ORIGIN AND USE OF FORUM. ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS. DESCRIPTION OF FORUM OF POMPEII AND ITS TEMPLES

IN describing a Roman city, our attention is first drawn to the Forum, the focus of business, the resort of pleasure, the scene of all political and legal contention. In the early ages of Rome one open space probably served for all the public meetings of the people, whether for the purposes of traffic, for the administration of justice, or for meetings to deliberate upon public affairs. So in Greek, the same word, Agora, derived from ageiro, I collect, signifies equally a market, a place of assembly for citizens, and the assembly itself. As wealth and splendour increased, and business became more complicated, it was found inconvenient to have so many different occupations carried on together, and two classes of fora arose Venalia, mere markets, as the Forum Boarium, or ox-market, Piscarium, fish-market, &c. and Civilia, those devoted to the other purposes of a place of assembly, of which, however, until the time of Julius C sar, there was but one at Rome. He built a second of extraordinary splendour, the area alone of which cost the enormous sum of 800,000l., from which we may imagine the expense and splendour of the superstructure; and others were afterwards constructed by the Emperors. For the country, however, at all events in small places like Pompeii, a single forum continued to be sufficient.

Some difference existed between the Greek and Roman fora, derived from the difference of the uses to which they were to be applied. The Greek were built square, with columns near each other, to give as much shelter as possible. On these was placed a marble architrave, supporting an upper ambulatory, or gallery for walking. This gallery the Romans retained (there appears to have been one at Pompeii), but the area, instead of being square, was oblong, and the pillars set at considerable intervals. These variations seem to have been made to give the greatest possible convenience for viewing shows of gladiators, which, previous to the building of amphitheatres, were exhibited in the Forum. In its simple state it was merely an open area, surrounded by a colonnade, a sort of exchange; but in the period of Roman splendour it was usually encompassed by a series of splendid public buildings, on which all the riches of architecture were lavished. Basilic , or courts of justice curies, or places of assembly for the senate or local magistracy tabularia, where the public records were kept temples, prisons, public granaries, all things necessary for the public pleasure or convenience, were here collected in immediate neighbourhood to one another. Various trades were exercised under the porticoes; the money-changers had their stalls below; the management of the public revenue was usually carried on in the gallery above. At one end, or in an adjoining basilica, the praetor usually administered justice; within were the rostra from which orators addressed the people. The liveliness and tumult of the scene, where all these employments were carried on, may well be imagined.

It may be convenient, however, and may prevent repetition, if, before we enter upon a particular description of the buildings which usually composed this quarter of the town, a short account be given of the general structure of temples, the most important and interesting, unless we except the baths, of Roman buildings, together with an explanation of the terms employed by Vitruvius in characterizing them. These are universally derived from the disposition of the pillars, the distinguishing feature in all ancient architecture. Technical terms appear hard to those who are ignorant of their meaning; but when once understood, they express much in a small compass, and unless unreasonably multiplied, convey the clearest idea of the object to be described. The body of the temple was usually quadrangular, oblong, and enclosed by walls; this was called cells, the cell. It was adorned on the exterior with columns, varying in their proportions and design, forming porticoes on the front or on the sides, or both; and from the number of columns employed, and the intervals at which they were placed, the building took its architectural denomination. A temple was said to be built in Antis, when square columns ( anioe ) were placed at the angles and along the sides, with two round columns in the front between the ant . If built with a detached portico in front, consisting of any number of columns, it was termed Prostyle; if both ends were thus ornamented, it was termed Amphiprostyle; if the colonnade extended all round, it became Peripteral; and Dipteral, when built in the most expensive and magnificent shape, when a double range of pillars ran all round. A variety of this style was called Pseudodipteral, in which the porticoes projected as far from the cell as in dipteral temples, but the interior range of columns was omitted. This was considered an improvement, both as giving more room under the portico and being less expensive. Another variety consisted merely of a circular colonnade, without a cell, but only an altar in the centre, this was called Monopteral; in another, where the cell was required to be large, the walls were thrown back, so as to fill, up the intercolumniations, whence it was called Pseudoperpteral. The two latter were especially devoted to sacrifices. Hypoethral temples were so named because the cell was open to the sky. These were usually of the largest and most magnificent description. The type of them given by Vitruvius consists of a portico of ten columns at either end; it is dipteral, and has within the cell a double range of columns, one supporting the other, detached from the wall. Folding doors opened into it at each end. There was no example of this style at Rome. It originated probably in the difficulty of roofing over so large a space, and of sufficiently lighting the interior, windows not being usually admitted in these, buildings. The religious ceremonies performed in these vast temples probably did not require much shelter; and a partial shelter was given by the colonnade within the cell, which was coiled and roofed, and probably was added with a view to this convenience. The building at Pompeii called the Temple of Jupiter, may be conjectured, from its interior colonnade, to have been hyp thral.

