As confessedly in some cases the distance could only be measured approximately, the correspondence between the above total 30,140 and 30,760 of Pliny, is sufficiently close to warrant the position that Pliny's numbers agree with this topographical arrangementTM. The twelve gates being counted only once, also further confirms this view. To make the number thirty-seven there were still seven gates which had ceased to be. The names of these must be mere conjecture. Possibly the two of the Capitol, and the three of the Palatine, which have been spoken of in previous sections, may count as five; and for the remaining two there were the Porta Sangualis and Porta Salutaris on the Quirinal, as the roads to the gates seem, according to the probable lines, to have gone through none of these, but passed by them, so that these were not to be counted; or if it is improbable that many of these were standing up to Pliny's time, there are others, some of which it is true are more or less doubtful, but sufficient at least to give the number of seven. A list has been given in the previous section of those gates which were probably in the enceinte of Servius Tullius. It remains to note the calculation that "if all the different lines of streets were computed in the same manner, the result would be seventy miles or more." This has no reference to the gates, but yet the mention of the Prætorian might seem to imply that Pliny, in his second computation, referred to a more extended boundary line than in the previous case, and that the first therefore comprised only the boundary of Servius Tullius. It is, however, probable that the space between the agger of Servius Tullius and the outer wall was much built upon, and he therefore referred especially to it, implying perhaps a contrast between the Rome which was bounded by the agger and the Rome of his time. Besides, it is very possible that a computation of the length of the streets had been made for the "City proper," and not for the suburb, and he therefore distinguishes between the two. These remarks appear to be necessary, as it has been taken for granted that the mention of the line of the Prætorian Camp in the - It may be asked what cause can be assigned for so singular a method of measurement. It is not easy to answer this, though practically it is not without its value. The gates are fairly distant apart from each other, and the roads to them are tolerably direct, so that the lines to them from a central point such as the Forum are, as it were, so many radii. By taking the average of the eighteen we get a very near approxima tion to the area, as we obtain by this means a circle, of which the diameter is 3 millia 418 paces (or 3 miles 818 yards English measure), and consequently its circumference 10 millia 737 passus. The length of the irregular line of boundary he had already given, but the data for obtaining the average diameter was necessary in order to compute the area. second case, implies that in the first case another line was referred to. It is needless to add that to test the computation with the doubtful traces of the older streets is simply impossible. Enough evidence, however, has been probably adduced, to shew that the outer fortification (mania) of Rome at this time, whatever its nature, was that which was followed by Aurelian when he built the wall which bears his name. It is quite possible, even probable, that the mania (and this is the expression used by Pliny) were composed as much of earth as of stone; still they afforded good foundations. They had served their day, when the low mound, with a wall on the outside to render it difficult to mount to the top, was sufficient to meet the mode of attack usually adopted, and they were useful also to resist the first attack when the Romans had the inner line in good repair to fall back upon; but when the arts of war had advanced, and the city had increased, so that much valuable property lay beyond the circuit of the inner line, it was necessary to build a high wall along the line occupied by these outer mania, which was commenced, as we shall see in the next section, under Aurelian. SECTION III. HISTORICAL NOTICES OF SUCCESSIVE REPAIRS OF THE Walls. THE disturbances which had taken place in the time of Gallienus (A.D. 265), had given so much encouragement to the barbarians, that serious fears were entertained of a combined attack upon Rome. Upon the accession of Aurelian, A.D. 270, one of the first acts of the new Emperor, or of the Roman Government acting in his name and the Senate, was to begin to strengthen the fortifications of the city. The chief authorities for attributing the wall in question to Aurelian are Vopiscus, writing A.D. 293, and Zosimus, writing A.D. 412. The former says: "On this, when he (Aurelian) saw it might come to pass that what had occurred under Gallienus" might happen again, having obtained the concurrence of the senate, he enlarged the walls of the city of Rome"." Elsewhere Vopiscus mentions that :— "He so enlarged the walls of the city of Rome that its circumference contained nearly fifty thousand [feet P?]