CHAPTER IV

.

BASILICAS, THEATRES, AND BATHS.

CONTENTS.

Basilicas of Trajan and Maxentius—Provincial basilicas—Theatre at Orange—Colosseum—Provincial amphitheatres—Baths of Diocletian.

BASILICAS.

We have already seen that in size and magnificence the temples of Rome were among the least remarkable of her public buildings. It may be doubted whether in any respect, in the eyes of the Romans themselves, the temples were as important and venerable as the basilicas. The people cared for government and justice more than for religion, and consequently paid more attention to the affairs of the basilicas than to those of the temples. Our means for the restoration of this class of buildings are now but small, owing to their slight construction in the first instance, and to their materials having been so suitable for the building of Christian basilicas as to have been extensively used for that purpose. It happens, however, that the remains which we do possess comprise what we know to be the ruins of the two most splendid buildings of this class in Rome, and these are sufficiently complete to enable us to restore their plans with considerable confidence. It is also fortunate that one of these, the Ulpian or Trajan’s basilica, is the typical specimen of those with wooden roofs; the other, that of Maxentius, commonly called the Temple of Peace, is the noblest of the vaulted class.

[Illustration:

199. Plan of Trajan’s Basilica at Rome. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.

The part shaded darker is all that is uncovered. ]

[Illustration: 200. Restored Section of Trajan’s Basilica. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

The rectangular part of Trajan’s basilica was 180 ft. in width and a little more than twice that in length, but, neither end having yet been excavated, its exact longitudinal measurement has not been ascertained. It was divided into five aisles by four rows of columns, each about 35 ft. in height, the centre being 87 ft. wide, and the side-aisles 23 ft. 4 in. each. The centre was covered by a wooden roof of semicircular form,[174] covered apparently with bronze plates richly ornamented and gilt. Above the side aisles was a gallery, the roof of which was supported by an upper row of columns. From the same columns also sprang the arches of the great central aisle. The total internal height was thus probably about 120 ft., or higher than any English cathedral, though not so high as some German and French churches.

At one end was a great semicircular apse, the back part of which was raised, being approached by a semicircular range of steps. In the centre of this platform was the raised seat of the quæstor or other magistrate who presided. On each side, upon the steps, were places for the assessors or others engaged in the business being transacted. In front of the apse was placed an altar, where sacrifice was performed before commencing any important public business.[175]

Externally this basilica could not have been of much magnificence. It was entered on the side of the Forum (on the left hand of the plan and section) by one triple doorway in the centre and two single ones on either side, flanked by shallow porticoes of columns of the same height as those used internally. These supported statues, or rather, to judge from the coins representing the building, rilievos, which may have set off, but could hardly have given much dignity to, a building designed as this was. At the end opposite the apse a similar arrangement seems to have prevailed.

This mode of using columns only half the height of the edifice must have been very destructive of their effect and of the general grandeur of the structure, but it became about this time rather the rule than the exception, and was afterwards adopted for temples and every other class of buildings, so that it was decidedly an improvement when the arch took the place of the horizontal architrave and cornice; the latter always suggested a roof, and became singularly incongruous when applied as a mere ornamental adjunct at half the height of the façade. The interior of the basilica was, however, the important element to which the exterior was entirely sacrificed, a transition in architectural design which we have before alluded to, taking place much faster in basilicas, which were an entirely new form of building, than in temples, whose conformation had become sacred from the traditions of past ages.

[Illustration: 201. Plan of Basilica of Maxentius. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 202. Longitudinal Section of Basilica of Maxentius. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 203. Transverse Section of Basilica of Maxentius. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

The basilica of Maxentius, which was probably not entirely finished till the reign of Constantine, was rather broader than that of Trajan, being 195 ft. between the walls, but it was 100 ft. less in length. The central aisle was very nearly of the same width, being 83 ft. between the walls, and 120 ft. in height. There was, however, a vast difference in the construction of the two; so much so, that we are startled to see how rapid the progress had been during the interval, of less than two centuries, that had elapsed between the construction of the two basilicas.

[Illustration: 204. Pillar of Maxentian Basilica. (From an old print quoted by Letarouilly.)]

