What do you think?
Rate this book
Greek and Roman Architecture
This book provides a brief, clear account of the main developments in the history of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman architecture, from the earliest times to the foundation of Constantinople. It contains 135 drawings and 24 plates. Professor Robertson has produced a really great handbook; one that has become the standard general work, in English, or perhaps in any language, on its subject. It has not only accuracy, attention to detail and scholarship - these qualities we would expect - it has clarity, breadth of treatment and what can be called architectural soundness.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1943
3 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 6, 2021
This is an outstanding reference work. I read it through from cover to cover but would not necessarily recommend using it that way; I think it would work better still as a reference in the shelves, to be consulted on specific matters. Nevertheless, it supported a sustained reading and remained interesting throughout. It is humbling to be exposed to such a range and depth of knowledge and expertise.
The book is impressive, first, for its encyclopaedic coverage of buildings in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds; secondly, I found it to be balanced, with instances both of unequivocal judgment (the triumphal arch “is another individual and unattractive Roman invention”; “There is little plausibility in the suggestions…”; “The facts, though clear, are usually misrepresented…”), and of judiciously balanced review of contentious issues (“…appears to lack support in the surviving monuments”; “The theory is attractive …but the evidence is so scanty that it must at present remain a guess”). Robertson is certainly opinionated at times, (“It is unlucky that of each pair the later is the better preserved, for the Siphnian at least, for its charm, has the fault of over-elaboration: it is an almost vulgar attempt to eclipse an older and simpler masterpiece.” Or “We cannot look at the charming Doric colonnades of Hellenistic houses, or at such pleasing late temple as that of Cori in Latium, without regretting that this promise should have been crushed by the showy brilliance of Ionic, so early touched by emptiness and vulgarity.”) but, for me, that is vastly preferable to a sterile neutrality. And if anyone is entitled to an opinion, Robertson is.
It is necessary for the reader to have some knowledge of the technical terminology. “Metopes” and “triglyphs” and “peripterals” abound. However, they are not used in an exclusionary manner; they are the components of these buildings and a reader would need to begin with a recognition of what each is.
It is commonly believed that the Romans were the inventors of the arch and the vault; Robertson gives historical perspective to this error, noting that “clay domes seem to have been built from very early times in the Near East” and that baked-brick arches and barrel-vaults were used in pre-Roman Egypt and Mesopotamia; furthermore, “in Mesopotamia at least they were used with great boldness and with real understanding of their structural and aesthetic values.” but “The Romans were the first builders in Europe, perhaps the first in the world, fully to appreciate the advantages of the arch, the vault and the dome.”
I found the section on the Acropolis buildings and, particularly, on the curved/straight lines and the vertical/tilted lines, as well as the section on the Pantheon to be especially interesting. It was also interesting to be reminded that, while existing remains of buildings are inevitably almost always stone, there was extensive use of timber in many early Greek and Roman structures.
The other section which I found particularly interesting was that on ordinary Greek and Roman domestic structures (rather than the grand villas of the wealthy or the palaces of kings). These are constructions that receive very little attention in most accounts, and it is interesting that there is nevertheless apparently considerable knowledge available.
In reference to the theatres, such as Epidaurus, Robertson argues that the roof of the proskenion became a stage on which actors moved, after mid-second century, having previously been just a backdrop. Apparently Vitruvius presents this notion, but I confess I have not previously encountered it.
There are so many provocative ideas in this study, it is difficult to retain a sense of them all. I was fascinated by the contention that the Romans were essentially eclectic gatherers of architectural styles and that the Greeks were the architects and the Romans’ genius was in engineering.
In discussing the slow evolution of temple vernacular styles, Robertson declares, “Men will not wear inherited chains forever.” The next, unanswered and possibly unanswerable, question, however, is what causes one generation to see a particular form to be an inherited immutable necessity, and another to see it as a limiting, inherited shackle.
The book is impressive, first, for its encyclopaedic coverage of buildings in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds; secondly, I found it to be balanced, with instances both of unequivocal judgment (the triumphal arch “is another individual and unattractive Roman invention”; “There is little plausibility in the suggestions…”; “The facts, though clear, are usually misrepresented…”), and of judiciously balanced review of contentious issues (“…appears to lack support in the surviving monuments”; “The theory is attractive …but the evidence is so scanty that it must at present remain a guess”). Robertson is certainly opinionated at times, (“It is unlucky that of each pair the later is the better preserved, for the Siphnian at least, for its charm, has the fault of over-elaboration: it is an almost vulgar attempt to eclipse an older and simpler masterpiece.” Or “We cannot look at the charming Doric colonnades of Hellenistic houses, or at such pleasing late temple as that of Cori in Latium, without regretting that this promise should have been crushed by the showy brilliance of Ionic, so early touched by emptiness and vulgarity.”) but, for me, that is vastly preferable to a sterile neutrality. And if anyone is entitled to an opinion, Robertson is.
