Find the Best Study Materials and Full Test Bank downloads at testbankbell.

com

Solution Manual for A First Course in Probability,

9th Edition Sheldon Ross

http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-a-first-
course-in-probability-9th-edition-sheldon-ross/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Explore extensive Test Banks for all subjects on testbankbell.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

Solutions Manual to accompany A First Course in

Probability 8th edition 013603313x

https://testbankbell.com/product/solutions-manual-to-accompany-a-
first-course-in-probability-8th-edition-013603313x/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for A First Course in Mathematical

Modeling, 5th Edition

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-a-first-course-
in-mathematical-modeling-5th-edition/

testbankbell.com

Solution manual for Power Electronics: A First Course

Mohan

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-power-
electronics-a-first-course-mohan/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for A First Course in Differential

Equations with Modeling Applications, 10th Edition

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-a-first-course-
in-differential-equations-with-modeling-applications-10th-edition/

testbankbell.com
Solution Manual for A First Course in Abstract Algebra,
8th Edition, John B. Fraleigh, Neal Brand

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-a-first-course-
in-abstract-algebra-8th-edition-john-b-fraleigh-neal-brand-2/

testbankbell.com

Solutions Manual to accompany A First Course in Abstract

Algebra 3rd edition 9780131862678

https://testbankbell.com/product/solutions-manual-to-accompany-a-
first-course-in-abstract-algebra-3rd-edition-9780131862678/

testbankbell.com

First Course in Differential Equations Modeling and

Simulation 2nd Smith Solution Manual

https://testbankbell.com/product/first-course-in-differential-
equations-modeling-and-simulation-2nd-smith-solution-manual/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for First Course in Database Systems, A,

3/E 3rd Edition Jeffrey D. Ullman, Jennifer Widom

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-first-course-in-
database-systems-a-3-e-3rd-edition-jeffrey-d-ullman-jennifer-widom/

testbankbell.com

Test Bank for A First Course in Statistics, 11/E 11th

Edition : 0321891929

https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-a-first-course-in-
statistics-11-e-11th-edition-0321891929/

testbankbell.com
Solution Manual for A First Course in Probability,
9th Edition Sheldon Ross
full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-
manual-for-a-first-course-in-probability-9th-edition-
sheldon-ross/
Chapter 1

Problems
1. (a) By the generalized basic principle of counting there are

26  26  10  10  10  10  10 = 67,600,000

(b) 26  25  10  9  8  7  6 = 19,656,000

2. 64 = 1296

3. An assignment is a sequence i1, …, i20 where ij is the job to which person j is assigned. Since
only one person can be assigned to a job, it follows that the sequence is a permutation of the
numbers 1, …, 20 and so there are 20! different possible assignments.

4. There are 4! possible arrangements. By assigning instruments to Jay, Jack, John and Jim, in
that order, we see by the generalized basic principle that there are 2  1  2  1 = 4 possibilities.

5. There were 8  2  9 = 144 possible codes. There were 1  2  9 = 18 that started with a 4.

6. Each kitten can be identified by a code number i, j, k, l where each of i, j, k, l is any of the
numbers from 1 to 7. The number i represents which wife is carrying the kitten, j then
represents which of that wife’s 7 sacks contain the kitten; k represents which of the 7 cats in
sack j of wife i is the mother of the kitten; and l represents the number of the kitten of cat k in
sack j of wife i. By the generalized principle there are thus 7  7  7  7 = 2401 kittens

7. (a) 6! = 720
(b) 2  3!  3! = 72
(c) 4!3! = 144
(d) 6  3  2  2  1  1 = 72

8. (a) 5! = 120
7!
(b) = 1260
2!2!
11! = 34,650
(c)
4!4!2!
7!
(d) = 1260
2!2!

6!4!
(12)!
9.
 = 27,720

10. (a) 8! = 40,320

(b) 2  7! = 10,080
(c) 5!4! = 2,880
(d) 4!24 = 384

1
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.
2 Chapter 1

11. (a) 6!
(b) 3!2!3!
(c) 3!4!

12. (a) 305

(b) 30  29  28  27  26

20
13.
2

52
14.
5

10 12
15. There are possible choices of the 5 men and 5 women. They can then be paired up
5 5

in 5! ways, since if we arbitrarily order the men then the first man can be paired with any of
10 12
the 5 women, the next with any of the remaining 4, and so on. Hence, there are 5!
5 5
possible results.

16. (a) 6 7 4 = 42 possibilities.

+ +

2 2 2
(b) There are 6  7 choices of a math and a science book, 6  4 choices of a math and an
economics book, and 7  4 choices of a science and an economics book. Hence, there are
94 possible choices.

17. The first gift can go to any of the 10 children, the second to any of the remaining 9 children,
and so on. Hence, there are 10  9  8    5  4 = 604,800 possibilities.

5 6 4
18. = 600
2 2 3

8 4 8 2 4 = 896 possible committees.

19. (a) There are +

3 3 3 1 2
8 4 8 2 4
There are that do not contain either of the 2 men, and there are that
3 3 3 1 2

contain exactly 1 of them.

6 6 2 6 6
(b) There are + = 1000 possible committees.
3 3 1 2 3
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 1 3

7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5
(c) There are + + = 910 possible committees. There are in
3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3

7 5
which neither feuding party serves; in which the feuding women serves; and
2 3

7 5
in which the feuding man serves.
3 2

20. 6 2 6 6 6
+ , +
5 1 4 5 3

7!
21. = 35. Each path is a linear arrangement of 4 r’s and 3 u’s (r for right and u for up). For
3!4!

instance the arrangement r, r, u, u, r, r, u specifies the path whose first 2 steps are to the right,
next 2 steps are up, next 2 are to the right, and final step is up.

4! paths from A to the circled point; and 3!

22. There are paths from the circled point to B.
2!2! 2!1!

Thus, by the basic principle, there are 18 different paths from A to B that go through the
circled point.

23. 3!23

25. 52

13, 13, 13, 13

27. 12 12!
=
3, 4, 5 3!4!5!

28. Assuming teachers are distinct.

(a) 48 8
(b) 8! = 2520.
=
2, 2, 2, 2 (2)4

29. (a) (10)!/3!4!2!

(b) 3 3 7!

2 4!2!
30. 2  9! − 228! since 2  9! is the number in which the French and English are next to each other
and 228! the number in which the French and English are next to each other and the U.S. and
Russian are next to each other.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

4 Chapter 1

31. (a) number of nonnegative integer solutions of x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 = 8.

11
Hence, answer is = 165
3

7
(b) here it is the number of positive solutions—hence answer is = 35
3

32. (a) number of nonnegative solutions of x1 + … + x6 = 8

13
answer =
5

(b) (number of solutions of x1 + … + x6 = 5)  (number of solutions of x1 + … + x6 = 3) =

10 8
5 5

33. (a) x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 = 20, x1  2, x2  2, x3  3, x4  4

Let y1 = x1 − 1, y2 = x2 − 1, y3 = x3 − 2, y4 = x4 − 3
y1 + y2 + y3 + y4 = 13, yi > 0

12
Hence, there are = 220 possible strategies.
3

15
(b) there are investments only in 1, 2, 3
2
14
there are investments only in 1, 2, 4
2
13
there are investments only in 1, 3, 4
2
13
there are investments only in 2, 3, 4
2

15 14 13 12 = 552 possibilities
+ + 2 +

2 2 2 3

14
34. (a) = 1001
4
10
(b) = 120
3

13 12
(c) There are = 286 possible outcomes having 0 trout caught and = 220 possible
3 3
outcomes having 1 trout caught. Hence, using (a), there are 1001 286 220 = 495
possible outcomes in which at least 2 of the 10 are trout.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 1 5

Theoretical Exercises
m
2. i=1 ni

3. n(n − 1)    (n − r + 1) = n!/(n − r)!

4. Each arrangement is determined by the choice of the r positions where the black balls are
situated.

n
5. There are different 0 − 1 vectors whose sum is j, since any such vector can be
j

characterized by a selection of j of the n indices whose values are then set equal to 1. Hence
there are n n vectors that meet the criterion.

j=k
j

n
6.
k

n 1 n 1 (n 1)! (n 1)!
7. + = +
r r 1 r!(n 1 r)! (n r)!(r 1)!
n! n r r n
= + =
r!(n r)! n n r
n+m n m
8. There are gropus of size r. As there are groups of size r that consist of i
r i r i
men and r − i women, we see that
n+m r
n m
= .
r i=0
i r i
n n 2
2n n n n
9. = =
n i=0 i
n i i=0
i

10. Parts (a), (b), (c), and (d) are immediate. For part (e), we have the following:

n k !n! n!
k = =
k (n k )!k ! (n k )!(k 1)!
n
(n k +1) (n k + 1)n! n!
= =
k 1 (n k + 1)!(k 1)! (n k )!(k 1)!
n 1 n(n 1)! n!
n = =

k 1 (n k )!(k 1)! (n k )!(k 1)!