Buildings were further classified with regard to the intercolumniations, or space from one column to another. They were called Pyenostyle when the columns were placed in the closest order practised, that is, when one and a half diameters apart; Systyle, when two diameters apart; Eustyle, when two and a quarter diameters apart; Diastyle, when three diameters 'apart; and Ar ostyle when the interval was greater than this. Vitruvius objects to the Systyle arrangement as inconvenient, " because, when matrons going with their families to the temple have ascended the steps, they cannot pass arm in arm between the pillars without going sideways." This objection holds good against the temples of Pompeii, which for the most part are on a small scale. In the diastyle he thinks that the pillars are too far apart, and that in consequence the stability of the entablature is endangered. The reader is aware that in Grecian architecture the arch was not used, neither were the ancients acquainted with the means employed by our own architects to cramp together separate stones into one solid body. Blocks therefore were required of sufficient size to stretch from the centre of one column to that of the next; and these, where the interval was large and the material tender, were subject to break even under their own weight, much more with that of the entablature added. In the Ar ostyle neither stone nor marble architraves could be used, but beams of timber rested on the columns. Buildings of this description, he says, are low and heavy, and the architraves ornamented with pottery or brazen mouldings. The portico surrounding the Forum at Pompeii was of this description. The Eustyle was, as its name imports, the most perfect, uniting convenience, beauty, and strength. In this the central intercolumniation in front of the temple was of three diameters, displaying to more advantage the door of the cells, with its ornaments, and affording a more ample space for ingress and egress.

An essential feature in the temples of Pompeii, as distinguished from those of Greece, is to be observed in the podium, or basement, on which they were elevated. In the religious edifices of an early age no such character appears. They were placed upon two or three steps only, if steps they should be termed, when evidently not proportioned for convenience of access to the interior, but calculated rather with a view to the general effect of the whole structure." By thus raising the floor to a level with or above the eye, the whole order, from the stylobate, or continuous platform on which the columns rest, to the roof, was brought at once into view. The, steps, Vitruvius says, should be of an odd number, that the right foot, being planted on the first step, may also first be placed on the pavement of the temple. To enter with the left foot foremost was considered unlucky. With regard to the proportions of the interior within the porticoes, the breadth is directed to be half the length, and the cell to be a fourth part more in length than in breadth. The building is directed to stand east and west, like our churches, and the statue of the presiding deity to be elevated above the altar, that the suppliants and priests might decently look up to the object of their worship. Thus an hyp thral temple would present a most splendid scene; the worshippers addressing their vows, the image apparently rising to behold them, and the building itself boldly projected on the eastern sky. It will be recollected that these are merely the rules laid down by Vitruvius; it does not follow that they were always observed.

We now proceed to describe the Forum Civile of Pompeii, of which the annexed plate contains a ground-plan, restored from the remains now existing. An examination of this will afford a correct idea of the arrangement of the several edifices.

Upon entering, the spectator finds himself in a large area, about 524 feet long and 140 broad, including the porticoes, surrounded by columns and the ruins of temples, triumphal arches, and other public buildings, the particular uses of which can in general only be conjectured. The red masses of brick divested of their marble casings, the brown and yellow tints of the tufa, the fragments of white stucco attached to the shattered walls of the different edifices, and the pedestals, which once supported statues commemorating those who had deserved well of their country, are all that now remain to attest its former beauty and magnificence.

Around the west, south, and east sides there runs a Grecian Doric colonnade, uninterrupted, except on the east, where the porticoes of the surrounding buildings in some instances come flush up to the colonnade, and in some places break the line of the upper gallery, preserving an uninterrupted communication below. Where this was the case stairs ran up to the gallery; but probably there was also some communication between these several divisions of it without descending to the ground. True it is, that as no vestige of this upper story remains, it may seem rash to assert its existence so boldly; but the traces of staircases, combined with the authority of Vitruvius, are sufficient to warrant us in doing so. Probably it was built of wood; this would account for its total disappearance. The diameter of the columns was two feet three and a half inches, their height twelve feet, the interval between them six feet ten inches. On the eastern side there still remains a portion of an older arcade, which the inhabitants, at the time of the eruption, were in the course of replacing by the Doric portico. The pillars are of three materials; of fine white Caserta stone, resembling marble; of ancient yellowish tufa; and of brick plastered.