In this building no pillars were used with the exception of eight great columns in front of the piers, employed merely as ornaments, or as vaulting shafts were in Gothic cathedrals, to support in appearance, though not in construction, the springing of the vaults.[176] The side-aisles were roofed by three great arches, each 74 ft. in span, and the centre by an immense intersecting vault in three compartments. The form of these will be understood from the annexed sections (Woodcuts Nos. 202 and 203), one taken longitudinally, the other across the building. As will be seen from them, all the thrusts are collected to a point and a buttress placed there to receive them: indeed almost all the peculiarities afterwards found in Gothic vaults are here employed on a far grander and more gigantic scale than the Gothic architects ever attempted; but at the same time it must be allowed that the latter, with smaller dimensions, often contrived by a more artistic treatment of their materials to obtain as grand an effect and far more actual beauty than ever were attained in the great transitional halls of the Romans. The largeness of the parts of the Roman buildings was indeed their principal defect, as in consequence of this they must all have appeared smaller than they really were, whereas in all Gothic cathedrals the repetition and smallness of the component parts has the effect of magnifying their real dimensions.

The roofs of these halls had one peculiarity which it would have been well if the mediæval architects had copied, inasmuch as they were all, or at least might have been, honestly used as roofs without any necessity for their being covered with others of wood, as all Gothic vaults unfortunately were. It is true this is perhaps one of the causes of their destruction, for, being only overlaid with cement, the rain wore away the surface, as must inevitably be the case with any composition of the sort exposed horizontally to the weather, and that being gone, the moisture soon penetrated through the crevices of the masonry, destroying the stability of the vault. Still, some of these in Rome have resisted for fifteen centuries, after the removal of any covering they ever might have had, all the accidents of climate and decay, while there is not a Gothic vault of half their dimensions that would stand for a century after the removal of its wooden protection. The construction of a vault capable of resisting the destructive effects of exposure to the atmosphere still remains a problem for modern architects to solve. Until this is accomplished we must regard roofs entirely of honest wood as preferable to the deceptive stone ceilings which were such favourites in the Middle Ages.

[Illustration: 205. Plan of the Basilica at Trèves. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 206. Internal View of the Basilica at Trèves.]

The provincial basilicas of the Roman Empire have nearly all perished, probably from their having been converted, first into churches, for which they were so admirably adapted, and then rebuilt to suit the exigencies and taste of subsequent ages. One example, however, still exists in Trèves of sufficient completeness to give a good idea of what such structures were. As will be seen by the annexed plan, it consists of a great hall, 85 ft. in width internally, and rather more than twice that dimension in length. The walls are about 100 ft. in height and pierced with two rows of windows; but whether they were originally separated by a gallery or not is now by no means clear. At one end was the apse, rather more than a semicircle of 60 ft. in diameter. The floor of the apse was raised considerably above that of the body of the building, and was no doubt adorned by a hemicycle of seats raised on steps, with a throne in the centre for the judge. The building has been used for so many purposes since the time of the Romans, and has been so much altered, that it is not easy now to speak with certainty of any of its minor arrangements. Its internal and external appearance, as it stood before the recent restoration, are well expressed in the annexed woodcuts; and though ruined, it was the most complete example of a Roman basilica to be found anywhere out of the capital. A building of this description has been found at Pompeii, which may be considered a fair example of a provincial basilica of the second class. Its plan is perfectly preserved, as shown in Woodcut No. 208. The most striking difference existing between it and those previously described is the square termination instead of the circular apse. It must, however, be observed that Pompeii was situated nearer to Magna Græcia than to Rome, and was indeed far more a Greek than a Roman city. Very slight traces of any Etruscan designs have been discovered there, and scarcely any buildings of the circular form so much in vogue in the capital. Though the ground-plan of this basilica remains perfect, the upper parts are entirely destroyed, and we do not even know for certain whether the central portion was roofed or not.[177]

[Illustration: 207. External View of the Basilica at Trèves.]

