The few years that had intervened between the building of the wall and the beginning to raise it, might not have made any visible difference in the construction; changes in construction, as in other parts of the building art, sometimes succeed each other rapidly, at other times remain the same for a long period. It so happens that in this instance there is a change; the walls of Roma Quadrata are of the earliest character that is practicable with that material, the blocks of tufa are split off the beds with wedges, and not cut with any iron tool, consequently the surface is rough, and the vertical joints are wide (wide-jointed masonry); but in the second period, though they are in all other respects the same, the surface has been smooth between the stones, and this makes what is called fine-jointed masonry. This corner of Roma Quadrata is, therefore, of fine-jointed masonry, and all the rest is wide, but the Second Wall of Rome is all of fine-jointed masonry. This is the case even with the Pulchrum Littus on the bank of the Tiber, which had long been a puzzle to antiquaries, and has only lately been seen to be a part of the Second Wall of Rome, which enclosed the two hills in one city. It has been already mentioned that the Cloaca Maxima towards the north end of this wall, is inserted in the older wall. There seems every probability that the oblong recess in the bank of the Tiber at the mouth of the Almo, and in the upper part of the port of Rome, is the place where the priests washed the sacrificial knives. It should be mentioned, that in all other parts of the Second Wall of Rome, wherever it has been traced, it is of fine-jointed masonry. There is also no other solution of the great high wall made use of by the engineers of Augustus on the eastern side of his forum, than that it was part of this Second Wall of Rome.

THE THIRD WALL of Rome is that of SERVIUS TULLIUS, of which there are great remains, and some excavations made in 1877 shewed that the measurements of his great foss agrees exactly with the description of Dionysius. There are also remains of the fortifications on each of the seven hills as separate fortresses, before they were all enclosed in one city.

THE FOURTH WALL OF ROME is that of Aurelian, still in use, where it has not been rebuilt on the same line, and on the same old earthwork, on which bank the aqueducts had been carried before the time of Aurelian, and in which bank there must always have been gates on the present sites. The line of Servius Tullius continued to be the boundary-line of THE CITY until Aurelian extended it to this outer wall.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION.

THIS work is avowedly grounded upon the existing remains, and not made out of other books; and the existing remains are my evidence of the truth of its statements. For the evidence of this, it appears to me better to refer to a photograph, which is easily to be obtained, or to be seen at a public library, than to the objects themselves from which the photograph is taken, as readers cannot be expected to go to Rome to see each object on which they have any doubt, but may be expected to look at a photograph of it. These photographs can be seen in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, where they are in volumes of one hundred each, arranged according to numbers for reference (but the numbers are merely the photographer's marks). In the Ashmolean Museum there is another set, arranged according to the subjects in separate portfolios. To have engraved the whole of the photographs would have made the work so expensive as to be out of the reach of all but the wealthiest classes, themselves not numerous, and rarely interested in ancient history. The British Museum, and the South Kensington Museum, each have a considerable part of them. They are numerous, because they are intended to illustrate not only the history of the CITY OF ROME, but the history of the Fine Arts also, which can be better studied in Rome, for the early period, than anywhere else.

No one has disputed that the wall of Roma Quadrata is of the same character as the walls of the Latin city of Tusculum, the Sabine city of Varia (Vico Varo), the Etruscan cities of Fiesole, Volterra, and Veii, the construction of all of which they can compare by the respective photographs. In my Chronological Table of Buildings in Rome, the dates of the early part are taken from the best editions of Livy, and the existing remains fit them remarkably well. No one has ventured to doubt that the wall of the early part of the Tabularium and Ærarium, at the west end, is of the early character that is

• Each photograph can be had at Mr. Stanford's, Charing Cross, for a shilling, where the greater part of a set can also be seen, and I have always endeavoured to make them as accessible as possible; but it is not practicable to keep a stock of three thousand photo

graphs for the chance of sale; the photographer will supply them to or ders sent through Mr. Stanford.

In the early walls of Jerusalem, and many other cities of the same period, the same construction is used where the building-material is similar.

mentioned by Varro; whether the whole of the great public building containing this was called the Capitolium, is not very material.

Again, the construction of the wall of the great Prison of the time of the Kings and of the Cloaca Maxima, is admitted to be the same, and Livy attributes them both to the same period. The wall of Servius Tullius follows next in order, and is rather later in character, as it ought to be. Of the time of the Republic, before Sylla the Dictator, the only building known to remain in Rome is the Emporium, the construction of which is rubble, faced with opus incertum, the forerunner of opus reticulatum, and the small blocks of tufa resembling modern bricks at the angles; there are arches, but no columns. The Emporium is valuable as shewing how far the Romans had proceeded in carrying out their arcuate style before columns were introduced from Greece. Out of Rome the original part of the Via Appia, near Aricia, which belongs to the time of the Republic, (A.U.C. 441, B.C. 312,) remains; it is a great work, and very similar in construction to those of the later Kings. The Aqueducts, with their reservoirs and filtering-places, and the arcades to carry their specus or conduits, are magnificent works, some of them again very similar to those just mentioned; but the construction varies considerably according to the period when each was built or rebuilt, and the nature of the building-materials of the districts through which they pass, and is by no means always the same, although the general character of each period is clearly visible.