It is necessary for the reader to have some knowledge of the technical terminology. “Metopes” and “triglyphs” and “peripterals” abound. However, they are not used in an exclusionary manner; they are the components of these buildings and a reader would need to begin with a recognition of what each is.
It is commonly believed that the Romans were the inventors of the arch and the vault; Robertson gives historical perspective to this error, noting that “clay domes seem to have been built from very early times in the Near East” and that baked-brick arches and barrel-vaults were used in pre-Roman Egypt and Mesopotamia; furthermore, “in Mesopotamia at least they were used with great boldness and with real understanding of their structural and aesthetic values.” but “The Romans were the first builders in Europe, perhaps the first in the world, fully to appreciate the advantages of the arch, the vault and the dome.”
I found the section on the Acropolis buildings and, particularly, on the curved/straight lines and the vertical/tilted lines, as well as the section on the Pantheon to be especially interesting. It was also interesting to be reminded that, while existing remains of buildings are inevitably almost always stone, there was extensive use of timber in many early Greek and Roman structures.
The other section which I found particularly interesting was that on ordinary Greek and Roman domestic structures (rather than the grand villas of the wealthy or the palaces of kings). These are constructions that receive very little attention in most accounts, and it is interesting that there is nevertheless apparently considerable knowledge available.
In reference to the theatres, such as Epidaurus, Robertson argues that the roof of the proskenion became a stage on which actors moved, after mid-second century, having previously been just a backdrop. Apparently Vitruvius presents this notion, but I confess I have not previously encountered it.
There are so many provocative ideas in this study, it is difficult to retain a sense of them all. I was fascinated by the contention that the Romans were essentially eclectic gatherers of architectural styles and that the Greeks were the architects and the Romans’ genius was in engineering.
In discussing the slow evolution of temple vernacular styles, Robertson declares, “Men will not wear inherited chains forever.” The next, unanswered and possibly unanswerable, question, however, is what causes one generation to see a particular form to be an inherited immutable necessity, and another to see it as a limiting, inherited shackle.
November 18, 2022
Esta é uma excelente obra!
É um livro técnico, porém muito rico em informações e extremamente interessante.
É uma exposição de variedades e profundidades de conhecimento e experiência!
O livro é impressionante, primeiro, por sua cobertura enciclopédica de edifícios nos antigos mundos grego e romano; em segundo lugar, achei equilibrado, com instâncias de julgamento inequívoco.
Há tantas ideias provocativas neste estudo que é difícil reter um sentido de todas elas. Fiquei fascinada com a afirmação de que os romanos eram essencialmente coletores ecléticos de estilos arquitetônicos e que os gregos eram os arquitetos e o gênio dos romanos estava na engenharia.
Ao discutir a lenta evolução dos estilos vernaculáres do templo, Robertson declara: “Os homens não usarão correntes herdadas para sempre”. A próxima pergunta, e possivelmente sem resposta, no entanto, é o que faz com que uma geração veja uma forma particular como uma necessidade imutável herdada, e outra a veja como um grilhão herdado limitante.
Interpretações diferenciadas a depender do olhar e foco do leitor. Mas uma obra espetacular! Estou ainda mais apaixonada, se é que isso é possível.
É um livro técnico, porém muito rico em informações e extremamente interessante.
É uma exposição de variedades e profundidades de conhecimento e experiência!
O livro é impressionante, primeiro, por sua cobertura enciclopédica de edifícios nos antigos mundos grego e romano; em segundo lugar, achei equilibrado, com instâncias de julgamento inequívoco.
Há tantas ideias provocativas neste estudo que é difícil reter um sentido de todas elas. Fiquei fascinada com a afirmação de que os romanos eram essencialmente coletores ecléticos de estilos arquitetônicos e que os gregos eram os arquitetos e o gênio dos romanos estava na engenharia.
Ao discutir a lenta evolução dos estilos vernaculáres do templo, Robertson declara: “Os homens não usarão correntes herdadas para sempre”. A próxima pergunta, e possivelmente sem resposta, no entanto, é o que faz com que uma geração veja uma forma particular como uma necessidade imutável herdada, e outra a veja como um grilhão herdado limitante.
Interpretações diferenciadas a depender do olhar e foco do leitor. Mas uma obra espetacular! Estou ainda mais apaixonada, se é que isso é possível.
April 22, 2008
Looked good when I bought it, but dissapointed when read it. Lots of talk, few illustrations. Architecture is always in the seeing, and not much given here, rather word details and a wordy history. Try Tadgell for an inexpensive survey of Hellenic architure - book that fits into a pocket.
Want to read
February 25, 2018nic
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews