the position of the different objects of our curiosity, especially of
the antiquities, and it appears to me a strong feature of the
sluggishness of modern Rome, that a work so extremely desirable, should
have been so entirely neglected. I say entirely, for Sickler’s miserable
map of Latium is not worth mention. I feel the want in nothing more,
than in endeavouring to trace the aqueducts. The ancient ones were
eleven in number, viz., the Aqua Appia, A.U.C. 442; the Anio vetus,
A.U.C. 481; the Aqua Tepula, A.U.C. 628; the Aqua Marcia, A.U.C. 640;
the Aqua Julia, A.U.C. 721; the Aqua Virginis, A.U.C. 735; the Aqua
Alsietina, A.U.C. 753; the Aqua Claudia, the Anio novus, the Aqua
Trajana, and the Aqua Sabatina; the two last are on the west side of the
Tiber. Of these aqueducts, the Aqua Virginis still remains, the Acqua
Felice may possibly contain the water formerly transported in the
channel of the Aqua Tepula, and the Acqua Paolina supplies the place of
the Aqua Alsietina. These aqueducts had a few branches in the early part
of their course to receive different supplies; and other branches
within, and near the city, to distribute their waters: the whole amount
of water exceeded 10,000 _quinarii_, or as Piranesi says 14,000, but how
much this quinarius was, is not I believe certainly known. Poleni
considers it as a pipe whose diameter is equal to a good-sized finger
ring, or about three quarters of an inch. Not a very precise measure,
and if it were, yet as we are ignorant at what depth under the usual
surface these pipes were placed, or of any other datum by which to
determine the velocity of the water, it would be too imperfect to enable
us to form a tolerable judgment of the quantity intended. The quinarius
may have been of the diameter of a coin of that name, or it may have
been the name of a liquid measure equal to five quarters of the
_sextarius_, and the sextarius is about a pint; but then we want the
time in which such a measure was supplied. According to Forcellini, and
he quotes Frontino, a quinarius is a pipe of the diameter of five
_quadrantes_, and a quadrans, on the same authority, is a quarter of a
foot. This would be preposterous, and the ancient remains show, that on
an average, the section of each watercourse could not have exceeded an
area of ten square feet. A quinarius then is five fourths of something,
this seems all that is certain. A circular opening, three-quarters of an
inch in diameter, at the depth of four feet from the surface, which is
maintained always to the same level, will emit fifty-one cubic inches
per second.[5]
Most of the aqueducts approach each other near the Porta Maggiore. The
Aqua Virginis, which enters Rome near the Villa Borghese, and the
Trasteverine ones being alone wanting, and the modern Acqua Felice may
be added to the number. This last runs along the wall from that gate to
the Porta San Lorenzo, and then leaving the wall, is seen directing its
course towards the Certosa. I shall therefore conduct you to the Porta
Maggiore, and then tell you what is to be seen of them beyond it; but
before we arrive at the gate, especially if we go from St. John Lateran,
we see considerable remains of a branch of the Claudian, built, as we
are told, by Nero, to conduct the water to the Palatine; and a little
before arriving at the gate, a lane leading to the church of Santa Croce
runs under it, and we have full opportunity to examine. It is of
beautiful brickwork, at least the facings are so, and is meant for a
gateway, since it is composed of one large arch in the middle, and two
small arches, one over the other, on each side; and there have been
architectural ornaments. The ancient watercourse runs at the top, above
these upper arches; but there is one at present, suspended as it were in
the upper part of the large arch, and passing at the bottom of the upper
side arches, which I suppose to be a branch from the modern Acqua
Felice; at least it is only from that, that it can now obtain its water.
I have already mentioned to you the remains connected with the wall near
the Porta Maggiore, as seen from the inside of the city; the three
channels which pass over the gate, and the four which enter the wall on
the left as you go out of the gate. The lowest and most ancient, the
Aqua Appia enters the city, according to Piranesi, a little to the right
of the gate, and winds over the Aventine; but it is almost everywhere
buried, nor have I seen it in any one place at Rome, unless it be the
lowest of those at the Porta Maggiore, as Piranesi’s plan seems to
indicate; but this is usually considered to belong to the Anio vetus.
