Iraqi Air Force Training School, Al-Taji, Saladin Governorate, the Republic of Iraq
"Peace"
"Be in School"
"Keep on Learning"
"Then, Go Spread the Word"
"Communication Is the Key to Success!"
$0.00
A Hipkiss Idea
#477847420
Hipkiss' Canadian Scholastic Endeavours of Thought Discovery
Doctorate Tom Matthews
McMaster University
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: A Harmonious and Conciliating Man
1987
Table of Contents
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a harmonious and conciliating Prime Minister.
- Introduction
- His Early Life
- His Education
- His Reaction to the Execution of Riel
- The Manitoba Schools' Question
- Imperialism and the Boer War
- Notes
- Bibliography
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: A Harmonious and Conciliating Man
Throughout early Canadian history, Québec and the rest of Canada had been at complete loggerheads - a clash between Protestantism and Catholicism, English speaking Canadians versus French speaking "Canadiens." Obviously, there was little promise in bringing these two societies together. The country was in of a great conciliator, and who could have been the best man to fill this gap but Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself. He was the great conciliator.
Practically most of Laurier's biographers agree that the first French Canadien Prime Minister of Canada was very conciliative. However, to understand this agreement, it is important to know some facts: Laurier's early life - a basis for his later political beliefs, his position as Leader of Opposition - how he dealt with various contentious debates, and his more important role as the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada.
The seventh Prime Minister was born in 1814 in St. Lin, Eastern Québec. He lived there until the age of 12 when he was sent to the College of L'Assomption, 20 miles to the east of Saint Lin.1 This move was greatly credited to his ambitious, strongminded father and grandfather. Both were determined that young Wilfrid would obtain and English education, something special for French Canadiens at the time of his era. At the college, he spent seven years learning French and Latin as well as mathematics, philosophy, history, and more importantly English. As noted by scholars, "Through his lessons, he learnt to love English poetry - Milton, Shakespeare, and Burns."2 Also, he grew to love the King James' version of the Bible through his Presbyterian family friends, and would quite often read extracts in his later life. In the end, his education mainly took place at a church run college followed by three years in the Faculty of Law at McGill University in Montréal; at university however, he learnt law at both levels - provincial law and federal law, which obviously prepared him for his conciliatory approach to politics.
The young lad of St. Lin had experiences in the Roman Catholic faith as well as in the Protestant faith. These two endowments helped give young Laurier of a French descent which was the grace and facility of his expression, and on the other hand of an English descent which gave him the breadth of vision to the rest of Canada. A great mas was in the making, a man that was irresistible appealing to both races of the country, British and French, Protestant and Catholic.
It is obvious that Laurier had been given the best of both worlds. Through his extensive education, he learnt how to understand not only the social problems and the political ideologies of Québec, but also, he grew to learn how English Canada viewed its own political and social beliefs; to which - at times - he showed great sympathy. George-P. Vanier wrote about Laurier as Prime Minister in 1902 and said that "The most remarkable aspect of his political career was his ability to leave his listeners with the impression that he shared their views."3 However, looking at the other side of the coin, if Sir Wilfrid had not been given such an "éducation supérieur," then perhaps he would not have been so accepting to various ideas from colleagues and from others such as the common people. Most importantly, her tried to conciliate these ideas into one national concept. Examine the following debates and ideologies which contributed to Laurier's conciliating personality.