[Illustration: 208. Plan of Basilica at Pompeii. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

There is a small square building at Otricoli, which is generally supposed to be a basilica, but its object as well as its age is so uncertain that nothing need be said of it here. In the works of Vitruvius, too, there is a description of one built by him at Fano, the restoration of which has afforded employment for the ingenuity of the admirers of that worst of architects. Even taking it as restored by those most desirous of making the best of it, it is difficult to understand how anything so bad could have been erected in such an age.

It is extremely difficult to trace the origin of these basilicas, owing principally to the loss of all the earlier examples. Their name is Greek, and they may probably be considered as derived from the Grecian Lesche, or perhaps as amplifications of the cellæ of Greek temples, appropriated to the purposes of justice rather than of religion; but till we know more of their earlier form and origin, it is useless speculating on this point. The greatest interest to us, arises rather from the use to which their plan was afterwards applied, than from the source from which they themselves sprang. All the larger Christian churches in the early times were copies, more or less exact, of the basilicas of which that of Trajan is an example. The abundance of pillars, suitable to such an erection, that were found everywhere in Rome, rendered their construction easy and cheap; and the wooden roof with which they were covered was also as simple and as inexpensive a covering as could well be designed. The very uses of the Christian basilicas at first were by no means dissimilar to those of their heathen originals, as they were in reality the assembly halls of the early Christian republic, before they became liturgical churches of the Catholic hierarchy.

The more expensive construction of the bold vaults of the Maxentian basilica went far beyond the means of the early Church, established in a declining and abandoned capital, and this form therefore remained dormant for seven or eight centuries before it was revived by the mediæval architects on an infinitely smaller scale, but adorned with a degree of appropriateness and taste to which the Romans were strangers. It was then used with a completeness and unity which entitle it to be considered as an entirely new style of architecture.

THEATRES.

The theatre was by no means so essential a part of the economy of a Roman city as it was of a Grecian one. With the latter it was quite as indispensable as the temple; and in the semi-Greek city of Herculaneum there was one, and in Pompeii two, on a scale quite equal to those of Greece when compared with the importance of the town itself. In the capital there appears only to have been one, that of Marcellus,[178] built during the reign of Augustus. It it is very questionable whether what we now see—especially the outer arcades—belong to that age, or whether the theatre may not have been rebuilt and these arcades added at some later period. It is so completely built over by modern houses, and so ruined, that it is extremely difficult to arrive at any satisfactory opinion regarding it. Its dimensions were worthy of the capital, the audience part being a semicircle of 410 ft. in diameter, and the scena being of great extent in proportion to the other part, which is a characteristic of all Roman theatres, as compared with Grecian edifices of this class.

[Illustration: 209. Plan of the Theatre at Orange. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

One of the most striking Roman provincial theatres is that of Orange, in the south of France. Perhaps it owes its existence, or at all events its splendour, to the substratum of Grecian colonists that preceded the Romans in that country. Its auditorium is 340 ft. in diameter, but much ruined, in consequence of the Princes of Orange having used this part as a bastion in some fortification they were constructing.

[Illustration: 210. View of the Theatre at Orange.]

The stage is very tolerably preserved. It shows well the increased extent and complication of arrangements required for the theatrical representations of the age in which it was constructed, being a considerable advance towards the more modern idea of a play, as distinguished from the stately semi-religious spectacle in which the Greeks delighted. The noblest part of the building is the great wall at the back, an immense mass of masonry 340 ft. in extent and 116 ft. in height, without a single opening above the basement, and no ornament except a range of blank arches, about midway between the basement and the top, and a few projecting corbels to receive the footings of the masts that supported the velarium. Nowhere does the architecture of the Romans shine so much as when their gigantic buildings are left to tell their own tale by the imposing grandeur of their masses. Whenever ornament is attempted, their bad taste comes out. The size of their edifices, and the solidity of their construction, were only surpassed by the Egyptians, and not always by them; and when, as here, the mass of material heaped up stands unadorned in all its native grandeur, criticism is disarmed, and the spectator stands awe-struck at its majesty, and turns away convinced that truly “there were giants in those days.” This is not, it is true, the most intellectual way of obtaining architectural effect, but it has the advantage of being the easiest, the most certain to secure the desired result, and at the same time the most permanent.