Those which go over the gate are the Aqua Claudia, and Anio novus. There
is a series of arches of more ancient date accompanying these along the
wall, but what may become of it afterwards I cannot tell. There is no
range of arches near the Porta Maggiore connecting with any of the four
earlier aqueducts, nor have I been able to determine them with certainty
at a greater distance. We see indeed abundant remains of aqueducts,
whose long branches are conspicuous objects; winding over the extensive
plain, without any apparent reason for the irregularities of their
course, which are the more remarkable as they sometimes cross each
other; and this circumstance, added to their number, and their mutilated
state, renders it difficult to trace them, or to assign to each the
arches which belong to it. The elevation doubtless is a very important
indication, but this requires the careful levelling and measurement of
different parts. The materials are a further guide. In the three which
enter the wall together near the Porta Maggiore, the two upper
watercourses, supposed to be the Julia and Tepula, are formed of brick
and rubble; the lower, that of the Aqua Marcia, is of square blocks of
peperino, and the supporting pier is also of that construction. When the
Julia was erected in 729 A.U.C., the Tepula is said to have been added
to it. I do not understand what is meant by the expression, since the
water is accounted for separately, and we still see their distinct
channels, but it unfortunately throws a doubt on the date of the present
remains; without which we might make a very near approximation to the
period of the introduction of rubble-work into these buildings; between
612 A.U.C., the date of the Marcia, and 627 A.U.C., which was that of
the Tepula. Of the remaining fragments, some are of stone, others of
brickwork, but the former cannot be traced for any continuance; and
while two or three are sometimes supported on one range of arches, in
other places almost every one seems to have a range to itself. It is
curious to trace these repairs executed fifteen centuries ago; the
execution of the brickwork in most instances, or perhaps in all, shows
them to be decidedly prior to the age of Constantine, and the principal
restorations in all probability took place when the upper watercourses
were added. They generally consist of brick arches, built within the
ancient stone ones, sometimes resting on the old piers, but more often
carried down to the ground, and in some cases the whole arch has been
filled up, or only a mere doorway left at the bottom. Sometimes this
internal work has been wholly or partially destroyed; sometimes the
original stone-work has disappeared, as the owner of the ground happened
to want bricks or squared stones. In one place the ancient piers have
been entirely buried in the more recent brickwork; but the brickwork has
been broken, and the original stone-work taken away, presenting a very
singular, and at first sight, wholly unaccountable appearance; in other
parts the whole has fallen, apparently without having had these brick
additions, for a range of parallel mounds marks the situation of the
prostrate piers.
Continuing along the road to Præneste, the ancient Via Labicana, for
some distance, with these aqueducts and fragments of aqueducts on the
right, and observing another, crossing a valley on a much lower level,
perhaps connected with the lowest watercourse (that of the Anio vetus)
at the Porta Maggiore, we arrive at the Torre Pignattara, said to be the
tomb of Helena, the mother of Constantine. Here was found the other
great porphyry sarcophagus now in the Vatican, the position of the first
I have already mentioned in the church of Santa Constanza. The sculpture
is far from good, but it is better than the former. It is said to have
been repaired in modern times at the expense of 20,000 crowns, otherwise
it might be deemed too good for the age of Constantine. The tower itself
is a circular brick building of considerable size, with two stories
externally, each of eight arches. There has been a large external niche
in the part opposite to the present entrance, and some projecting stones
announce a cornice, or perhaps a peristyle, above the lower range of
arches. There probably was never much to be admired in it either for
design or execution. The dome which covers it is constructed with
earthen pots, and the building has thence obtained its name, Pignattara,
signifying a pipkin.
The really good things in Roman architecture, of which anything remains
to us, are comparatively very few. The temple of Vesta is rather Greek
than Roman. Then we have the three columns of Jupiter Stator; three of
Jupiter Tonans; the temple of Antoninus and Faustina; that of Mars
Ultor, and the portico of the Pantheon, all six of the Corinthian order,
nor have we anything of much value of any other. There are magnificent
fragments besides, and in particular, some of the marble ornaments in
the forum of Trajan raise a high idea of its beauty and perfection. But
there is no other building which can be considered as a model. The
erections of the four first emperors were generally in good style, and a
sentiment of correct taste and feeling existed till the time of Trajan.
Under that emperor, the productions of Apollodorus are decidedly
superior to most of the edifices which preceded his time, but the artist
and the purity of the art were destroyed by Hadrian. Some traces of
beauty remain under Severus, but these are gradually lost between him
and Constantine. A common country mason in England would make as good
designs, would draw the architecture with as much truth and correctness,
and execute the ornaments, sculpture included, as well as the artists
employed by Constantine. The degree of degradation to which the fine
arts had fallen in that period is a very remarkable phenomenon in the
history of the human mind; for the empire, though torn and suffering in
many parts, was still great and powerful; and both for individuals, and
for the public, the arts must still have been exercised. Yet the
architects of Constantine’s reign could not find workmen who could give
the mouldings a regular curve, or even preserve them in a straight line,
or form an even surface.
