Of course the standard by which the perfection of architectural dignity and purity can be measured is largely one of individual taste and preferment, as is sometimes evidenced by the conflicting judgments of the best critical authorities, but if we accept the conclusions of centuries of the highest criticism, we must be prepared to concede that the arts to which we refer reached their zenith as stated. However, the expression, Roman degeneracy, is much too severe a one, if taken in other than a comparative sense; for, whatever Grecian architecture may have lost in ideal æstheticism by reason of Roman interference, it must be granted the Romans that their own evolution in the appreciation of the arts and the accomplishments of architecture resulted in a magnificence which, when compared with our own time, gives them rank second only to the Greeks, from whom they borrowed so much, and whom they did not scruple to rob of nearly all their portable art treasures. “Among the innumerable monuments of architecture constructed by the Romans,” says Gibbon, “how many have escaped the notice of history, how few have resisted the ravages of time and barbarism! And yet even the majestic ruins that are still scattered over Italy and the provinces would be sufficient to prove that those countries were once the seat of a polite and powerful empire. Their greatness alone or their beauty might deserve our attention; but they were rendered more interesting by two important circumstances, which connect the agreeable history of the arts with the more useful history of human manners. Many of these works were erected at private expense, and almost all were intended for public benefit.”