AMPHITHEATRES.

The deficiency of theatres erected by the Romans is far more than compensated by the number and splendour of their amphitheatres, which, with their baths, may be considered as the true types of Roman art, although it is possible that they derived this class of public buildings from the Etruscans. At Sutrium there is a very noble one cut out of the tufa rock,[179] which was no doubt used by that people for festal representations long before Rome attempted anything of the kind. It is uncertain whether gladiatorial fights or combats of wild beasts formed any part of the amusements of the arena in those days, though boxing, wrestling, and contests of that description certainly did; but whether the Etruscans actually proceeded to the shedding of blood and to slaughter is more than doubtful.

Even in the remotest parts of Britain, in Germany and Gaul, wherever we find a Roman settlement, we find the traces of their amphitheatres. Their soldiery, it seems, could not exist without the enjoyment of seeing men engaged in doubtful and mortal combats—either killing one another, or torn to pieces by wild beasts. It is not to be wondered at that a people who delighted so much in the bloody scenes of the arena should feel but very little pleasure in the mimic sorrows and tame humour of the stage. The brutal exhibition of the amphitheatre fitted them, it is true, to be a nation of conquerors, and gave them the empire of the world, but it brought with it feelings singularly inimical to all the softer arts, and was perhaps the great cause of their ultimate debasement.

[Illustration: 211. Elevation and Section of part of the Flavian Amphitheatre at Rome. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 212. Quarter-plan of the Seats and quarter-plan of the Basement of the Flavian Amphitheatre. No scale.]

As might be expected, the largest and most splendid of these buildings is that which adorns the capital; and of all the ruins which Rome contains, none have excited such universal admiration as the Flavian Amphitheatre. Poets, painters, rhapsodists, have exhausted all the resources of their arts in the attempt to convey to others the overpowering impression this building produces on their own minds. With the single exception, perhaps, of the Hall at Karnac, no ruin has met with such universal admiration as this. Its association with the ancient mistress of the world, its destruction, and the half-prophetic destiny ascribed to it, all contribute to this. In spite of our better judgment we are forced to confess that

“The gladiators’ bloody circus stands A noble wreck in ruinous perfection,”

and worthy of all or nearly all the admiration of which it has been the object. Its interior is almost wholly devoid of ornament, or anything that can be called architecture—a vast inverted pyramid. The exterior does not possess one detail which is not open to criticism, and indeed to positive blame. Notwithstanding all this, its magnitude, its form, and its associations, all combine to produce an effect against which the critic struggles in vain. Still, all must admit that the pillars and their entablature are useless and are added incongruously, and that the upper storey, not being arched like the lower, but solid, and with ugly pilasters, is a painful blemish. This last defect is so striking that, in spite of the somewhat dubious evidence of medals, I should feel inclined to suspect that it was a subsequent addition, and meant wholly for the purpose of supporting and working the great velarium or awning that covered the arena during the representation, which may not have been attempted when the amphitheatre was first erected.

Be this as it may, it certainly now very much mars the effect of the building. The lower storeys are of bad design, but this is worse. But notwithstanding these defects, there is no building of Rome where the principle of reduplication of parts, of which the Gothic architects afterwards made so much use, is carried to so great an extent as in this. The Colosseum is principally indebted to this feature for the effect which it produces. Had it, for instance, been designed with only one storey of the height of the four now existing, and every arch had consequently been as wide as the present four, the building would have scarcely appeared half the size it is now seen to be. For all this, however, when close under it, and comparing it with moving figures and other objects, we could scarcely eventually fail to realise its wonderful dimensions. In that case, a true sense of the vast size of the building would have had to be acquired, as is the case with the façade of St. Peter’s. Now it forces itself on the mind at the first glance. It is the repetition of arch beyond arch and storey over storey that leads the mind on, and gives to this amphitheatre its imposing grandeur, which all acknowledge, though few give themselves the trouble to inquire how this effect is produced.

Fortunately, too, though the face of the building is much cut up by the order, the entablatures are unbroken throughout, and cross the building in long vanishing lines of the most graceful curvatures. The oval, also, is certainly more favourable for effect than a circular form would be. A building of this shape may perhaps look smaller than it really is to a person standing exactly opposite either end; but in all other positions the flatter side gives a variety and an appearance of size, which the monotonous equality of a circle would never produce.

