exaggerated im- portance has been attached by some writers, are in all probability Roman works of comparatively late date. The Etruscans appear to have paid especial attention to the more practically oaeful objects of architecture, such as the laying out <tf streets and sewers. Of their skill in the latter, the Cloaca Max- ima at Rome — the eonstmction of whidi is univer- sally attributed to the E^uscan monarchs of the city — is a striking example: the same mcmument proves also that they were acqnunted at a very early period with the true principle of the arch, and pos- sessed great skill in its (Muctical application. Closely connected with this class of works were those for the drainage and outlet of stagnant waters by subter* ranean emissaries or tunnels, — an art for which the Etruscans appear to have been early celebrated. Of their domestic architecture we can judge only from some of their sepulchres, which bear unquestionable evidence of being intended to imitate, as closely as possible, the abodes of the living. (Dennis, EtrvriOj vol. i. p. Ixvi.) But the common tradition of the Romans represented the Atrinm, the most peculiar feature in the construction of a Roman house, as an Etruscan invention ; and hence the most ancient and simple form of it was called Tuscanicnm. (Varr. L.L. V. 33. § 161 ; Vitruv. vi. 3; Diod. v. 40.) The sepulchres of the Etruscans have attracted 3k 2