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.
6 Chapter 1

11. The number of subsets of size k that have i as their highest numbered member is equal to
i 1
, the number of ways of choosing k − 1 of the numbers 1, …, i − 1. Summing over i
k 1
yields the number of subsets of size k.

n
12. Number of possible selections of a committee of size k and a chairperson is k and so
k
n
n
k represents the desired number. On the other hand, the chairperson can be anyone of
k =1
k

the n persons and then each of the other n − 1 can either be on or off the committee. Hence,
n2n − 1 also represents the desired quantity.

n 2
(i) k
k
(ii) n2n − 1 since there are n possible choices for the combined chairperson and secretary and
then each of the other n − 1 can either be on or off the committee.
(iii) n(n − 1)2n − 2

(c) From a set of n we want to choose a committee, its chairperson its secretary and its
treasurer (possibly the same). The result follows since

(a) there are n2n − 1 selections in which the chair, secretary and treasurer are the same
person.
(b) there are 3n(n − 1)2n − 2 selection in which the chair, secretary and treasurer jobs are
held by 2 people.
(c) there are n(n − 1)(n − 2)2n − 3 selections in which the chair, secretary and treasurer are
all different.
n 3
(d) there are k selections in which the committee is of size k.
k
n
n n n 1
13. (1 − 1) = ( 1)
i=0
i

14. (a) n j n n i
=
j i i j i
n n
n j n n i n n i
= = 2
(b) From (a), i j 1 i
j i
j=i j=i

n n
n j n j n n i n j

(c) j=i ( 1) = j=i ( 1)

j i i j 1
 n i
n n i n i k

= ( 1) =0
i k
k =0

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 1 7

15. (a) The number of vectors that have xk = j is equal to the number of vectors x1  x2  …  xk−1
satisfying 1  xi  j. That is, the number of vectors is equal to Hk−1(j), and the result follows.

(b)
H2(1) = H1(1) = 1
H2(2) = H1(1) + H1(2) = 3
H2(3) = H1(1) + H1(2) + H1(3) = 6
H2(4) = H1(1) + H1(2) + H1(3) + H1(4) = 10
H2(5) = H1(1) + H1(2) + H1(3) + H1(4) + H1(5) = 15
H3(5) = H2(1) + H2(2) + H2(3) + H2(4) + H2(5) = 35

16. (a) 1 < 2 < 3, 1 < 3 < 2, 2 < 1 < 3, 2 < 3 < 1, 3 < 1 < 2, 3 < 2 < 1,
1 = 2 < 3, 1 = 3 < 2, 2 = 3 < 1, 1 < 2 = 3, 2 < 1 = 3, 3 < 1 = 2, 1 = 2 = 3
n
(b) The number of outcomes in which i players tie for last place is equal to , the number
i
of ways to choose these i players, multiplied by the number of outcomes of the remaining
n − i players, which is clearly equal to N(n − i).
n n
n n
(c) N (n 1) = N (n i)
i=1 i n
i=1 i
n1
n
= N ( j)
j=0 j

where the final equality followed by letting j = n − i.

(d) N(3) = 1 + 3N(1) + 3N(2) = 1 + 3 + 9 = 13

N(4) = 1 + 4N(1) + 6N(2) + 4N(3) = 75

17. A choice of r elements from a set of n elements is equivalent to breaking these elements into
two subsets, one of size r (equal to the elements selected) and the other of size n − r (equal to
the elements not selected).

18. Suppose that r labeled subsets ofr respective sizes n1, n2, …, nr are to be made up from
n 1
elements 1, 2, …, n where n = ni . As n1 ,..., ni 1,...nr represents the number of
i=1
possibilities when person n is put in subset i, the result follows.

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

8 Chapter 1

19. By induction:

(x1 + x2 + … + xr)n
n
n i n i

by the Binomial theorem

i1x01 ( x2 + ... + xr )
1
= 1

i1 =

n
n i ... n i1 i i
1
i i ,...,i 1 r
i ,...,i
= x1 x 2 ...x 2
i1 =0 1 2 r 2 r

i2 + ... + ir = n i1

n
... xi ...xi
= 1 r
1 r
i ,...,i i ,...,i
1 r 1 r

i1 + i2 + ... + ir = n

where thensecond equality follows from the induction hypothesis and the last from the
identity n i1 n
= .
i1 i2 ,...,in i1 ,...,ir

20. The number of integer solutions of

x1 + … + xr = n, xi  mi

is the same as the number of nonnegative solutions of

y1 + … + yr = n − mi , yi  0.
1

r
n mi + r 1
Proposition 6.2 gives the result .
1

r 1

r
21. There are choices of the k of the x’s to equal 0. Given this choice the other r − k of the
k

x’s must be positive and sum to n.

By Proposition 6.1, there are n 1 n 1 such solutions.
=

r k 1 n r+k
Hence the result follows.

22.22 n+r 1 by Proposition 6.2.

.
n 1

Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 1 9

j+n 1
23. There are nonnegative integer solutions of
j

xi = j
i=1

Hence, there are k j +n 1 such vectors.