The length of the building, measured over all along its greatest diameter, is 620 ft., its breadth 513, or nearly in the ratio of 6 to 5, which may be taken as the general proportion of these buildings, the variations from it being slight, and apparently either mistakes in setting out the work in ancient times, or in measuring it in modern days, rather than an intentional deviation. The height of the three lower storeys, or of what I believe to have been the original building, is 120 ft.; the total height as it now stands is 157 ft. The arena itself measures 287 ft. in length by 180 in breadth. The whole area of the building has been calculated to contain 250,000 square feet, of which the arena contains 40,000; then deducting 10,000 for the external wall, 200,000 square feet will remain available for the audience. If we divide this by 5,[180] which is the number of square feet it has been found necessary to allow for each spectator in modern places of amusement, room will be afforded for 40,000 spectators; at 4 feet, which is a possible quantity, with continuous seats and the scant drapery of the Romans, the amphitheatre might contain 50,000 spectators at one time.

The area of the supports has also been calculated at about 40,000 square feet, or about one-sixth of the whole area; which for an unroofed edifice of this sort[181] is more than sufficient, though the excess accounts for the stability of the building.

Next in extent to this great metropolitan amphitheatre was that of Capua; its dimensions were 558 ft. by 460; its height externally 95 ft. It had three storeys, designed similarly to those of the Colosseum, but all of the Doric order, and used with more purity than in the Roman example.

Next in age, though not in size, is that at Nîmes, 430 ft. by 378, and 72 in height, in two storeys. Both these storeys are more profusely and more elegantly ornamented with pillars than those of either of the amphitheatres mentioned above. The entablature is however broken over each column, and pediments are introduced on each front. All these arrangements, though showing more care in design and sufficient elegance in detail, make this building very inferior in grandeur to the two earlier edifices, whose simplicity of outline makes up, to a great extent, for their faults of detail.

A more beautiful example than this is that at Verona. Its dimensions are 502 ft. by 401, and 98 ft. high, in three storeys beautifully proportioned. Here the order almost entirely disappears to make way for rustication, showing that it must be considerably more modern than either of the three examples above quoted, though hardly so late as the time of Maximianus, to whom it is frequently ascribed.[182] The arena of this amphitheatre is very nearly perfect, owing to the care taken of it during the Middle Ages, when it was often used for tournaments and other spectacles; but of its outer architectural enclosure only four bays remain, sufficient to enable an architect to restore the whole, but not to allow of its effect being compared with that of more entire examples.

The amphitheatre at Pola, which is of about the same age as that of Verona, and certainly belonging to the last days of the Western Empire, presents in its ruin a curious contrast to the other. That at Verona has a perfect arena and only a fragment of its exterior decoration, while the exterior of Pola is perfect, but not a trace remains of its arena, or of the seats that surrounded it. This is probably owing to their having been of wood, and consequently having either decayed or been burnt. Like that at Verona, it presents all the features of the last stage of transition; the order is still seen, or rather is everywhere suggested, but so concealed and kept subordinate that it does not at all interfere with the general effect. But for these faint traces we should possess in this amphitheatre one specimen entirely emancipated from incongruous Grecian forms, but, as before remarked, Rome perished when just on the threshold of the new style.

[Illustration: 213. Elevation of the Amphitheatre at Verona. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

The dimensions of the amphitheatre at Pola are very nearly the same as of that at Nîmes, being 436 ft. by 346. It has, however, three storeys, and thus its height is considerably greater, being 97 ft. Owing to the inequality of the ground on which it is built, the lower storey shows the peculiarity of a sub-basement, which is very pleasingly managed, and appears to emancipate it more from conventional forms than is the case with its contemporary at Verona. The third storey, or attic, is also more pleasing than elsewhere, as it is avowedly designed for the support of the masts of the velarium. The pilasters and all Greek forms are omitted, and there is only a groove over every column of the middle storey to receive the masts. There is also a curious sort of open battlement on the top, evidently designed to facilitate the working of the awning, though in what manner is not quite clear. There is still one other peculiarity about the building, the curvature of its lines is broken by four projecting wings, intended apparently to contain staircases; in a building so light and open as this one is in its present state there can be no doubt but that the projections give expression and character to the outline, though such additions would go far to spoil any of the greater examples above quoted.

