Bk. IV. Ch. III. ORDERS. 297 its faults being principally those of detail. It is not so easy, however, to form an opinion of the Temple of Peace in its present ruined state; but in so far as we can iudo^e from what vet remains of it in boldness and majesty of conception it must have been quite equal to the other example, though it must have required far more familiarity Avith the style adopted to manage its design as appropriately as the simpler dome of the Pantheon. These two buildings may be considered as exemplifying the extent to Avhich the Romans had progressed in the invention of a new style of architecture and the state in which they left it to their successors. It may however be worth while pointing out how, in transplanting Roman architecture to their new capital on the shores of the Bos- phorus, the semi-oriental nation seized on its own circular form, and, modifying and moulding it to its purpose, wrought out the Byzantine style ; in which the dome is the great feature, almost to the total exclusion of the rectangulai- form with its intersecting vaults. On the other hand, the rectangular form was appropriated by the nations of the West with an equally distinct rejection of the circular and domical forms, except in those cases in which we find an Eastern people still incorporated with them. Thus in Italy both styles con- tinued long in use, the one in baptisteries, the other in churches, Init always ke])t distinct, as in Rome. In France they were so com- pletely fused into each other that it requires considerable knowledge of architectural analysis to separate them again into their component parts. In England we rejected the circular form altogethei*, and so they did eventually in Germany, except when under French intluence. Each race reclaimed its own among the spoils of Rome, and used it with the improvements it had acquired during its employment in the Imperial city. Orders. The iirst thing that strikes the student in attempting to classify the numerous examples of Roman architecture is the immense variety of purposes to which it is applied, as compared with previous styles. In Egypt architecture was applied only to palaces and tombs. In C4reece it was almost wholly confined to temples and theatres; and in Etruria to tombs. It is in Rome that we first feel that we have not to deal with either a Theocracy or a kingdom, but with a great people, who for the first time in the world's history rendered architecture sub- servient to the myriad wants of the many-headed monster. It thus happens that in the Roman cities in addition to temples Ave find basilicas, theatres and amphitheatres, baths, palaces, tombs, arches of triumph and pillars of victory, gates, bridges, and aqueducts, all equally objects of architectural skill. The best of these, in fact, are those which from previous neglect in other countries are here stamped