j=0
j
Copyright © 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
three remaining columns, have been taken away, and they stand
now entirely detached from each other, (except by some iron ties
inserted for their preservation) from the foundation to the architrave,
twenty feet more than the proper height of the column.
From the temple of Jupiter, let me take you to that of Peace, a
building of very different style in every respect. The remains consist
of three great arches of brick and rubble, nearly of equal size, and of
some foundations of piers, which exhibit themselves above ground.
The plan, which you may see in almost any book of Roman
architecture, has been a room, about 248 feet long, and 195 wide,
composed of a nave, or central part, which is vaulted with three
groined arches, and which has on each side three large recesses,
rising about as high as the springing of the principal arches, and
occupying nearly their whole width. These groined vaults have had
the appearance of resting on eight Corinthian columns, or rather on
detached entablatures over such columns. It was probably intended,
by throwing the weight on such slender, and apparently inefficient
props, to give to the whole an exaggerated appearance of lightness;
the attempt seems injudicious; yet the same sort of arrangement in
the existing hall of the baths of Dioclesian is generally admired. The
Romans, this is my present theory, had a sort of architecture
borrowed from the Etruscans, before they had much intercourse
with Greece. The ornamental parts have presented arches, and
niches, and Tuscan columns, which were little more than the wooden
props from which the idea of a column has been derived. To this
they afterwards added the triglyphs, characteristic of the Doric
order; and thus made what is now called the Roman Doric, but
which till lately used to be considered as the genuine order; and
imported also the other orders. From these materials, about the time
of Augustus, they formed an architecture of their own; combining
with the severe, and as they probably felt it, somewhat monotonous
simplicity of the Greek forms, the arches and niches of the Etruscan
mode of building; and executing their works on a large scale, and
with a magnificence and fulness of ornament peculiar to themselves.
The power of vaulting their apartments, enabled them to combine
magnitude and solidity, both real and apparent; and they no sooner
felt the effect thus produced, than they began to abuse their powers
in sacrificing every thing else to this union. The great hall in the
baths of Caracalla, was perhaps, the first remarkably successful
effort of the sort; at least we know of nothing earlier, for it is not
clear that there was any thing of the kind in the baths of Titus. The
novelty was admired, extolled, and imitated; and this great room,
called the Temple of Peace, and the great hall in the baths of
Dioclesian, were built upon the same model. Palladio inserts a similar
apartment in the baths of Nero and Titus, as well as in those of later
date; but we know not his authority, and the progress would be the
same though we should assign an earlier date to the
commencement of the practice. It is impossible to deny the
impressive effect produced by these ample spaces, and bold
construction, whatever was the edifice in which they were first
introduced, or not to regret, that it should have occasioned the
entire disregard of all chaster, and less ostentatious beauty, both in
the masses and in the details. Whatever was the motive of this
disposition, its effect in the Temple of Peace is now entirely lost, as
the great vault is gone. The stucco panelling of the side-vaults is in a
fine free style, but the details are bad, and the execution poor; a
circumstance which we have the opportunity of determining by a
large mass of vault lying on the ground, with a considerable portion
of these ornaments remaining. The backs of the two side recesses,
each with two ranges of comparatively small arches, never could
have had a pleasing appearance by any mode of finishing, and the
circular recess is still worse in design; but the latter was a posterior
addition, made to convert the edifice into a Christian church. Of the
great order, the whole entablature is clearly exhibited at one corner,
being not continued from one column to another, but returning in
itself upon each. Considerable fragments of a smaller order are lying
about, presenting continued straight lines, and not contemptible
either in design, or workmanship, although not very correct. A third
order ornamented the circular recess, and we have also several
fragments of the entablature of this part, overloaded with ornaments
which are ill drawn, and ill executed. One end wall of the nave
seems to have been finished in a manner similar to those of the
ends of the two side recesses; the other has a large niche. We may
perhaps trace in this arrangement the first idea of the distribution of
the Roman churches. Recent excavations have proved that the plan
has hitherto been imperfectly understood. The original entrance was
at the end, and the building formed a great hall, terminating in a
large niche, and having three tribunes, square on the plan, on each
side, each of which terminated in two rows, each of three arched
recesses, some, or all of which, were windows. The middle tribune
on one side was opened at some period later than the conversion of
Constantine, and a flight of steps made up to it, while a semicircular
extremity was added to the opposite tribune; so that what had been
the nave, or leading division of the hall, became the transept of the
church, although larger than the part which thus had the effect of a
nave, as is the case at present in the church of the baths of
Dioclesian. Many of the paving bricks are marked with the name of
Domitian, but this does not amount to a proof of the date of the
edifice, and the execution of the parts shows decisively, that it is not,
in its present state, of the age of Vespasian, as has been supposed.
It is possible that the mass of the building might be of the time of
that emperor, yet I doubt if the introduction of these immense
groined vaults can be placed so early. There are indeed some very
fine fragments, and in particular, a beautiful piece of cornice with
dentils, but without modillions, which now lies in the adjoining
church of Santa Francesca Romana. These were plundered from
other buildings; and the artists of that we are now examining, have
shown their degeneracy by their clumsy imitations. The stucco work,
which must have been made for the building, is still worse than the
marble. The circular recess on one side has long been acknowledged
to be an addition, but the present opinion does not assign to the
whole edifice an antiquity much higher than the reign of Dioclesian,
or perhaps of Constantine, but the apparent change of its
destination, from some profane purpose, probably into that of a
Christian church, make me suppose that it must have been, in its
original form, prior to the latter emperor.
 From the temple of Peace we have but to cross the way to the
Arch of Titus. This is the oldest triumphal arch existing in Rome, and
it has perhaps been the most beautiful. It contained only a single
opening, by which means the side intercolumniations are rather
smaller than where there are also two smaller arches; and I think
this improves the general composition. You know that this building
was erected in commemoration of the defeat of the Jews, or rather
of the destruction of the Jewish nation by Titus; and part of its
interest is derived from the sacred utensils sculptured in its bas-
reliefs.
At the distance of a few steps from the arch of Titus, we find two
temples, placed back to back, sometimes called the temples of the
Sun and Moon, but I am better satisfied to believe them the temples
of Venus and Rome, designed by Hadrian, and criticised by
Apollodorus. The criticism was too just to be forgiven, and it cost the
unfortunate artist his life. Ruins have more claim on our attention,
when we know, or fancy that we know, something of their history,
and here the probability is much in favour of their connexion with
the story. Palladio restored these temples with a portico, or rather
loggia to each, of six columns, and four pilasters, not the height of
the building. It seems more probable that each had a lofty decastyle
portico and pediment, as is usual in temples. Uggeri, who has given
a plan on this supposition, says that he has made them peripteral,
instead of amphiprostyle, but in fact, both his design and that of
Palladio are amphiprostyle. In order to effect this, he has crowded
his columns too much, and if there were ten of them, the building
was in all probability peripteral. It was inclosed in a peribolus,
surrounded by a peristyle of granite columns of considerable size,
many fragments of which still remain.
Underneath the wall of this building, we see a slab of white
marble, apparently the remains of a pavement of that material: this
is thought to have belonged to Nero’s golden house. Some other
foundations have been found by digging, which are attributed to the
same source. We will now pass to the Coliseum, without stopping to
examine the shapeless fragment of a fountain, or aqueduct, called
the Meta sudans. What an immense mass! You walk round it, and
within it. You pace its long corridors, or stand on the top of its half
ruined vaults, and everywhere, and in every part, and from every
point of view, the same impression occurs of enormous magnitude.
You may visit it again and again, and you will still feel this one
character eternally repeated. To the painter, in its present state of
ruin, it offers many picturesque combinations and admirable studies.
The antiquary may delight in tracing the various parts, and
