To sum it up, we have mentioned several conceptions introduced by Ancient Philosophers. And yet, the question – “Whether or not this Quest for Certainty is ever going to be satisfied?” – remains open.
The Greco-Roman civilization extended from the glorious Age of Pericles when Greek Culture reached its height, witnessed the expansion of Greek settlements under Alexander the Great, saw the Rise of Roman Power and the grandeur of the Roman Empire and concluded with its decline and fall in 476.
Greek and Roman traditions are completely different, suffice it to mention the Venus of Tauris and Roman Portrait Sculpture executed in realistic manner. The Greeks with their city-states, meetings at Agora, philosophical discussions at the Platonic Academy and Classical Orders have been considered as an example to be followed. The Romans adopted their ideas (for instance, they used to gather at the Forum located at the intersection of the two main roads – Cardo and Decumanus), and yet, they were more interested in technical developments and built a lot of roads and aqueducts bringing water into cities and towns (Devil’s Bridge at Tarragona). Eugène Viollet-le-Duc in his “Lectures on Architecture” says that “The genius of the Roman people differs materially from that of the Greeks. The Roman is essentially an administrator and a politician; he is the founder of the Modern Civilization: but is he, like the Greek, an Artist? Certainly not”. The Romans erected temples on artificial hills made of concrete, whereas the Greeks were fond of Nature and tried to find special places for their structures (the Temple of Segesta in Sicily). Moreover, columns were no longer used as constructive elements and became purely decorative (the Colosseum). “Greek architecture may be best compared to a man strip of his clothes, the external parts of whose body are but the consequence of his organic structure, of his wants, of the framework of his bones, and the functions of his muscles. The man is so much the more beautiful as all the parts of his body are in harmony with their purpose, and, with nothing superfluous, they yet suffice for their functions. Roman architecture, on the other hand, may be compared to a man clothed: there is the man, and there is the dress; the dress may be good or bad, rich or poor in material, well or ill cut, but it forms no part of the body”.