For the time of the Early Empire, the distinct construction of each century is so evident, when once pointed out, that no one could question it. Also, the fact that there was an outer wall, or at least a foss and a bank of earth, with gates in it long before the time of Aurelian, is now generally admitted, though not understood before. The thirty-seven gates of Pliny can only be explained in this manner that there were twelve in the inner wall of the city proper, only to be counted once (as he says), and eighteen in the outer wall of Rome,-which is quite distinct from the wall of THE CITY; the one was seven miles in extent, the other thirteen, and seven old gates in the ancient hill-fortresses (not in use in his time): That

• Hist. Photos., Nos. 166-169.

d No. 3032.

e See Note B. at the end of this Introduction.

On the Plan of Rome I have had lines drawn from the site of the Milliarium Aureum to the eighteen gates in the outer wall, passing through the twelve in the wall of Servius Tullius,

or of THE CITY proper, and have also shewn the seven on the separate hillfortresses. These lines have been measured with the compasses on the map, and they agree exactly with the number of passus mentioned by Pliny (each passus is five feet). In the Regionary Catalogue of the fourth century, thirtyseven gates are also mentioned. The

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION.

xxi

the streets of Rome were originally hollow ways, according to the general fashion of that early period, and were made in the fossa or trenches of the fortifications of the Kings, is clearly seen to be true when once pointed out, as it can be now; but this also had never been observed before.

Professor Willis always shewed the advantages of the system of Rickman for the study of architectural history over any other, from its great simplicity, and leading on beginners step by step with nothing to mislead them; whereas all the other systems which have been proposed in place of it, do mislead beginners in such a manner, that they often become disgusted with the study, and throw it up. Willis shewed that Canterbury and Winchester were HISTORICAL TYPES, by a comparison with which the date or dates of the different parts of any other buildings in England might be ascertained. I have endeavoured to apply the same system in Rome, where the number of well-dated types of each period is amply sufficient to enable any one, with a little attention and a photograph, to tell the date of any building in Rome upon the principle of comparison: but this requires careful examination of the construction and the details of each period, for which photographs are of the greatest possible service. For example, if we take a photograph of the walls of the villa of Hadrian at Tivoli, of the date of which there can be no doubt, where we find the same identical construction in the walls of some of the palaces of the Cæsars on the Palatine Hill (although these are so much mixed together that it is not easy to distinguish one from the other), our photograph enables us to see at once which is of the time of Hadrian. The same principle applies throughout; nothing but a photograph or a photo-engraving ever shews the thickness of the bricks in a wall, or of the mortar between them, and yet this is the most easy, safe, and obvious guide to see the century to which that wall belongs, and therefore of the building of which it forms part. In the early period, the time of the Kings, it is true that no exact dates can be recorded, but the same principle of COMPARISON applies to the buildings of the period from 500 to 1000 years before the Christian era, which have a certain well-marked character of their own, acknowledged by all who have paid attention to the subject, and a careful examination of them shews that they may be subdivided into three periods, although perhaps no exact limit can be assigned to each period.

When I began my work, the important starting-point, the site of

Curiosum Urbis and the Notitia are practically one catalogue, with slight

additions in the later one; they agree on this point as on most others.

the Porta Capena, was still uncertain, or rather was erroneously placed, which made it impossible to find the buildings mentioned in the first Regio. Until the site of that gate was settled it was hopeless to try and fix the rest. As it was evident that an aqueduct passed over that gate, it was necessary to study the line taken by the aqueducts carefully, and compare them with other evidences. I soon saw that this important gate must have been on the line where the tall brick piers of an aqueduct of the time of Trajan cross the valley from the Cœlian to the Aventine. Eventually the site and remains of the gate were found nearly under the Cœlian, at the east end of the line of this short agger, which also has the north end of the Piscina Publica at the other end of it, under the Pseudo-Aventine. This line is across the north end of the valley; the place where Canina marked it was at the south end, near the bank of the Marrana, but there are no remains of an agger or an aqueduct there, although that site is followed by all the modern maps, whether Italian, English, French, or German. The Archæological Commission of the Municipality of Rome, in 1874, removed the letters P. C. from the wall where Canina had placed them, and placed them on the side of the iron gate of the garden of S. Gregory, in which the remains were found. They also allowed one of the pits on the other side of the road, in which part of the wall is visible, to be re-opened, and to be left open for the benefit of future archæologists. In the month of March, 1877, we also obtained permission to excavate again, and shew more clearly the character of the western tower of the gate, with the specus of the earliest aqueduct, the AQUA APPIA, carried through the wall.

Since the first publication of this work numerous excavations have been going on in all directions from different causes. Many small excavations have been carried on under my own direction in search of particular objects, which were always found, but the pits were obliged to be filled-up again as soon as the plans and drawings and photographs that were necessary as evidence of what had come to light had been obtained. Simultaneously with these Napoleon III. was carrying on important excavations on the Palatine Hill, in the part that had been the Farnese villa and gardens, which he had bought. His idea was, originally, to find statues or other works of ancient art for the Paris museums, in which he was disappointed, for the ground had been thoroughly searched for them when the Farnese gardens were made. But he afterwards continued those important excavations for historical objects only, much to his credit.

The Italian Government has, since 1874, been carrying on very