imagining their uses; but to the architect it does not say much. As a
whole it is a mere mass, with little merit of design or execution.
None of the orders are good, and the mouldings are indifferently
drawn and worse executed, as might be expected from the manner
in which it was raised. Yet on the whole, the details of the
architecture are better than I expected from the engravings. It is
curious, that although the arches are semicircular, and of small span,
the arch-stones are joggled;[43] this would seem to indicate no great
confidence in the form of the arch, and consequently not much habit
of using it, at that time. Travertine, brickwork, and rubble are
intermixed in the construction, and the ancient pavement in some of
the passages so exactly resembles Dutch clinkers, that I should have
had no doubt of their being such, had I met with them in England.
This building has suffered tremendously, as every one knows, by
furnishing materials for the Roman palaces. Lately, a part which
threatened to fall, has been supported by a vast brick wall of no
inconsiderable expense.[44] During the residence of the French it was
cleared out both internally and externally, and some curious
construction, partly of blocks of travertine, partly of brick, and small,
rough masonry, was discovered in the arena: the use and date of
these have been much disputed. Some of the slighter walls have
been supposed to have been erected by the Frangipani family, which
had here established a dyeing-house; but they are all now filled up,
not however to the former level, for the present arena is said to be
eight feet lower than it was.
Almost close to the Coliseum, is the Arch of Constantine, shining
like a jay, says Milizia, in borrowed feathers. Much of the sculpture
represents the exploits of Trajan, and was doubtless taken from an
arch dedicated to that emperor, but it has been disputed whether
Constantine transferred them from the arch in the forum of Trajan,
or whether he altered and restored an arch upon the spot. The latter
supposition is inadmissible, since the bases of the pilasters are of
Constantine’s time, judging, as we may fairly do in this case, by the
workmanship; while those of the columns, which are so much more
exposed to destruction and to change, are antique; and of the
sixteen internal angles made by the cornice, points also very much
protected by their situation, not one is entirely of the more ancient
execution. The parts of architecture not made for this arch, are very
beautiful, but rather perhaps in a more delicate style than that of the
fragments remaining of the forum and basilica of Trajan. The general
form and proportion of the edifice are also good.
On the opposite side of the Coliseum, on the slope of the
Esquiline, are the subterraneous chambers, commonly called the
Baths of Titus, whence the arabesque paintings of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries are said to have been derived. These ornaments
however have, properly speaking, nothing to do with the baths, but
belonged to a magnificent palace of an earlier date, whose walls
were left by Titus to serve as part of the supports to the apartments
fabricated above them. A vast number of chambers thus become
subterraneous, still remain, and numerous additional vaulted rooms
occupy the courts of the ancient mansion, and advance in front of
them to complete the substructions required for the arrangements
above. These additional parts may be distinguished by the quality of
the work, and still more readily by the want of stucco, and of every
sort of ornament. The Roman antiquaries pretend to determine that
this palace had been abandoned some time before it was thus
buried, and that parts of it had been divided into small habitations
for the poorer class. Many of these vaults, as well of the ancient
building, as of the additions under Titus, were cleared out during the
authority of the French in Rome, but a still larger number remains
more or less filled with rubbish, purposely thrown in from above, and
this circumstance, together with the change of destination in the
edifice, produces an intricacy, or rather confusion in the plan, which
the spectator does not easily unravel, and it is with astonishment
that we contemplate these lofty and spacious apartments, covered
with the richest ornaments, and a profusion of painting and gilding,
where it seems as if the light of day could never have entered; but
when the circumstances of the building are once well understood,
these particularities, and some irregularities in the plan, which at
first sight appear incomprehensible, are fully explained. While all
these were considered as parts of the baths of Titus, all strangers
used to be told, that the Laocoon was found in them, and the very
pedestal on which it stood was pointed out; but now, when it is
established that these chambers never constituted any portion of the
baths, this notion is given up; since in fact all we know on the
subject is, that the Laocoon was found in or near the baths of Titus.
I do not know whether a magnificent bathing vessel of rosso antico,
now in the Vatican, is in the same predicament, but it was said one
time to have been found here. In a long corridor which formed one
side of the internal court of the palace, the painting on the vaults
remains tolerably perfect. We see it by means of a candle fixed at
the end of a long reed, and consequently the examination cannot be
very exact, but it is enough to shew to us the grace and spirit of the
figures, and the delicacy of the ornament. In another part of the
ruins we scramble over heaps of rubbish, in chambers nearly filled
up, sometimes walking nearly upright, oftener half doubled, or
crawling on all-fours, to a part where there are similar paintings,
which may be examined close at hand. The execution is slight but
firm, suited to the position in which they were to be seen. The
arrangement of the ornaments, architecturally speaking, is bad, but
in themselves they are generally beautiful, and the figures both of
men and animals are drawn not only with spirit and truth, but with a
grace of attitude and elegance of form, which we certainly do not
find in works of this nature in modern times. One conceives that a
very superior artist must have made the drawings, and that they
were copied on the walls by skilful workmen. There are some
apartments, and lofty vaults above ground, but at a greater distance
from the Coliseum; and a large reservoir, called the sette sale, or
seven halls, out of the general circuit of the building. It consists of
nine vaults, with the doors so disposed that you may see seven of
them on a diagonal line at one view. The deposit on the sides proves
sufficiently that they were reservoirs for water, and they are
supposed to have supplied the baths of Titus and Trajan. The
present circumstances of these ruins scattered over a great extent of
ground, some in one vineyard, and some in another, accessible by
different ways, and where in going from one to another, one loses
altogether the traces of antiquity, perhaps fill the imagination more,
than if they were in one inclosure; for the apparent distance is
increased by this want of union, by the crooked paths, through
which one reaches them, and by the number of objects intervening;
but there is nothing in any one of the superior buildings to detain
the spectator for long. More pains perhaps have been taken about
the plan of this edifice, than of any other of the ancient baths, but
none of the obscurer ruins of Rome have been well made out, and
even the less obvious parts of the most interesting buildings, have
till lately excited little attention. At every step we have to complain
that the Roman antiquities, in spite of all which has been written
upon them, have never been published.
These remains, as I have said, are on the Esquiline; on the
opposite slope of the Cœlian, are some buildings, consisting of piers,
vaults, and arcades; with a sort of Doric pilaster and entablature,
much in the style of the Coliseum, and supposed to have been
erected at the same time, or shortly after, for the reception of wild
beasts for the use of the amphitheatre. Returning again towards the
Capitol, we find the Palatine, half covered with ruins, mixed with
modern convents; and the buildings of the Farnese gardens,
designed by M. A. Buonarotti, and by Vignola. Amongst these is a
subterranean apartment, without any opening for the external light,
known by the name of the baths of Livia, which have been very
highly ornamented with painting and gilding, and with little bas-
reliefs in stucco; and considerable remains of these decorations still
exist. I shall not attempt to lead you to all the different masses of
ruin, the long vaults, and immense solid piers, crowded together on
this hill; but I cannot omit to mention a noble terrace supported on
vaults, which commands the Circus maximus, and a number of
interesting objects finely combined. After all, supposing the whole
summit of the Palatine to have been occupied by the palace, which
was probably the case, it would not have been much larger than that
designed by Inigo Jones for Charles I., and of which the
Banquetting-house was built as a specimen. The Roman palace must
have been very irregular, the natural effect of having been erected at
different times, and by men whose views were very different.
Amongst its ruins we are shown a Hippodrome, a Temple of Apollo,
and more things than I can undertake to name; and in the villa
Spada, the casino of which boasts some nearly invisible productions
of the pencil of Giulio Romano, is a considerable subterraneum,
called the Baths of Nero. As in the baths of Titus, you have to hunt
out these fragments in different gardens and vineyards, the
entrances to which are frequently very wide apart, nor is it always
easy to obtain admission.
 LETTER XXIV.