One of the very first speeches that Sir Wilfrid ever gave was at McGill University. The Undergraduate's Society, Faculty of Law of McGill, was holding a general meeting. The students attending this meeting had the opportunity of hearing their "confrère" of the class of 1864, bidding farewell to McGill. Curiously enough, the proposer of the address of the farewell was a young man - Laurier. In his address, this talented young lawyer said among other things that: "I pledge my honour that I will give the whole of my life to the cause of conciliation, harmony, and concord amongst the different elements of this country of ours."4 It is clear that Sir Wilfrid, at this early age, knew of Canada's bi-culturalism and for him the only was that his country could function as a unified polis was that the federal government follow policies containing harmonious and conciliatory features. He urged the French and the English alike to withdraw from their hatreds and to become united for the future of Canada. This was a concern of his which would dominate throughout his life, as one scholar indicated: "Two races share today the soil of Canada, but I hasten to say it, and I say it to our glory, that race hatreds are finished on our Canadian soil. There is no longer any family here but the human family. It matters not the language people speak, or the altars at which they kneel."5 Lawyers like himself, he constantly thought, had a large duty to maintain the "union between the peoples, the secret of the future."6
Laurier was never a man to speak unless he had something to say, or to act unless he had considered the consequences. He once presented a speech revitalised the nation's attention upon him at a great meeting in Montréal, he said: "Had I been born on the banks of the Saskatchewan, I would myself have shouldered a musket to fight against the neglect of governments and the shameless greed of speculators."7 The Rebellion of 1885, like all other rebellions had a cause and a motive to rebel, which was the stark result of the Conservative Government's neglect at the time; of course, this gave Riel much support. However, in attacking Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, and his Conservative Party's decision to execute Riel, Wilfrid Laurier added: "But this I say, and I say it coming from a province where less than 50 years ago every man of the race to which I belong was a rebel, and where today every man of that race is true and loyal subject as true and loyal as any that breathes; I say give these men justice, give them freedom, give them their rights, treat them as for the last 40 years you have treated the people of Lower Canada, and by-and-by, throughout those Territories, you will have contentment, peace, and harmony - where today discord, hatred, and war are ruining the land."8 The Québec Liberals, Blake and Laurier, all believed that vengeance, not justice, was the cause of Riel's execution. Furthermore, Sir Wilfrid and company thought that Canada was in need of a policy of reconciliation and not vengeance. Further on and into this great meeting, Laurier said, "We are a new nation. We are attempting to unite the different conflicting elements which we have into a nation. Shall we ever succeed if the bond of union is to be revenged?"9 However, Macdonald was conciliate to the Protestants and the English alone; Riel was executed. Laurier's riveted speech was delivered to the House of Commons by Thomas White and was said to have been the finest parliamentary speech ever pronounced since Confederation.
Moving along to another important issue. The Manitoba Schools question brought Laurier back into the spotlight and with his "Sunny Ways" form of solution to political affairs, Sir Wilfrid once again showed the Canadian people that he was a man in favour of justice, freedom, and conciliation. Only with these key ingredients could the people of Manitoba receive a compromising solution that would please both Catholics and Protestants. However, the Liberals needed to do very little about the Manitoba Schools question except sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the harassed Conservatives trying endlessly and failing continually to find a satisfactory solution. When the Remedial Bill was introduced in the session of 1896, Laurier made a motion to adjourn the discussion for six months; he apposed the dictatorial nature of the bill and urged that it would never accomplish half as mush as "Sunny Ways" that investigation and conciliation were the only sure means of arriving at a solution everyone would accept.10
Later in the year of 1896, the Conservative Party was in a shamble. They were badly divided on the Manitoba Schools question, which led to their defeat in the 1896 Federal Election. The Liberals and Laurier at the helm, now as Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, were forced from the start with the M. S. question. As it turned out, the "Sunny Ways" would really be more helpful to the French Roman Catholic minority than any number of blusterous orders from the Territories, and it would also be helpful to the English citizens, for Manitoba would still have control over its own system of education. Despite little flurries from some bishops of Manitoba and Québec, the Manitoba Schools Act proved to be "a pretty good compromise."11 There would be no restoration of tax supported, separate schools; but within the one public system, there could be "after hours" denominational, religious instruction if local school boards or a certain minimum number of parents of pupils of said denomination wished. Where ten pupils in any school spoke French, or any other language than English as mother tongue, the teaching was to be on a bilingual basis. For the most part, the Manitoba Schools Act left both Anglophones and Francophone speaking Canadians with something to be please with; they were not left empty handed.
Canada's imperial relationship with Britain would dominate all other debates held in the House of Commons. Sir Wilfrid, in forming his policy on imperial relations, did not follow solely his individual preference. As leader of a party and ruler of a country of many shades of view, he had always kept in touch with the central body of opinion. More important than personal preferences were the need of preserving national unity, or preventing a division on racial lines. His constant effort was to find a policy and a formula which would keep the country not only moving in what he considered the right direction, but a country moving "abreast" - more to the point.