At Otricoli there is a small amphitheatre, 312 ft. by 230, in two storeys, from which the order has entirely disappeared; it is therefore possibly the most modern of its class, but the great flat pilasters that replace the pillars are ungraceful and somewhat clumsy. Perhaps its peculiarities ought rather to be looked on as provincialisms than as genuine specimens of an advanced style. Still there is a pleasing simplicity about it that on a larger scale would enable it to stand comparison with some of its greater rivals.

Besides these, which are the typical examples of the style, there are the “Castrense” at Rome, nearly circular, and possessing all the faults and none of the beauties of the Colosseum; one at Arles, very much ruined; and a great number of provincial ones, not only in Italy and Gaul, but in Germany and Britain. Almost all these were principally if not wholly excavated from the earth, the part above-ground being the mound formed by the excavation. If they ever possessed any external decoration to justify their being treated as architectural objects, it has disappeared, so that in the state at least in which we now find them they do not belong to the ornamental class of works of which we are at present treating.

BATHS.

Next in splendour to the amphitheatres of the Romans were their great thermal establishments: in size they were perhaps even more remarkable, and their erection must certainly have been more costly. The amphitheatre, however, has the great advantage in an architectural point of view of being one object, one hall in short, whereas the baths were composed of a great number of smaller parts, not perhaps very successfully grouped together. They were wholly built of brick covered with stucco (except perhaps the pillars), and have, therefore, now so completely lost their architectural features that it is with difficulty that even the most practised architect can restore them to anything like their original appearance.

In speaking of the great Thermæ of Imperial Rome, they must not be confounded with such establishments as that of Pompeii for instance. The latter was very similar to the baths now found in Cairo or Constantinople, and indeed in most Eastern cities. These are mere establishments for the convenience of bathers, consisting generally of one or two small circular or octagonal halls, covered by domes, and one or two others of an oblong shape, covered with vaults or wooden roofs, used as reception-rooms, or places of repose after the bath. These have never any external magnificence beyond an entrance-porch; and although those at Pompeii are decorated internally with taste, and are well worthy of study, their smallness of size and inferiority of design do not admit of their being placed in the same category as those of the capital, which are as characteristic of Rome as her amphitheatres, and are such as could only exist in a capital where the bulk of the people were able to live on the spoils of the conquered world rather than by the honest gains of their own industry.

Agrippa is said to have built baths immediately behind the Pantheon, and Palladio and others have attempted restorations of them, assuming that building to have been the entrance-hall. Nothing, however, can be more unlikely than that, if he had first built the rotunda as a hall of his baths, he should afterwards have added the portico, and converted it from its secular use into a temple dedicated to all the gods.

As before remarked, the two parts are certainly not of the same age. If Agrippa built the rotunda as a part of his baths, the portico was added a century and a half or two centuries afterwards, and it was then converted into a temple. If Agrippa built the portico, he added it to a building belonging to Republican times, which may always have been dedicated to sacred purposes. As the evidence at present stands, I am rather inclined to believe the first hypothesis most correctly represents the facts of the case.[183]

Nero’s baths, too, are a mere heap of shapeless ruins, and those of Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan in like manner are too much ruined for their form, or even their dimensions, to be ascertained with anything like correctness. Those of Titus are more perfect, but the very discrepancies that exist between the different systems upon which their restoration has been attempted show that enough does not remain to enable the task to be accomplished in a satisfactory manner. They owe their interest more to the beautiful fresco paintings that adorn their vaults than to their architectural character. These paintings are invaluable, as being the most extensive and perfect relics of the painted decoration of the most flourishing period of the Empire, and give a higher idea of Roman art than other indications would lead us to expect.

The baths of Constantine are also nearly wholly destroyed, so that out of the great Thermæ two only, those of Diocletian and of Caracalla, now remain sufficiently perfect to enable a restoration to be made of them with anything like certainty.