ROMAN ANTIQUITIES.

Rome, February, 1817.

I n my last I gave you some account of the buildings about the
Forum, or perhaps I should say, about the Campo Vaccino, for the
ancient forum was of much less extent from N. W. to S. E., which is
its present direction, and greater from N. E. to S. W., reaching as far
as the circular church of St. Theodore, supposed to have been a
temple of Romulus; but not apparently to the building called the
temple of Vesta, or even to the arch of Janus; as these stood, not in
the great Forum, but in the cattle-market, or Forum Boarium. The
church of St. Theodore above-mentioned, is a circular brick building,
or at least coated with brick, for the interior is probably rubble. We
have no reason to believe any of the present remains to be of very
high antiquity, or if there be any thing of the sort, it is concealed by
the more recent covering, which is supposed to have been made, or
much repaired, at the time the building was converted into a
Christian church. According to Manazzale it was ristabilita by Adrian
I. in 774, rifabbricata by Nicolas V. in 1450. Among the arguments
used to prove it to have been the ancient temple of Romulus, or at
least to have occupied its site, is a fancied similarity between St.
Theodore (usually called San Toto), and the founder of the Roman
state; and the custom still existing, of carrying to it sick children for
the recovery of their health, since it appears that the same practice
prevailed in ancient times, with respect to the temple of Romulus.
This argument is of some value, since the Romans still retain many
local heathen superstitions. Behind this building is a small fragment
of wall of opus incertum, against the Palatine hill, which we may
pronounce more ancient than the temple itself, and probably of a
republican period. The pavement of the yard in front, and of a
considerable portion of the street, is formed of what is usually called
serpentine; but I believe it has no affinity with the stone now so
named by mineralogists, but is rather a green porphyry. One finds in
Rome, however, another stone called green porphyry, very different
from this, and agreeing with the red porphyry in every thing but its
colour.
In the neighbourhood of the ancient Forum Boarium, are the
remains of five edifices; the first in our route is the Arch of Janus,
which I need not be very particular in describing, as it has little
pretension to any sort of beauty. The mouldings, without being
good, are better drawn, and better executed than those of the arch
of Constantine, which were made for the building. One or two
fragments seem to have belonged to something else, but in general
there is a uniformity of design and execution. Close by this is the
Arch of the Goldsmiths, dedicated to Septimius Severus, which, in
spite of the name, is in fact, no arch at all, but consists of an
entablature supported on two piers, which are ornamented with
pilasters of the Composite order; it is covered with a profusion of
ornaments in bad taste, but producing, nevertheless, some richness
of effect.
The Cloaca Maxima is so little visible that one can hardly form a
decided judgment concerning its construction. It is said to be of
peperino, or rather of what Brocchi has called tufa litoide, repaired in
many places with travertine. We see only two ends of a short piece,
running perhaps two hundred yards, from the neighbourhood of the
arch of Janus into the Tiber. At the upper end only one course of
arch stones, of peperino, or tufa is seen, and the joints seem
somewhat loosened by time; in front of this is another arch of brick,
springing from a higher level, but apparently of ancient
workmanship. The older arch is filled up with silt to somewhat above
the springing. Towards the land, the modern sewer varies its
direction, and the old one is entirely filled up. Close by the sewer is a
good spring of clear water, and a little higher up, another more
copious one. They are so far distinct, that the use of the upper as a
washing-place does not affect the lower. The upper spring appears
from beneath a brick arch, and may therefore be brought from some
distance; the lower rises under rocks. The position of this spring is of
importance in settling the topography of ancient Rome, as it must
have supplied the lake Juturna, and have been the place where
Castor and Pollux were seen watering their horses after the battle of
the lake Regillus. Some have supposed another spring, in order to
put the lake of Juturna, and consequently the temple of Vesta, at the
foot of the Palatine, just by the three columns of Jupiter Stator; the
arrangement is doubtless convenient, but the evidence is defective.
The outlet of the Cloaca into the Tiber has three courses of arch
stones of peperino, as perfect as if done yesterday, and of excellent
masonry, but in so exposed a situation it is hardly credible, that
some restorations should not at times have been necessary. It
appears among the remains of an ancient wall, which is also of
peperino, or tufa, but of a softer variety and less perfect
workmanship. We may suppose all this prior to Augustus, but
between the kings and emperors there is a very wide interval, and
there seems no mode of fixing a precise date for any of the
restorations; what evidence we possess is certainly in favour of its
having retained the form and arrangement given to it by the
Tarquins.
The next antiquity I shall notice, consists of some columns in the
church of Santa Maria, in Cosmedim. The church itself is a basilica of
very early date, and presents nothing of pagan antiquities in its
general appearance externally, excepting some ancient fragments of
architecture in the portico, and a large stone, supposed to have
been the covering of a sewer, representing a huge round face with
an open mouth. It is called the Bocca della verità, because if you
assert a falsehood with your hand in this mouth, it will close upon
you.
 Within side are nine large columns, which have evidently formed
part of the peristyle of a temple, and probably remain in their
original position. Seven of them have very beautiful Composite
capitals, which may probably be considered the best examples of
that order in Rome. The church contains a very rich pavement of the
sort called Byzantine, composed of tesselated marbles, and there are
about twenty other small marble columns, the spoils of various
buildings, with capitals of all ages, from the time of Titus to that of
Constantine, and perhaps later. From some appearances, one might
imagine that the larger columns were shaken by an earthquake. One
of their capitals was wanting, and has been supplied from some
other ancient building; but even this alteration must have been prior
to the date of the present church, in which neither columns nor
capitals are of any value. There are some walls of the ancient temple
behind the choir. This church also preserves its ancient marble pulpit
and reading-desk; and there is an ancient picture, which we are told
floated of itself by sea from Greece, about the year 800.
I shall now proceed to a more beautiful and more perfect remain,
usually called the Temple of Vesta. The antiquaries here are pretty
generally agreed that it has no right to the appellation, though there
are some arguments in its favour, and rather assign it to Hercules
Victor, built A. U. C. 480. For my part I doubt, as every body must be
content to do, who troubles himself with the names of the Roman
antiquities, and believes only according to evidence. It is a small cell,
partly of brick, and partly of stone; the latter ancient, the former
modern; surrounded by a peristyle of twenty elegant Corinthian
columns of white marble, some of which have capitals in the Greek
taste, and some rather more in the Roman. I believe I have already
noticed this distinction, but I will now in a few words endeavour to
explain to you in what it consists. In the Greek order, the abacus is
not cut off at the angles; the general form of the capital more or less
resembles that of a bell; and in the foliage of the leaves, one part
does not lie over the other, but the divisions merely touch each other
at the points. In the Roman, the angles of the abacus are cut off;
the general form is that of a funnel; and the lower divisions of the
leaves usually lie over the upper. What I here call Greek foliage is
frequently designated as consisting of the leaves of the acanthus;
while the Roman is considered to be imitated from olive leaves;
there is little resemblance to either, yet the olive branch may have
suggested the idea of the Roman ornament; while the Greek
resembles some sorts of thistle, rather than the acanthus of
Linnæus, but it is probable that the Greeks intended a thistle by the
name acanthus, though the mollis Acanthus of Virgil seems to
belong to some other plant, and his evergreen acanthus must again
be different.
When the Romans first began to feel the beauties of Grecian
architecture, they probably were obliged to make use of Greek
artists for its execution, and to such a period I attribute the present
edifice. About the time of Augustus, the Romans had formed to
themselves a style decidedly their own, and differing in many
particulars from their Greek models. From that emperor to Trajan, or
perhaps later, we do not find any capital, or other ornamental part of
public buildings, in which the taste of the details is Greek; but as
skill in the fine arts seems to have utterly disappeared in Italy,
sooner than in Greece, the Romans of the latter age had again
recourse to the chisel of Greek artists. In the time of Trajan indeed,
Apollodorus grecised, but in a different manner. The forms of the
mouldings in the forum of Trajan approach to those of the Greeks,
and they are executed with Grecian truth and delicacy of
workmanship, but the ornaments are such as were usual at Rome.
In the temple of Vesta the ornament is Greek, but it is not
particularly well executed. The entablature is entirely gone, nor are
there any fragments by which to restore it. Pieces of the soffite of
the portico however, are found, and some antefixæ have been dug
up, which perhaps belonged to this edifice. The bases are in the
Roman taste, and well designed, though rather smaller than usual;
they have no separate plinths, but are set on one which is continued
round the building, and forms the upper step.
Before the first volume of the Ionian antiquities, published by the
Dilettanti Society, had made us acquainted with really fine specimens
of the Ionic order, the Temple of Fortuna Virilis was cited as one of
its best examples. As usual, the Roman antiquaries are agreed about
nothing but that this edifice is misnamed. It is of a clumsy
overcharged architecture, but looks rather better in reality than in
the drawings, because the relief of the ornaments is very small. Part
of the old work having been much defaced, new mouldings have
been badly executed in plaster, without the ornaments.
I have mentioned a sepulchre of Pontius Pilate at Vienne, in
Dauphiné. His palace is at Rome, if you believe tradition, and a very
curious palace it must have been, whimsically made up with
fragments of better times. The edifice has been more reasonably
supposed the habitation of Rienzi, tribune of the people in the
fourteenth century, whose curious history you have read in Gibbon.
The authority for this is an inscription which states it to have been
erected by Nicolas, son of Crescentius and Theodora.
The ancient Pons Palatinus was built, or at least begun by Marcus
Fulvius, who was censor in 575; and terminated by Scipio Africanus