When Laurier went to the United Kingdom to attend the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, he stressed the fact that in the military sphere, he stoutly refused the pledging of the Canadian assistance in British Wars around the world. However, when Sir Wilfrid returned to Canada, he was faced with a different matter that would evidently bring him to reason, for it was evident that the English in Canada wanted to participate in their motherland's international wars. It was the Boer War that brought once again strife and hatred between the two races of Canada. Laurier now had to find a compromising solution.
His assessment of what Canada should do was presented by him in Parliament. He claimed that Canadians were taking part in the Boer War no because of British pressure on the government; but because a great many of Canadians desired this involvement; and that in the future, as in the past, his country would decide her own policy. Ultimately, before the Boer War concluded in 1902, Canada sent over seven thousand volunteers to South Africa. The government had stood against forced conscription. That's why the men listed as volunteers. This decision would keep the English happy, for they incitingly wanted to participate in the war, which constantly place the French in contempt, for they were not conscribed to service the British's war efforts; thus, only volunteers were sent.
All the same, for now it is much clearer than it was in the beginning that Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed and worked toward, throughout his public life for harmonious and conciliating policies. His preference for British traditions and his French origins strengthened his feeling that Canada would only flourish under a conciliatory government; and it was this feeling that made him fight, argue, and debate for hours on end, endlessly seeking for a compromising solution. Examples of his efforts to bring the two races of Canada together were without a shadow of doubt the introduction of his "Sunny Ways" policy, the need to reconciliate Riel and not to place vengeance up the execution of the past, and his compromise to the English to volunteer in the Boer War. However, all is in the past now. His life, his achievements, and his endeavours will remain in the history books of Canada, but when it is called upon to look the man up - for whatever reason - remember this please: "He was the great conciliator."12
C+
Notes
1 Richard Clippingdale, Laurier: His Life and World (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1979), p. 13. For further information on Laurier's birthplace and immediate family.
2 Barbara Robertson, Wilfrid Laurier: The Great Conciliator (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 9.
3 Marcel Hamelin, ed., Les idées politiques des premiers ministres du Canada (Ottawa: Les éditions de l'université d'Ottawa, 1969), p. 72.
4 Lucien Pacaud, Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Letters (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1935), p. 19.
5 Barbara Robertson, Wilfrid Laurier: The Great Conciliator (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 11.
6 Lucien Pacaud, Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Letters (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1935), p. 25.
7 Barbara Robertson, Wilfrid Laurier: The Great Conciliator (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 50.
8 Ibid, p. 51.
9 Ibid, pp. 51-52.
10 Richard Clippingdale, Laurier: His Life and World (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited), 1979.
11 Barbara Robertson, Wilfrid Laurier: The Great Conciliator (Toronto: Oxford University Press), 1971.
12 Ibid, 1971.
Bibliography
Clippingdale, Richard. Laurier: His Life and World. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1979.
Dafoe, J.W. Laurier: A Study in Canadian Politics. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1963.
Finlay, J.L. and D.N. Sprague. The Structure of Canadian History. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1984.
Hamelin, Marcel, ed. Les idées politiques des premiers ministres du Canada. Ottawa: Les éditions de l'université d'Ottawa, 1969.
Matthews, Tom. Lecture: "The Manitoba Schools Question and Imperialism." McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, July 16th, 1987.
Neatby, H. Blair. Laurier and a Liberal Québec. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1973.
Pacaud, Lucien. Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Letters. Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1935.
Robertson, Barbara. Wilfrid Laurier: The Great Conciliator. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Skelton, Oscar Douglas. Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1965.