[Illustration: 214. Baths of Caracalla, as restored by A. Blouet.]

The great hall belonging to the baths of Diocletian is now the Church of Sta. Maria degli Angeli, and has been considerably altered to suit the changed circumstances of its use; while the modern buildings attached to the church have so overlaid the older remains that it is not easy to follow out the complete plan. This is of less consequence, as both in dimensions and plan they are extremely similar to those of Caracalla, which seem to have been among the most magnificent, as they certainly are the best preserved, of these establishments.[184]

The general plan of the whole enclosure of the baths of Caracalla was a square of about 1150 ft. each way, with a bold but graceful curvilinear projection on two sides, containing porticoes, gymnasia, lecture-rooms, and other halls for exercise of mind or body. In the rear were the reservoirs to contain the requisite supply of water and below them the hypocaust or furnace, by which it was warmed with a degree of scientific skill we hardly give the Romans of that age credit for. Opposite to this and facing the street was one great portico extending the whole length of the building, into which opened a range of apartments, meant apparently to be used as private baths, which extend also some way up each side. In front of the hypocaust, facing the north-east, was a semicircus or _theatridium_, 530 ft. long, where youths performed their exercises or contended for prizes.

These parts were, however, merely the accessories of the establishment surrounding the garden, in which the principal building was placed. This was a rectangle 730 ft. by 380, with a projection covered by a dome on the south-western side, which was 167 ft. in diameter externally, and 115 ft. internally. There were two small courts (A A) included in the block, but nearly the whole of the rest appears to have been roofed over.

The modern building which approaches nearest in extent to this is probably our Parliament Houses. These are about 830 ft. in length, with an average breadth of about 300, and, with Westminster Hall, cover as nearly as may be the same area as the central block of these baths. But there the comparison stops; there is no building of modern times on anything like the same scale arranged wholly for architectural effect as this one is, irrespective of any utilitarian purpose. On the other hand, the whole of the walls being covered with stucco, and almost all the architecture being expressed in that material, must have detracted considerably from the monumental grandeur of the effect. Judging, however, from what remains of the stucco ornament of the roof of the Maxentian basilica (Woodcut No. 202), it is wonderful to observe what effects may be obtained with even this material in the hands of a people who understand its employment. While stone and marble have perished, the stucco of these vaults still remains, and is as impressive as any other relic of ancient Rome.

In the centre was a great hall (B), almost identical in dimensions with the central aisle of the basilica of Maxentius already described, being 82 ft. wide by 170 in length, and roofed in the same manner by an intersecting vault in three compartments, springing from eight great pillars. This opened into a smaller apartment at each end, of rectangular form, and then again into two other semicircular halls forming a splendid suite 460 ft. in length. This central room is generally considered as the _tepidarium_, or warmed apartment, having four warm baths opening out of it. On the north-east side was the frigidarium, or cold water bath, a hall[185] of nearly the same dimensions as the central Hall. Between this and the circular hall (D) was the sudatorium or sweating-bath, with a hypocaust underneath, and flue-tiles lining its walls. The laconicum or caldarium (D) is an immense circular hall, 116 ft. in diameter, also heated by a hypocaust underneath, and by flue tiles in the walls. This rotunda is said to be of later date than Caracalla. There are four other rooms on this side, which seem also to have been cold baths. None of these points have, however, yet been satisfactorily settled, nor the uses of the smaller subordinate rooms; every restorer giving them names according to his own ideas. For our purpose it suffices to know that no groups of state apartments in such dimensions, and wholly devoted to purposes of display and recreation, were ever before or since grouped together under one roof. The taste of many of the decorations would no doubt be faulty, and the architecture shows those incongruities inseparable from its state of transition; but such a collection of stately halls must have made up a whole of greater splendour than we can easily realise from their bare and weather-beaten ruins, or from anything else to which we can compare them. Even allowing for their being almost wholly built of brick, and for their being disfigured by the bad taste inseparable from everything Roman, there is nothing in the world which for size and grandeur can compare with these imperial places of recreation.[186]

##