in 612, A. U. C. It was thrown down in 1598, and the present
fragment is for the most part a papal structure of the seventeenth
century. A little, and but very little, of the ancient Roman work is
visible. A stranger is perhaps more struck by the nets turned round
by the action of the water, than by the remains of the bridge. These
nets are intended for large fish, and principally sturgeon, whose
nature it is to push quietly against the obstacle; the weight of the
fish prevents the motion of the net, till the person appointed to
watch it can take possession of his prey.
Before we reach the theatre of Marcellus, we have to hunt out the
ruins of three temples, which stand close together, almost indeed
touching in some parts, but not placed symmetrically, or even
parallel to each other. One of these is supposed to have been the
Temple of Filial Piety, erected on the site of the prison where the
story recorded by Pliny occurred, of a father nourished by the milk of
his daughter; but nobody has yet attempted to determine which of
the three. The present church of S. Nicola in Carcere, seems to
preserve in its name some memory of the tradition, and this
occupies the whole space of the middle temple, while parts of the
peristyles of the two others are built up in its side walls. The middle
one was a hexastyle, peripteral temple, of the Ionic order, built of
peperino. Of that on the right of the spectator, we may see a range
of five of the columns of the flank. They have a sort of Corinthian
capital, but I would not venture from the little that is seen of the
architecture, to guess at the date. The third was Doric, and much
smaller.
We may next visit the Theatre of Marcellus, of which but little is
seen, as it is encumbered with the formless mass of the Orsini
Palace, and that little is occupied by a range of dirty shops. Enough
remains to show that the architecture has been such as we might
expect from the date of its erection. It formed for a long while the
model of the Doric order, and is still considered as the finest example
remaining of what is called Roman Doric, although the introduction
of dentils in the cornice is esteemed very licentious. The Roman
Doric, however, is an order of which we have so few ancient
examples, that our choice is extremely limited. Of the Theatre of
Pompey nothing is to be seen but a few vaults, and a range of
houses, whose circular form points out that they have been erected
on the ancient foundations.
The Portico of Octavia is a fine fragment, in an awkward, dirty,
disagreeable situation. The order has not much ornament, but it is
well proportioned. The effect is spoiled by the brick walls and
arches, which have been erected to supply the place of the deficient
columns, and some of these are as early as the reign of Severus.
Several of the antefixæ of this roof still exist, but I believe they have
fallen down and been put up again, so that we cannot determine
what was their precise situation.
This portico anciently enclosed two temples, and with a long neck
you may contrive to see the Composite capital of a column of one of
them, which is supposed to be the most ancient specimen of the
order in existence; I can venture no criticisms on what is so
imperfectly visible.
 There are some vestiges of the baths of Agrippa in stables behind
the Pantheon, upon which I shall not stop to speculate, nor upon the
more conspicuous Arco de’ Ciambelli, which is also supposed to have
belonged to them, but transport you at once to the Pantheon itself,
the most perfect and majestic edifice remaining, of the good time of
Roman architecture. I must according to my plan, begin with what
may be learnt or guessed relating to its history. For a long while, the
prevailing opinion was, that the body of the edifice was of the time
of the republic, and the portico an addition made by Agrippa: indeed
there were some very mysterious dreams about the purpose and
antiquity of this temple. I have already mentioned the investigations
of M. Achille Le Clerc; the cell seems to have formed a complete
circular building itself, not essentially attached to any thing, except
at the back, where some remains, attributed to the baths of Agrippa,
appear to be united with it, but there is no trace of a door, or other
opening, to form a communication between them. In front, the two
masses of brickwork which at present support the turrets, are added
to bring out a straight line to receive the portico, leaving between
them a space which is covered with a vault, and which may be
termed the pronaos. To these the portico is added, but there is no
intimate union either between the circular part and these
projections, or between the latter and the portico. A brick wall, rising
considerably above the roof of the portico, is supported on the arch
over the pronaos, which occupies the space continued from the
three middle intercolumniations of the portico; and on this wall there
is a pediment, or part of a pediment, for the top is cut off, and it
seems uncertain if it ever formed a complete triangle; and it is this
pediment, and the detached construction of the different parts,
which have afforded the antiquaries a motive for believing the
present portico a posterior addition. If, reasoned M. Le Clerc, the
building was originally finished without a portico, we shall find traces
of the method of completing it without one either on the circular
cell, or on the face of the two additional masses of brickwork. He
examined both with the greatest care, and in both was perfectly
satisfied, from the interruption of the mouldings, and also from the
offsets of the work, that no finishing could ever have taken place on
either, but that the present portico, or something analogous to it,
must have existed from the first.
Some differences in the materials and in the workmanship, the
want of correspondence in the design, and the partial settlements
which have taken place, are all adverse to the opinion that the whole
building was executed at once, and two circumstances induce me to
suppose that the cell is even posterior to the portico. The first is,
that the use of burnt bricks was only recently introduced into Rome
at the time of Agrippa, as appears from the manner in which
Vitruvius speaks of them; and the first effort would scarcely be one
of this magnitude and importance. My reasons for believing the use
of burnt bricks to be adopted in Rome at so late a period, I mean to
give you more in detail in a future letter. Perhaps we may use a
similar argument concerning the form of the edifice, for though we
have no precise idea of the date of the first introduction of domes,
yet it seems probable that it must be assigned to about this period,
and it would not be easy to imagine that the first erection would be
on so large a scale; at the same time I must acknowledge, that we
have no dome remaining of any size, which can put in a probable
claim to a greater antiquity than the Pantheon. The second
circumstance is, that the marble employed in the portico and
pronaos, is the Pentelic, while that within is of Carrara. I do not think
the passage in Pliny determines the first use of Luna, or Carrara
marble in Rome; he may, perhaps, only have alluded to the
discovery of a whiter and more beautiful bed, but I think we have
sufficient remains to show that the employment of Greek marble in
Rome, generally preceded that of the Italian. It has however, been
contended, that the body of brickwork was erected before the
portico: that this followed, and that all the marble finishings of the
inside were added afterwards. The argument for this is the want of
any correspondence between the marble finishings, and the
openings and distribution of the brickwork. I will oppose to it a
particularity in the construction of this brickwork. The Romans
appear to have been early accustomed to the use of discharging
arches; they introduced straight arches, (that is, an arrangement of
bricks acting against one another as wedges, but kept in a line,
nearly, or quite straight) over their openings, instead of solid stone
lintels; but aware of the weakness arising from this method of
employing the materials, they formed over them a semicircular arch,
by which means the weight of the superincumbent wall was thrown
upon solid parts which were able to bear it. In the earliest buildings
which remain, and in general, even down to the time of Caracalla,
this practice was used reasonably, and with moderation; but in later
times, arches were employed, not for use, but for affectation;
straight arches were employed where there were no openings, and
discharging arches, which threw the weight rather on a weaker than
on a stronger part. The brickwork of the Pantheon displays abuses of
this sort, which is certainly a reason for assigning as late a date to
its erection as is consistent with what we know of its history.
Nevertheless, a cloud of witnesses establish the whole as the work
of Agrippa, and perhaps, all that we ought to conclude from the
want of correspondence in the different parts is, that different
architects were employed, whose views were not altogether the
same. Septimius Severus performed considerable restorations, but
principally within side, and we have nothing to guide us as to the
particulars of what was then executed, except the character of the
work itself. This building, which seems to have contained no
woodwork, except perhaps a small portion entirely concealed in the
roof of the portico, is said to have suffered from fire; one proof
among many that I could cite to you, that brick, stone, and bronze,
were anciently combustible. After the transfer of the seat of empire
to Constantinople, the Pantheon became an object, not of care, but
of plunder. Constans robbed it of its covering of bronze tiles, and
other depredations were made on it. About 608, Pope Boniface IV.
consecrated it as a Christian church, but this did not preserve it from
further spoliation. A little plaster now often serves to supply the
place of the metals or marble taken away.
Modern buildings so surround the body of this edifice, that it is
only very imperfectly that we judge of its merits as a whole; enough
however is seen to prove the majestic and impressive character of
this simple form. Its great distinction, in comparing its proportions
with those of modern structures, is in the lowness of the dome, both
as a whole, and in the circular part, which is left exposed. If we
consider the roof of a modern church as a basement, we shall find
the proportions of the drum and cupola more lofty than those of the
Pantheon. In St. Peter’s, and in St. Paul’s, the architects have had
recourse to a double, or triple construction in order to obtain this
elevation, without producing internal deformity, and to this again a
lantern is added, in order to give a still greater elevation to the
design. This has been done with correct judgment, because the
lower part of the edifice does not merely in picturesque effect act as
a basement, but because it is united with the upper into an acutely
pyramidal form, which it is important to preserve. If accessories
were added to the Pantheon it would be necessary to give the
general composition a very obtusely triangular outline. The Gothic
artists aspired to a form more acutely triangular than those of the
Italian architects. Each disposition has its beauties; the Gothic
arrangement conveys the idea of power by the appearance of
height, the ancient Roman, by that of extent. The modern Italians
have attempted the union of the two. The obtuse triangle gives