Doctorate Tom Matthews
McMaster University
Report: France in America
1987
France in America is a comprehensive survey of early Canadian history from the beginning of the sixteenth century to the welcoming of the Québec Act of 1774. William J. Eccles, the author, has managed to portray this vast subject from a French perspective rather than relaying the traditional English side of the story. However, this type of a representation evokes a sympathetic mood. Eccles continuously argues, being his thesis, that the fall of New France was not inevitable; leaving the blame on but who else - the French Authorities. One of the most disliked public figures is Montcalm and his "disastrous tactics."1 Aside from incompetent members of political office, William J. Eccles takes a daring stand by stating that Canada was a theocracy that lacked daring tactics for defence and attack.2
France is deeply condemned for one main and important reason. The lack of support coming from the French government during the greater part of the colonization movement. This could have been diverted to a certain degree, making New France less vulnerable to foreign invaders. The British in New England, the Dutch, and the Spanish all wanted part of this new founded gold mine, "the fur trade." As correctly suggested by Eccles, the French should have protected their investments with greater insistence by strengthening its military in Canada, or perhaps by introducing new and stable policies and agreements with local colonials and natives. However, France's incompetency continued. Then again, can the mother country be really blamed, for it did indeed have various problems of its own during New France's history? No. Louis XIII, for example, was faced with the great lords. Despite the internal problems that France was having, and history proves this, and the other fact that most of North America could only be navigated during the summer months, all in all made New France very helpless for the greater part of the year due to a lack of re-enforcements. At the time, the two countries of the motherland and the colony stood far apart. Not to mention that it would have taken almost all of France's military to protect the vast lands claimed by the new French Canadians.
The author's account about the missionaries "Certainly no other European colonizing power advanced such a civilised concept." is very well supported.3 Notice the word "concept." The movement did not have a great significance. Indeed, pagan souls were converted as they had claimed; however, most Hurons turned to Christianity minutes before their death, and those who lived were far from many. On the other side of the coin, the church did its due management: to obtain little more than a quarter of the conceded land, to be the central focus of social gatherings among the communities, to be a moral figure for the French, to provide necessities such as medical care and education. Did all these acquirements and services lead to a French-Canadian theocracy? No. Eccles never mentions a bishop of Québec, or for that matter a religious body representing the colonial governments. Governor Generals and Lieutenants were appointed by the Crown. Also, after the reorganization of the French colonial empire by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the church had little or no influence on the province. At this point in the book, William J. Eccles seems to stand on his own two feet. The daring assumption that New France is not a total theocracy has been met. "The civil and the religious authorities were quickly at complete loggerheads."4
Eccles draws great attention to one man, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. It is he, in Eccles' eyes, who could have made the difference. If France had produced more people like him to manage the affairs of French Cardinals, then the conquest could have been prevented. The mother country did not need insubordinate superiors like Montcalm. Despite the fact that the author has devoted an entre chapter to Colbert, the hypothesis that J-B. could have made a difference, is supported on page 69 where the government of 1663-1685 had reorganised: "In short, the French colonial administration was a well-organised bureaucracy, a model for the other powers." Of course, this administrative change took place under Colbert's rule.
On a different note, it is ironic that he who reads France in America will notice that most of Eccles' points of view are based on French material. For example, the chapter "The Long Peace" contains 36 French reference readings and 25 English reference readings - a substantial difference. It is of no wonder that the author is sympathetic towards the French. In addition to the pathos, words such as "pathetically," "unfortunately," "inexpediently," and many others of this type are mentioned throughout the book. The French are looked down upon as little pathetic creatures. This form of literature, however, does not effectively coincide with Eccles main thesis. The conquest's inevitability is really shot to pieces with comments like "pathetically small French population."5 If the French were so small as a people and so unfortunate, then how could they have ever prevented a conquest by the British. Historical facts all promote a French defeat. Although it is true that the French-Canadian government at times was mismanaged, Eccles should have taken a more traditional view, like that of Francis Parkman's, rather than making "measured generalizations."
Disappointing to a certain degree, the author mentions little about the English in the Canadian north. It would have been important for the reader to know certain social facts about the English of that era. A better non-biased perception of the French colonials could have been achieved if Eccles had devoted a little more time to the English - a "compare/contrast" methodology as it were. Also, the chapter called "Aftermath" is dealt in the same way. This chapter deals with James Murray until the Québec Act, and that is all. Although Eccles tells us that the French "had now to reconcile themselves to remaining British subjects," he does not mention the complete aftermath of the Québec Act, and how it affected the French colonials, which were "vibrant, dynamic, and successful colonies."6 He merely touched upon it and leaves it at that, nothing more said. At this point, we encounter a different author, an author who corners his readers opinion - read what is said; believe in it and no more.
