Plate 44. The Temple of Fortuna Virilis at Rome

Of the Roman structures of the Ionic order but few have come to us, and these show an unfamiliarity with the later Grecian style. The columns often stand on a socle-like plinth, the half columns also on a projecting socle or column base. The wall pilasters have no capitals of their own, but have them formed after the column capitals which often have their four sides alike. The base is the so-called Attic with plinth. The entablature has unpleasing, heavy proportions, for the reason that its ornaments are bold. The cornice is relatively large, and under the corona are usually dentils. The cyma is often purely decorative, being seldom used for a gutter. The profiles of the egg and dart, beads, torus, etc., are generally segments of circles by which they loose the fine pleasing character obtained by the free-hand method of the Grecians.

The Temple of Fortuna Virilis represented on Plate 44 is a four-columned Prostyle Pseudo-Peripteral, with a free standing column behind the corner column and a continuation of half columns on the cella wall. Before the portico was an approach with thirteen steps between cheek blocks, which were a continuation of the stylobate. Over the portico the front had a pediment. The material is travertine covered with stucco. The time of the erection occurred near the end of the Republic at the beginning of the last century B. C.

The order of this monument deserves some consideration, though principally as a warning example. We therefore call attention to the following: the crowning cornice of the lower structure is composed of small members below, and very large members above; the cymatium of the corona compresses the latter entirely; the whole cornice is too strong, and the corona as dominating member, is too weak; the crowning member of the architrave is too coarse and large, and the frieze, being a decorated one, is too low, the genii thereon appearing insignificant in comparison with the heart-leaf moulding immediately above; the capital of the column shows corresponding faults, the egg and dart and astragal being excessive, while the front connection and the abacus are weak. We principally desire, with these suggestions, to invite the critic to a comparison of this Temple with the Temple of Minerva Polias shown on Plate 40.