more the impression of strength and durability, and has also the
advantage of producing a building of which a much greater
proportion can be applied to internal use and effect. Three cornices
surround the circular part. Palladio has introduced two stories of
pilasters in the upper divisions. I know not what authority he might
have had for this, but what we at present see is a rough brickwork,
which was certainly covered in some way. The two turrets are
modern, but it seems to me there must have been some additional
elevation given to these parts in the original work. All our modern
restorations agree in exhibiting a square mass behind the portico,
which would look particularly bald and disagreeable, especially as it
would be seen over the two pediments. The portico has eight
columns in front, surmounted by a pediment, and is the only
antiquity now remaining here, sufficiently perfect to exhibit the
effect of this simple and beautiful arrangement. We have such things
in the recent architecture of England, and some of them are very
handsome, though in general they want depth. In Italy, I do not
believe that it has ever been imitated by the moderns. We might,
perhaps, find a reason for this in the very existence of such beautiful
remains in the buildings of antiquity, and something must be allowed
for the strong predilection for intricacy of form, which seems always,
more or less, to have influenced the architects of this country. The
same perfect simplicity of design is not preserved within the portico,
it is divided by columns into something like three naves, and the
centre of the great niche, on each side, is opposed to the centre of a
column, and not to that of one of the spaces. The Romans began to
spoil Grecian architecture as soon as they adopted it; substituting
variety of form, and richness of material, to the simple elegance of
arrangement, and the delicacy and beauty of finish which they found
in their models. Simplicity may be carried to an extreme, and
persons of the best and purest taste will differ as to the precise
degree of it required. The interior of the portico of the Pantheon
does not pass the limits of what a great number of amateurs would
consider, not merely as an excusable, but as a desirable degree of
intricacy; and compared to modern edifices, to the front of a Roman
church for instance, or to the portico of St. Geneviève, at Paris, it is
extremely simple. The columns are of granite, and it appears that,
originally, those in front were of a granite with white felspar, which is
usually called here oriental granite, and the internal ones of a
granite, or syenite, containing red felspar, which is said to be
brought from Egypt; of the reason of this difference I can give no
guess. By a restoration of modern times, one of the columns of red
granite has got in front. In some of the columns, the granite has
scaled off by the action of the weather, parallel to the curved
surface. They are all finely wrought, the bases and capitals are of
white Pentelic marble, and the latter by no means all of equal
excellence in point of execution. Urban VIII., who restored one of
them, has inserted his bees instead of flowers in the abacus. The
pilasters are of Pentelic marble, and in short all the other ornamental
parts belonging to the portico and pronaos. The marble coating
which once covered what is now naked brickwork, is gone nobody
knows where, and the bare walls, and naked roofs, add to the
grandeur of the edifice something of the melancholy of a ruin. The
ceiling of the portico was of gilt bronze, but how this was disposed is
a question which has been much agitated, the probable opinion is,
that it formed a panelled vault over each division. Urban VIII. took
away this bronze, then, as it appears, in a very decayed state,
formed from it the four twisted columns which support the canopy
over the high altar at St. Peter’s, and cast several cannon from the
remainder. One of the nails, weighing forty-seven pounds, is said to
be in England; the whole weight of nails was nine thousand three
hundred and seventy-four pounds; the metal altogether weighed
four hundred and fifty thousand two hundred and fifty pounds.
The marble doorway corresponds, both internally and externally,
with the architecture of the portico, and not with that of the
Pantheon itself: the opening is about nineteen feet wide and thirty-
eight high, but within this, are pilasters of bronze which form the
actual doorway. On these hang magnificent doors, also of bronze,
and over them is a grating of the same metal. All these evidently
form one thing, and belong to each other, and probably to the place
where they are fixed: though it has been said that the original ones
were carried away by Genseric, and that these were supplied from
some other edifice.
I do not believe there is any person so insensible to the effect of
architecture, as not to feel the surpassing beauty of this building
internally; the simplicity and grace of its form, the beautiful colour of
its marbles, principally of the giallo antico, and the delightful effect
of its single central light, force themselves upon our admiration. The
giallo antico is the most beautiful of all coloured marbles for the
purposes of architecture, as its gentle glow is always harmonious,
and the delicate variations of its tint are not such as to confuse the
forms of the mouldings, while at the same time they are sufficient to
relieve the deadness of a surface totally unornamented. Yet even
here, the edifice has faults, and great ones. I do not mean by this,
mere offences against arbitrary rules, but circumstances which are
certainly injurious to its perfection, and to the agreeable impression
on the mind of the spectator. The columns are rather too small in
proportion to the size of the building; the entablature is disagreeably
interrupted by two arches, and these arches on a curved surface are
necessarily supine, that is, the crown falls back behind the springing,
and this gives them an awkward appearance. The space above the
columns, which is a modern alteration, so late as the last century, is
altogether bad. Till then, an attic existed adorned with pilasters,
formed not in relief, but by different coloured marbles. This was
attributed to Septimius Severus, and not generally approved, but it
seems to me to have been well calculated to preserve the general
impression of the building, and to have contributed to give rather an
increased value to the order below.
It would probably be better (internally) to make the upright part
of a building of this sort, somewhat greater than the semidiameter
of the circle on the plan; at least in the present case, the dome itself
seems to come rather too near the eye, and to occupy too much of
the view, especially in the condition it now is, presenting an
overwhelming extent of whitewash. It is supposed that this was also
covered with bronze panels, but the time of their removal seems
uncertain. These panels would probably have followed the
disposition of those now existing in the brickwork and stucco; that
is, they must have been in square coffers, and in such a case the
most obvious way of cutting the recesses is to make them at right
angles to the surface of each part; or, to speak more mathematically,
at right angles to the tangents of the surface, and consequently, all
tending to the centre of the curve; here they are cut in almost
vertically, or if they do tend to a common centre, it is to one below
the eye of the spectator standing in the centre of the room. Some
people affect to understand the reason of this; but the result is
distortion, and if really intended to produce any pleasing optical
deception, it must be attributed to great want of judgment, as it
could only succeed from one spot, and must look ill everywhere else;
whereas, without any such contrivance, the spectator himself would
at once make allowance for situation, and the mind would be
satisfied; for in architecture, and probably in all the fine arts, it is
often rather what we understand than what we see, that produces
the sensation of pleasure. In unusual situations some allowance may
be permitted, but it should always be so limited, that a moderately
practised eye will not perceive it. If, instead of being drawn to the
centre of the hemisphere, which as I have said before, is the most
obvious method of forming them, the lines of the recesses had been
directed to a point eighteen or twenty feet below it, it is possible
that they would have appeared to tend more correctly to that centre,
than if they had been really drawn to it; but as they are, every body
at once perceives that they are not so drawn. These panels are
omitted for a circle of considerable width round the opening in the
centre, but we cannot doubt that this part also, had originally its
share of decoration. The little altars are all bad in design, and worse
in execution, but not all equally so: the best of them are usually
attributed to Septimius Severus.
I cannot leave the building without noticing some particulars of
less consequence, which deserve notice, because in such a building,
the defects as well as the beauties become lessons, and it is
necessary, to an architect at least, carefully to examine and separate
one from the other; for oddly as it sounds in theory, everybody
knows that we have a strong tendency in practice, to copy without
discrimination. In the interior order, the corona is too small, and the
projection of the sima too great, giving to the cornice a thin and wiry
edge. This appears to have resulted from a feeling common to the
Roman artists, who endeavoured to produce a broad line of shade as
high as possible on the cornice, while the Greeks on the contrary,
endeavoured to obtain there, a breadth of light, with only one or two
narrow, but distinct and sharply marked lines of shadow. In this
instance, from the lofty position of the opening, the first distinct light
is on the uncut dentil band, and here it is rather a defect than a
merit. The mouldings are generally rather small; the panelling of the
soffite of the cornice is in oblongs, not in squares, and this
displeases, and the execution is not very perfect. In our books we
usually see the curves of the mouldings described by portions of
circles, but this is rarely the case. I think they were drawn by hand
to please the eye of the artist, and not according to any system. On
the roof of the building we still see some lead of the repairs of 1451,
and the ancient marble slabs of the platform immediately above the
upper cornice remain under the lead, but broken, and without the
cover-tiles. Round the central opening parts of the ancient bronze
cornice remain, and some of the gilding with which it was enriched.
In our way home we may stop to look at the Basilica of Antoninus,
now used as the custom-house. It consists of a range of eleven fine,
but much injured Corinthian columns. The frieze and cornice are
modern, the former is swelled, and as it is of stucco, and shows no
joints, you are assured by the Romans that it is all of one piece of
stone. They pay the same compliment to the doorway of the Palazzo
Sciarra, consisting of two columns, with their entablature, pilasters,
&c.; because, being well executed, the joints are not readily
distinguishable. On passing to the inside, we are struck with the vast
masses of stone and rubble-work suspended over our heads, but
nothing in fact remains erect but this range of columns, whose
spaces are now filled up with modern chambers, and the part
supported by them.
 LETTER XXV.