Overall, France in America is a very entertaining and educational book. To some, it might seem like a text. The book is biased in favour of the French, who Eccles was obviously sympathetic; school texts rarely contain such overuse of bias, or at least they shouldn't. His thesis tends to overlook one basic element of history - no one person can say that the conquest is not a part of history - knowledgeable truth. Since truth cannot be changed, neither can the British victories of 1749-1763. Let us not attempt to re-write past events, Mr Eccles. On a happier note, France in America is a well written book that should be in every library of those who are interested in various opinions of the shape of French-Canadian colonialism.
B-
Notes
1 W.J. Eccles, France in America (Toronto, Ontario: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, 1972), p. 196.
2 Ibid, p. 72.
3 Ibid, p. 40.
4 Ibid, p. 56.
5 Ibid, p. 241.
6 Professor Tom Matthews' notes on "Report: France in America" June 13th, 1987.
Bibliography
Eccles, W.J. France in America. Toronto, Ontario: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, 1972.
Finlay, J.L. and Sprague, D.N. The Structure of Canadian History. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1984.
Matthews, Professor Tom. Lectures: "New France, 1600-1760." McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, May 12-26, 1987.
Doctorate Collin Wells
Ottawa University
Greek Influence in Roman Architecture
1986
Table of Contents
The question of Roman architecture being unique or not is a very complex and still poorly misunderstood phenomenon.
I. Different Civilisations and Their Influences
II. Slavery in Rome
III. Capitals
- Doric
- Ionic
- Corinthian
- Composite
IV. Greek Influences in Augustan Architecture
- The Forum
- Temples
V. Miscellaneous Greek Influences in Roman Architecture
- The Theatre
- The Baths
- The Circus
Greek Influence in Roman Architecture
Roman architecture is one of the most famous classical works that our world has ever seen. However, if we were to approach Roman architecture, to a certain degree, and challenge its uniqueness, of it not being so unique, we would have with no doubt in our minds a legitimate case. Roman architecture was influenced by Greek architects. In most cases of Roman architectural developments, the Romans themselves were tutored by Greek architects. Let us look at with some detail the different aspects that led up to this type of influence.
It is equally important to examine the civilizational heritage of Rome, handled in parallel, as it is the influence of Roman architecture of the Greeks. In 753 B.C., Rome was a small community.1 As far as we know, Rome's first inhabitants were that of Indo-European, Mediterranean, and Illyrian tribes; all three were in a primitive stage of culture. For civilization, as we know it, began in the Near East, and from the harbours and plains of Italy on the West Coast. Civilization came to Italy later that it did to Greece. When it did appear, it was brought by Carthaginians, Greeks, and Etruscans. The Carthaginian influence was never very strong. The Etruscans also did not leave behind a considerable amount of influence on the later Romans, despite the scholarly debate thereof. However, amongst these cultures (Carthaginian, Greek, & Etruscan), the Greeks made a lasting, and in the end, the most major imprint on Roman architecture.
When the Romans came into contact with the Hellenic culture, they recognised its superiority. I was in 272 B. C. that the Romans captured the Hellenic city of Tarentum, which is now Taranto on the instep of Italy.2 The Greek prisoners who became slaves - servi - also became the tutors of Roman children.3 These captured tutors, at the time for some, were better intellects than the Romans themselves. They taught a variety of things from philosophy to literature, to architectural design. Many of these slaves, descendants of Greece, became Roman citizens, and moreover they became Roman architects who worked for the army, the civil service, or were in private practice as Pliny the Younger had noted. (Letters 10.40)4 And thus began the process by which to quote the famous cliché, "Captive Greece took her rude conquerors captive."5 That trend was intensified by Rome's conquest of Greece proper and the entire Hellenistic Near East.
Let us introduce ourselves to the basic four Capitals of the ancient classical Greco-Roman world: Donic, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite. It is evident without scepticism that the Doric Capital (see Appendix fig. 1) is a classical Hellenistic architectural design. Parallel to the Doric Capital of it being architecturally Greek is that the Ionic Capital (see Appendix fig. 2). The Corinthian Capital (see Appendix fig. 3), although designed in its early stages by Greek architects, had taken a slight change in Roman time (p. 7). It is said that the Corinthian Capital had been derived from the Ionic Capital, with the exception of the added leaves.6 We can easily imagine this if we were to picture an Ionic Capital and its spiral design with two added spirals and leaves underneath. The Composite Capital (see Appendix fig. 4) is a close duplicate of the Corinthian Capital. As Sebastiano Serlio said in his book, "The Book of Architecture," that the Composite Capital is almost Corinthian.
It is important to give the Romans credit especially where credit is due. The Roman architects had invented, to some degree as some people might believe, the Composite Order. However, it would be immature for us to oversee the resemblance between the Composite Order and the Corinthian Order. Perhaps then, we may understand that if the Romans were in existence in our modern society, they would have been subjected to the penalties provided by law for the distribution in whole or in part of the Corinthian Order - liability. But, because Greeks were captives, the Romans were able to take Hellenic architectural ideas and make them their own without question, as would be the case in modern times.
The age of Augustus represents the coming of age of Roman architecture. Until then, Roman buildings had been a somewhat rough and ready mix of Roman engineering techniques and Hellenistic veneering. During the 40 years of his ambitious building programme, almost certainly resulted in a major influx of foreign craftsmen and architects. Outside influences, particularly Eastern and Greek are a constant factor in Augustan architecture. It seems that after an initial experimental period at the beginning of his Principate, he had determined that Classical and Hellenistic architecture was to be his model.
The Ara Pacis (13-9 B.C.) draws its inspiration from both the Classical and the Hellenistic perdiod.7 A more obvious example of the Augustan classicism is the Forum he build in Rome and dedicated in his own name. Finished in 2 B.C., it is doubtful whether any of the actual architecture had begun before 20 B.C. The sculptures and architectural details are strongly Classical in feeling and the deeply carved Corinthian Capitals are almost certainly the work of Greek craftsmen, albeit by this time in history, Roman craftsmen would have copied the Greek counterparts. As one might imagine, the Caryatid figures which adorned the surrounding colonnades are close copies of those in the Eruchtheum.8 Indeed, we know that the Erechtheum underwent drastic repairs in 27 B.C. and that the circular Temple of Rome and Augustus on the Acropolis, built a few years later, was heavily based upon the Erechtheum in its Capitals and other architectural details. Unfortunately, one of the Caryatid figures from the Forum Augustum bears the signature, despite the artisan and bearer of the duplicate figure being Caius Vibius Maximus, a non-Greek name to say the least. However, in the ferment of building which took place under Augustus, it is perhaps not surprising to find that Roman sculptors were being trained in Greek workshops. Indeed, the Caryatid in question has a certain Italian peasant quality about her.
The mood of exuberance and richness changed to a much soberer one over the next few years because of influence from Athens. One of the first products of this new influence was the Ara Pacis. The procession breathes the spirit of the Parthenon frieze and figures, especially the allegorical ones on the short ends are those of Periclean Athens. The acanthus scrolls could be Polycleitan, and the very form of the altar is inspired by the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Athenian Agora.9
To imperial patrons and their architects, two distinct languages of form were available by the end of the fist century A.D. Hellenistic design relying on colonnades, ashlar masonry, and the timber truss still reigned in eastern provinces and produced superb results in Rome. For example, in the series of Imperial Forums that began with Julius Caesar Augustus as an extension of the congested old Forum. But the passion of the Capital was the Roman vaulted style.10 To be sure, externally as well as within, the new fangled buildings dressed their walls in Hellenistic decor. Facades were not in the least revealing of interior arrangements, and the surprise of entering into the unconventional spaces that lay behind these familiar screens was the principal reward. And within, the sheathing of functional piers and walls of concrete with Hellenistic trappings gave the vaulted superstructure a feigned advantage of the lightness and magic.11 Concomitantly buildings in the Hellenistic mode freely admitted curves in their plans and vaulted shells that responded to them. Still each one of the two design options, the heritage of Greece and the conceit of Rome, conjured fundamentally a unique environment.
