It is not the magnitude of the Greek temples and other works of art which most impresses us.  It is not for this that they are important models; it is not for this that they are copied and reproduced in all the modern nations of Europe.  They were generally small compared with the temples of Egypt, and with the vast dimensions of Roman amphitheatres; only three or four would compare in size with a Gothic cathedral,—­the Parthenon, the Temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens, and the Temple of Diana at Ephesus; even the Pantheon at Rome is small, compared with the later monuments of the Caesars.  The traveller is always disappointed in contemplating the ruins of Greek buildings so far as size is concerned.  But it is their matchless proportions, their severe symmetry, the grandeur of effect, the undying beauty, the graceful form which impress us, and make us feel that they are perfect.  By the side of the Colosseum they are insignificant in magnitude; they do not cover acres, like the baths of Caracalla.  Yet who has copied the Flavian amphitheatre; who erects an edifice after the style of the Thermae?  All artists, however, copy the Parthenon.  That, and not the colossal monuments of the Caesars, reappears in the capitals of Europe, and stimulates the genius of a Michael Angelo or a Christopher Wren.

The flourishing period of Greek architecture was during the period from Pericles to Alexander,—­one hundred and thirteen years.  The Macedonian conquest introduced more magnificence and less simplicity.  The Roman conquest accelerated the decline in severe taste, when different orders began to be used indiscriminately.

In this state the art passed into the hands of the masters of the world, and they inaugurated a new era in architecture.  The art was still essentially Greek, although the Romans derived their first knowledge from the Etruscans.  The Cloaca Maxima, or Great Sewer, was built during the reign of the second Tarquin,—­the grandest monument of the reign of the kings.  It is not probable that temples and other public buildings in Rome were either beautiful or magnificent until the conquest of Greece, after which Grecian architects were employed.  The Romans adopted the Corinthian style, which they made even more ornamental; and by the successful combination of the Etruscan arch with the Grecian column they laid the foundation of a new and original style, susceptible of great variety and magnificence.  They entered into architecture with the enthusiasm of their teachers, but in their passion for novelty lost sight of the simplicity which is the great fascination of a Doric temple.  Says Memes:—­

“They [the Romans] deemed that lightness and grace were to be attained not so much by proportion between the vertical and the horizontal as by the comparative slenderness of the former.  Hence we see a poverty in Roman architecture in the midst of profuse ornament.  The great error was a constant aim to lessen the diameter while they increased the elevation of the columns.  Hence the massive simplicity and severe grandeur of the ancient Doric disappear in the Roman, the characteristics of the order being frittered down into a multiplicity of minute details.”