SAINT PETER’S.

Rome, March, 1817.

A fter a view of the principal antiquities, the attention of a stranger is
naturally directed towards the Vatican; and as I gave you a promise
some time ago to send you the result of my examination of St. Peter’s,
and to explain to you why it looks smaller than it is, I am now about to
fulfil my engagement to the best of my ability. In order however, not
altogether to abandon my usual course, I will first give a sketch of its
history, which may save you the trouble of hunting it out in Bonanni and
Fontana; for what I can communicate on the subject will be principally
taken from these authors, with a little assistance now and then from
Milizia. I intend in my next letter to give you a general view of the
ancient basilicas, and I shall reserve for that, my remarks on the old
church built by Constantine on this spot. In the time of Nicolas V. (A. D.
1447) it was verging to ruin, and that pontiff undertook to erect a new
building on such a scale, and with such accompaniments, that even the
present work, with all its appendages, and the adjoining palace of the
Vatican, are hardly equal to it. Three broad and straight streets, with
porticos on each side, were to have conducted to the church. This was
to have been formed on the most magnificent scale, and finished with
the richest materials: adjoining would have been a palace large enough
to afford accommodation to the pope and all his court; to all the
cardinals and their attendants; to various officers of government; and
besides this, spacious apartments for as many sovereigns, with their
numerous suites, as could be ever at one time at Rome: add to all this,
pleasure-grounds, gardens, and fountains, and a great theatre for the
ceremonies of coronation. A Florentine artist, Bernardo Rossellini, made
the designs for these vast edifices; but the Pope died, and the idea was
abandoned. Julius II. resumed it, as far as the erection of a new church,
and invited different artists to present to him their plans. Such a
competition took place on this occasion as is not to be seen in these
degenerate days: Bramante; Giuliano di San Gallo; Fra Giacomo, or
perhaps rather Fra Giocondo, as it seems to be the man whose life is
sketched under that name by Milizia; Peruzzi; Raphael, and J. Battista
Berti, produced their designs; but that of Bramante was preferred: his
plan however has not, I believe, been preserved, and we can only form
some judgment of it from that of Raphael, which has been published by
Serlio, and which according to that author, was formed on that of his
predecessor. Bramante began to clear the ground and to prepare for the
work in 1506, but according to Milizia the edifice was not begun till
1513. This artist raised the piers of the dome as high as the cornice; and
turned the arches upon them; he also carried up the walls of the central
tribune, forming the head of the cross; but as he died in 1514, he had
not time to perform any very extensive works; and both Julius and
himself seem to have been more anxious to see the effect of a part,
than to proceed regularly with the whole design.
Raphael’s design presents to our view a Latin cross, with side aisles
extending the whole length of the building, and each of the tribunes
terminating in a semicircle: behind these tribunes, and not connected
with the aisles of the building, were galleries of the same form, divided
from the body of the church by piers and columns, the object of which
to me is not very intelligible: and I have seen no elevation or section, to
enable me to understand their effect, except as they seem to be
preserved in the design of Antonio Sangallo; they are there lower than
the other parts of the building, though the want of elevation is masked
externally by the upper order. The portico is composed of three ranges,
each of twelve columns, forming a parallelogram, but not placed at
equal distances; some medals of Julius II. and of Leo X., are supposed
to exhibit the front of Bramante’s building, but the figure given in them
has no similarity to this portico of Raphael. The dome published by
Serlio is that of Bramante; it would have been low compared to that
which has actually been erected; single, and surrounded with a
colonnade of single Corinthian columns.
 Leo X. appointed Giuliano di Sangallo and his younger brother Antonio
architects of St. Peter’s, in conjunction with Raphael; but Milizia tells us
that the elder Sangallo, advanced in years, and oppressed with disease,
refused the employment. From this period to 1520, it does not seem
that any thing was done, except strengthening the erections of
Bramante, whose piers were neither by their mass, nor the perfection of
their workmanship, calculated to support the weight intended to be
placed upon them; this strengthening however was not such as to alter
their form materially. After Raphael’s death in 1520, Baldassare Peruzzi
was appointed architect. He reduced the Latin cross to a Greek one by
shortening the nave, and terminating it with a semicircle, so as to make
all the arms precisely alike, with an entrance in each. He also appears to
have made some changes in the smaller parts, if we may trust to Serlio’s
miserable engravings. Leo died in 1521; but though we hear much of
the expenses incurred in the prosecution of the work during his
pontificate, we are ignorant of the state in which he left it. Peruzzi
suffered greatly at the famous sack of Rome by the Germans in 1527,
and afterwards lived in great poverty till 1536. The situation of the
Roman pontiffs at that period was not such as to permit them to
proceed with their building.
Antonio Sangallo, nephew of the preceding architects of that name,
succeeded. This architect greatly increased the extent of the design, by
adding a large edifice at the end of the nave, with two lofty detached
steeples, and thus making the outside form that of a Latin cross, but
without changing the general shape of the inside; he proposed to close
up the openings from the tribune into the semicircular gallery behind it,
leaving only three small doorways; the dome was to have been
ornamented with two rows of columns and arches, but it still remained
single, and the internal height corresponded with that of the outside. In
order to perform all this, he again strengthened the foundations.
The model of this stupendous design, although made by the hands of
Labacco, who was servant of Sangallo, cost 4,184 crowns; it is preserved
in the present church, and is itself a building which may deserve some
description. The plan, as I have already said, is a Greek cross, with arms
of considerable length, each terminating in a semicircle. The angles of
this simple form are occupied by four other Greek crosses, so that the
construction appears to depend on sixteen masses. Four of these, each
of which is a square with one angle cut away, support the dome. It is
said that in Bramante’s design these were to have been hollow; but the
model exhibits no opening into them. Eight other masses are perforated,
to correspond with the circular corridors behind the tribunes. These do
not shew their whole width towards the great cross, the centre of the
semicircle being brought a little inwards. The four remaining masses
which form the angles of the general square, are each hollow, and
crowned with an octagonal turret. In the execution of the building the
external circuit has been much contracted, and the corridors round the
semicircles entirely suppressed; but in other respects this plan is very
nearly the same as that of the present church. Immediately in front is
another large edifice, forming rather a disproportionate vestibule. It is
perforated in both directions by a large open arch, and flanked by two
lofty detached towers, whose height is equal to that of the central
cupola with its lantern and ornaments.

J. Hawksworth Sculp.
Model of St. Peters at Rome.
London, Published by J & A Arch.
Cornhill, March 1st. 1828.

The body of the building is ornamented with two orders, Doric below
and Ionic above. Between them is an enormous Attic which might itself
be called an order. The towers have a second range of Ionic semi-
columns and one of Corinthian. They are then contracted to an octagon,
and afterwards become round; in this part we find a circle of sixteen
detached Corinthian columns, with their entablature and a balustrade
above. On the balustrade, perpendicularly over each column, is a conical
ornament, eight larger cones rise from the wall of the interior cylinder,
and a still larger crowns the whole edifice. This apparent tendency to
run up into cones harmonizes admirably with the lofty proportions of the
campanili, and produces a splendour, and liveliness of effect, which
would be entirely lost with a common sloping roof, or with a cupola.
Indeed the whole of the upper part is exceedingly beautiful. The central
division of the façade exhibits two large arches, one over the other, and
a pediment at top. On each side is a division not much smaller, which
also has a pediment, but not placed so high, and we see behind it an
octangular turret. The large central arch has a magnificent effect; but it
would have had it in still greater degree if it had been larger, and in one
height. Yet perhaps this would not have been in harmony with the
general character of the building, where magnificence is obtained by the
multiplicity of the parts, rather than by their individual dimensions. Two
ranges of arches surround the cupola. One in the upright of the drum,
and the other in the height of the curve. The lantern is very large, and
consequently, but a small portion of the cupola is exhibited, which
perhaps adds to its apparent solidity, and to the majesty of the edifice.
The decorations of the lantern correspond with those of the summits of
the campanili, but as the parts have a greater extent to the same
elevation, the perfect harmony of the composition is still preserved.
This Sangallo, who was the most celebrated architect of that name,
and the one always understood when no addition is employed, died in
1546, and Michael Angelo Buonarotti was appointed architect. He at first
refused the office, and when the Pope, by a motu propio gave him full
authority to do and undo whatever he pleased, he insisted that a
declaration should be inserted, that he undertook it for the love of God,
and without any salary or reward; nor was this an idle boast, for
although Paul III. repeatedly urged his acceptance of some
remuneration, he invariably refused it.
Michael Angelo was not content to strip Peruzzi’s design of all that
Sangallo had added to it, but he also omitted the semicircular galleries
behind the tribunes, which his predecessor had already separated from
the church; he altered the design of the dome nearly to the form which
it has at present, making it double; the one seen internally being no
longer the same as that exhibited on the outside; and surrounding the
drum with a single range of coupled columns. He designed also a sort of
double portico, which certainly has no similarity to that of the Pantheon,
although you will find it asserted in some books that the one was copied
from the other. Eight large columns form the range next the church, and
four others in front of the four middle ones support a pediment, and
form a sort of portico to the portico; it is by no means a handsome
arrangement. A few alterations in the details, and the insertion of some
broken pediments over the windows internally, seem also to have been
designed by Michael Angelo. There was perhaps a little ostentation in
producing a model of the altered design in fifteen days, and at the
expense of twenty-five crowns; while Sangallo’s model had occupied
several years; but St. Peter’s at this time had become a standing job,
and the underlings employed in it, instead of feeling any zeal to
complete it, considered an appointment in the building as an
establishment for life. All this Michael Angelo endeavoured to put an end
to, and excited great ill-will towards himself by so doing; but his
wonderful talents and high character carried him through all opposition.
He began his works by still further strengthening the great piers, which,
though they had been repeatedly reinforced, did not yet appear to him
as strong as they ought to be. To what point he carried the work, I do
not know; but the whole, as far as the extent of the Greek cross, seems
to have been continued nearly according to his design.
Milizia says that Pirro Ligorio was appointed architect of St. Peter’s
conjointly with Michael Angelo: but according to Bonanni, P. Ligorio and
Vignola were joint architects after the death of that great man, which
happened in 1564. I do not know that Ligorio did any thing; Vignola
erected the two smaller cupolas, which are universally admired, but very
little seen from their position on the building, as now lengthened into a
Latin cross. He died in 1573, and the next architect we have any account
of, is Giacomo della Porta, who was a pupil of Vignola; and under his
direction, and that of Domenico Fontana, who was united with him for
this purpose by Sixtus V., the great dome was erected in twenty-two
months by the labour of 600 men; it was completed in 1590, but without