The Romans learnt the art of building along with many other things from their neighbours, the Hellenes. At their first lessons, the Romans were apt and docile pupils, copying faithfully what they were taught. As they had learnt from the Greeks to worship their gods, so they learnt to make houses for these gods. Their like, temples, might be found almost anywhere in the Greek colonies of South Italy and Sicily, or in Greece itself.
Like the Forum Augustum, temples are perhaps the most significant monuments of Augustus' reign because it was in the Composite Order - the modification, that fancied the duplication of the Greek Corinthian Order, and developed the orthodox Roman Corinthian Order. This type of Order seems common in Pompeii and central Italy.12
Even in the Temple of Mars Altor, the Corinthian Order had not yet achieved full orthodoxy.13 The Greek Corinthian Order was at large still in use. The modillions, also to the point, had a Hellenistic "S" shaped profile. The Temple of Castor, dedicated in A.D. 6 was the first to have the full scrolled modillions typical of Roman Corinthian with an acanthus leaf on the underside. In other respects, the temple is similar to the Temple of Mars Altor except that the details show a return to the richness which marked early Augustan architecture. The Capitals are cut from two blocks Carrara marble. (Corinthian Capitals composed of two blocks were common in the Republic, but by the end of the Augustan period, they were usually carved from one block.) The lower half of the bell is decorated with a row of acanthus leaves alternately high and low.
The overlapping lobes of the leaves form pear-shaped cavities while in later Corinthian Capitals, the cavities became wedge-shaped and near vertical.14 From the leaves spring the cauliculi to support the volutes which run up to the corners of the abacus.15 From the same cauliculi spring the helices which join together under the middle of the abacus to support a flower. Unusually, the two helices of the Castor Capitals interlock. The abacus is decorated, a fairly uncommon feature later on, but used more often in this early period. Thus, by the end of Augustus' reign, the Roman Corinthian Order was fully developed. How many temples using this same basic Order were to be built throughout the Roman world over the next three centuries is almost beyond counting.
There must have been many Greek architects active in Italy during the later second century B.C. Victorious generals often employed their own architects to build temples via ex manubiis, the campaign booty. These generals must have done much to shape architectural taste in the late Republican Rome. The first temple in Rome to be built entirely of marble was the Temple of Jupiter Stator (146 B.C.), the work of a Greek architect Hermodorus of Salamis.16 It was commissioned by Q. Caecilius Metellus who conquered the Macedonians. Also, completely of marble is the circular Corinthian temple built about 120 B.C. in the Forum Boarium. The building used to be called the Temple of Vesta, but has recently been identified as the Temple of Hercules Victor.17 The temple seems to have been built by a Greek architect and the material used is Pentelic marble. The columns rest upon a stylobate consisting of three steps, and the marble masonry of the cella wall is drafted. Both of these features come straight from Hellenistic building practice. The Capitals with their pointed acanthus leaves and rounded fleshy leaf ribs close analogy to Hellenistic Capitals in Greece and Asia Minor. Some elements of the entablature and some coffering survive in fragments and these too can be connected with the late Hellenistic architectural tradition.
The Roman theatre changed extensively from an amphitheatre to a semi-circular theatre. The amphitheatre in Pompeii (80B.C.) is an example of an early Roman type theatre.18 It is said that Pompey built the first permanent Roman semi-circular theatre at Rome in 55 B.C. But, that was supposed to have been copied from the Greek theatre at Mytilene, on the island of Lesbos, and if so, the development of the semi-circular form may belong to the Late Hellenistic period. It is also important to note that semi-circular Roman theatres had basically an Orchestra, Proscenium, Scene, Pardos, and Ramp, that of which most Greek theatres had, too.
The circus and the baths were both buildings for recreation. Often, they were combined in the same complex. The transition from the Greek type of bathing establishment with rows of hip baths filled and emptied with running water and heating systems can be seen in the Stabian bath at Pomeii.19 The Roman Circus Maximus, which was 2,000 feet long and 650 feet wide and could seat 255,000 spectators was similar in shape to that of the Stadium at Olympia.20 In the Circus Maximus, chariot races took place, whereas at the Stadium of Olympia, athletic games took place. Nevertheless, the architectural designs are comparable. The Circus Maximus was far larger, however, and the largest of its kind throughout the Roman world than the compared Stadium of Olympia.