." Zosimus also says: "The Emperor understanding that the incursions of the Alamanni into the neighbouring states were on the decrease, being more anxious about Rome and the neighbourhood, returned into Italy. . . . . Thus also Rome was surrounded by walls which it had not before, and the wall begun by Aurelian was finished by Probus 9." .... Aurelius Victor, writing A.D. 358, follows Vopiscus :— "And lest at any time those things which happened under Gallienus should occur again, he surrounded the city with walls, as strong as possible, and with a wider circuit." Gallienus became associated in the imperial rule A. D. 254, and on his death at Milan, Claudius (Gothicus) was proclaimed Emperor, A. D. 268. Aurelian seems to have become Emperor A. D. 269, and was slain by treachery, March, A. D. 275. It was after having granted peace to the Vandals, in A. D. 271, that he returned to Rome and began to rebuild the walls. "Hic actis quum videret posse fieri, ut aliquid tale iterum quale sub Gallieno evenerat proveniret, adhibito consilio Senatus muros urbis Romæ dila- Zosimi Hist., lib. i. cap. xlix. edit. 8 66 ac ne unquam, quæ per Gallienum evenerant, acciderent, muris Urbem quam validissimis laxiore ambitu circumsepsit." (Sext. Aurel. Victor. de Cæsaribus, c. xxxv.) Eutropius, writing A.D. 361, mentions the walls as follows:“He (Aurelian) surrounded the city with stronger walls"." Cassiodorus also, writing A.D. 562, in his Chronicle, uses the expression : "He surrounds Rome with stronger walls'." In the foregoing passages it is to be remarked, that while all agree as to the fact that Aurelian built walls round the city, Zosimus implies that there were no walls before, while Vopiscus implies that he enlarged the circuit of the existing walls, and he gives the length of the circuit to which the walls were extended. It would seem at first sight that it was impossible to reconcile these statements with those of other writers, as interpreted by the existing remains. The probability is that the explanation is to be found in the special use made of the word muri, i.e. 'walls, properly so called". It will be noticed that this word is used by all the later writers, while before we have had the word mania, which signifies rather high embankments, chiefly of earth, often supported, it is true, by a wall, but not having the same advantages for resisting an attack as the later mode of fortification. A change appears to have taken place at this time in the mode of attacking fortified places, and higher walls were necessary for the defence. In the history of the siege of Rome by the Goths not long afterwards, that is, in the fifth century, written by Procopius (an eye witness), we read frequently of Balista, and Aries and Turres, and other machines of war, exactly similar to those continued in the Middle Ages. These are not mentioned as anything new, but as the ordinary machines of war for a siege, and had therefore probably been in use for a century or so before. The besieging towers were high and of wood, covered with hides to prevent their being set on fire, and were intended to be moved on wheels up to the walls which they could overtop. The walls and towers, therefore, of the time of Aurelian were very much higher than they had been before, and they had probably wooden hourds at the top for the use and protection of the defenders, of which we have several traces in the corbels, and put-log holes, which are still visible in many parts of the walls, especially "Urbem Romam muris firmioribus cinxit," &c. (Eutropii Hist. Rom. Breviar., lib. ix. c. 15.) $ "Romam firmioribus muris vallat." (Cassiodori Chronicon, Aurelianus xxix.) "Varro says distinctly that the bank of earth thrown out of a trench on the inner side was called murus, but in the course of time the word had changed its signification, and murus came to signify a lofty wall of stone or brick only, as distinct from low earthworks. round the towers, and on part of the wall of the Castra Prætoria. The fortification of this period was a truly magnificent work; the wall being nearly fifty feet high, with a corridor or passage for the sentinels made within the wall, about fifteen feet high and two wide, connecting the numerous towers and battlements, very different to the mania which stood there before; and Aurelian has, probably with justice, the credit of it. There were lofty walls in part of the outer line of the fortification of Rome, as we know, before his time, for instance, the great aqueducts formed part of this line as they do now, and it is to these that Vopiscus probably refers when he speaks of enlarging the walls: unless indeed he alludes to the Walls of the Kings, which were no doubt still in existence round the hills, and afforded very strong protection against the enemy. The outer mania before the time of Aurelian were very possibly similar in many respects to what we find now existing of the agger, as it is termed, of Servius Tullius; which, it must be remembered, was supported by a wall and not wholly of earth. Aurelian made use of the foundation and, when he could, of the supporting wall, and also of the gates, because not only by analogy is it probable that such mania had gates, when we have distinct record of three in the agger of Servius Tullius, but we have, as already repeated more than once, traces of the earlier gates in the same line of wall, the origin of which is, upon the authority of the above passages, wholly given to Aurelian, although deviations are made in this line of his wall to include the older gates. One more point has still to be noticed. The measurement of Vopiscus is generally considered to be erroneous, or else that the walls of Rome must have been much greater in extent than the Aurelian Wall. It is to be remarked, however, that the number only is given, not the denomination. In most of the early writers, no doubt, the "passus," or measure of five Roman feet, was understood when not expressed; but the Roman foot, we believe, came generally into use in later times. The Regiones, for example, are measured in the Notitia and the Curiosum Urbis by feet and not by passus, and these records are probably of a date not more than a century later than the time of Vopiscus, if so much. If the number fifty thousand is taken to mean feet, as will be seen, the measurement agrees with that computed from Nolli's large Map. From the point where the wall of Aurelian leaves the river (on the eastern bank) to where it touches it again, the total circuit (including the Prætorian camp) is 40,300 feet. The same on the western bank (Transtiberine) 7,000 feet. The eastern bank of the Tiber be |