The list of Roman architectural achievements could go on and on, not to mention their influence by Greek architects. Perhaps this type of influence requires further research of specific structural details. And if so, we should find throughout our advanced research more Greek influences. For a group of people, this fact is hard to digest. A quotation by Professor Colin Wells of the University of Ottawa, explicitly expresses the Greek influence in Roman architecture: "If Rome were to conquer a Greek city, the citizens especially the educated were to be slaves. To say the least, through slavery the Romans adopted Greek ideas. They learnt Greek. They borrowed Greek philosophies; furthermore, they copied certain Greek architectural techniques and designs. This influence took place around the 3 century B.C., and which continued to become evident throughout the early stages of the Roman Empire. It is not to be overestimated that the Roman Empire was a combination of Greco-Roma."21
APPENDIX
(fig. 1) Doric Capital: by Paul-Robert Hipkiss
West End of the Parthenon, Acropolis, Athens 447-432 B.C.
(fig. 2) Ionic Capital: by Paul-Robert Hipkiss
Temple of Athena Nike, Acropolis, Athens 447-432 B.C.
(fig. 3) Corinthian Capital: by Paul-Robert Hipkiss
Temple of Zeus, Completed by Hadrian in A.D. 131-132, Athens
(fig. 4) Composite Capital: sketch by Susan Lori Wachnuik
"The Book of Architecture" of the fourth Book, the ninth Chapter, Vol. 60: by Sebastiano Serlio.
Notes
1 W. G. Hardy, The Greek and Roman World (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company Inc, 1970), p. 73.
2 W. G. Hardy, The Greek and Roman World (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company Inc, 1970), p. 74.
3 Thomas Wieldemann, Greek and Roman Slavery (London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1981), pp. 25-27, 128.
4 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 69.
5 R. H. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire (New York: Barnes & Noble Inc., 1968), pp. 110-113.
6 Sebastiano Serlio, The Book of Architecture (New York: Benjamin Blom Inc., 1970), the fourth Book, the seventh Chapter, Vol. 44-45.
7 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 49.
8 William Smith, A New Classical Dictionary (Great Britain: Harper & Brothers, 1981), p. 178.
9 R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Architecture (Great Britain: Hazell Watson & Viney Limited, 1983), pp. 332-333.
10 R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Architecture (Great Britain: Hazell Watson & Viney Limited, 1983), pp. 294-298.
11 Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1985), pp. 206-209.
12 Frank E. Brown, Roman Architecture (New York: George Braziller Inc., 1961), p. 20.
13 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 61.
14 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 63.
15 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 67.
16 R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Architecture (Great Britain: Hazell Watson & Viney Limited, 1983), pp. 294-298.
17 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 22.
18 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 115.
19 Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982), p. 39.
20 Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Roman Art and Architecture (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968), p. 125.
21 Wells, Colin. "Lecture." Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The University of Ottawa, 1986.
Bibliography
Barrow, R. H. Slavery in the Roman Empire. New York: Barnes & Noble Inc., 1968.
Brown, Frank E. Roman Architecture. New York: George Braziller Inc., 1961.
Carry, M. and T. J. Haarfoff. Life & Thought in the Greek & Roman World. London: Methuen & Company Ltd., 1971.
Hardy W. G. The Greek and Roman World. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Company Inc., 1970.
Kostof, Spiro. A History of Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1985.
Maitland, Leslie. "Pillars, Pilasters, and Porticoes." Canadian Collector: A Journal of Antiques and Fine Arts. (March/April 1982), p. 47.
Scranton, Robert L. Greek Architecture. New York: George Braziller Inc., 1967.
Sear Frank. Roman Architecture. London: Batsford Academic and Education Limited, 1982.
Serlio, Sebastiano. The Book of Architecture. New York: Benjamin Blom Inc., 1970.
Smith, William. A New Classical Dictionary. Great Britain: Harper & Brothers, 1981.
Tomlinson, R. A. Greek Architecture. Great Britain: Hazell Watson & Viney Limited, 1983.
Wheeler, Sir Mortimer. Roman Art and Architecture. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1968.
Wieldemann, Thomas. Greek and Roman Slavery. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1981.
B