Beyond the tower of the Pignattara, are a great number of little ruins,
mostly of rubble, with a facing of reticulated work in tufo, just of the
sort which Vitruvius describes as calculated to last eighty years; yet
without being very thick, these walls have probably seen twenty such
periods. Most of these buildings have been rectangular, but there is one
circular brick building, and there is also a fragment constructed of
large blocks of peperino, probably of an early date, and some
constructions of _opus incertum_. Leaving the Præneste road, and turning
to the left, I passed another piece of an aqueduct, not rising above the
more elevated parts of the Campagna, but which from its position, I
should conclude not to be of the same work with a similar piece which I
had before left on the right. The remains of both are of rubble-work.
This is supposed by Nibby to be the Aqua Alexandrina. Some time after,
returning towards Rome, I reached a large round building situate on the
ancient Via Prenestina, a road which is now little used, called Torre
degli Schiavi, or otherwise the temple of Hope. It is a large, circular,
domed, brick building; with two ranges of corbels for cornices, and
indications of a large base moulding. The brickwork is not very good.
Internally, there are four niches, two small arched recesses, one larger
one, and opposite to this last, the doorway. It is of better design than
the Torre Pignattara, and has had a portico in front, so that it was
almost a miniature of the Pantheon. Some of the stucco remains, and
traces of the ornaments, and even of figures, may be observed upon the
dome. There appears to have been a range of these figures encircling the
dome at the springing, and over them a large ovolo, these eight arches
(all in painting), and over these other ornaments. Everything is too
much decayed to enable us to judge of the effect, or to fix upon a
period for the execution. Some figures of saints, evidently of a later
date than the paintings just mentioned, prove it to have been used as a
Christian church, which was also the case with the Torre Pignattara. The
dome is lightened, as in that building, by the use of pots. The
foundations shew that it had a portico, which like that of the Pantheon,
contained a large niche on each side of the entrance into the building.
There is a circular vault below, supported on a central pier. Several
fragments of walls, and remains of foundations may be traced in the
neighbourhood, and many of the buildings must have been of considerable
size. There is one arrangement which occurs several times here and
elsewhere; two, three, or even four, parallel vaults are found below,
each of these vaults being sometimes divided into two lengths, by a
cross wall; and just as many chambers above, which also have been
vaulted. In each of the lower vaults, there appears to have been a door
at one end, and no other opening; the upper rooms are in most instances,
too much ruined for us to decide on what they have been; but in the one
by the Torre degli Schiavi, which is the most perfect I have seen,
enough remains to tell pretty decidedly that there was neither door nor
window above or below; and neither fireplace nor staircase, nor are
there any niches, either for statues, or for the dead bodies, or for
cinerary urns, or any deposit from water. What can this have been?
At a little distance is a fragment of another circular building, of the
same sort of work, but smaller and more ruinous, and also more buried in
its ruins. Enough remains to shew that the dome has been fluted, with a
small fillet on the angle of each flute: the flutes have been rounded
off in some degree at the bottom. The outside is of reticulated tufo,
and seems to have been square. At the distance of a few steps is a
building, which is of brick, and octangular below, and of rubble above,
the outside covering having disappeared. A tower is built upon part of
it, the residence of—I forget who; some noble or robber, names which
appear synonymous in the middle ages at Rome. This also is domed. Within
are four niches, three recesses, and the door; and we observe here that
there have been a circular vault below, and central pier, as in the
principal edifice. Some ornaments in relief on the stucco still exist in
one of the niches. On one side are some additional buildings, but there
has been no door of communication between them and the circular part.
There are many other fragments, but these are the most perfect. This
group of ruins is sometimes called Roma Vecchia, but there is another
Roma Vecchia more considerable, on the Appian way, of which I shall give
you some account in my next walk.
Returning to Rome, we find a small building of very neat brickwork,
somewhat in the style of the temple of Rediculus, of which my next
ramble will also contain an account, but in worse taste, and therefore
probably later. It has a lofty frieze, adorned with arches, another
proof of the decline of the art.
LETTER XXXIV.
NEIGHBOURHOOD OF ROME.
_Rome, May, 1817._
BEGINNING with the Porta del Popolo, and following in the direction of
the sun, I have taken you in succession out of the different gates; but
we will now set out by the gate of St. Sebastian, and return by that of
San Giovanni, which would precede it in regular order. Before arriving
at the gate, we meet with three objects deserving notice, which though
within the walls, were too distantly situated to be included in our
former walks. The first of these is the great ruin of the Baths of
Caracalla. The general plan of the Roman _thermæ_ seems to have been
that of a large, rectangular, central building, placed in a spacious
enclosure, surrounded by smaller edifices, and on one side of this court
there was a large open theatre, or rather _cavea_. This disposition may
be traced in the three which exist the most perfectly; of the others we
have not sufficient materials to decide whether it was adopted or not;
and only conclude it to have been so from analogy. It is very
conspicuous in the Baths of Caracalla, only the _cavea_, instead of
being semicircular, is in the form of half a stadium, or circus. The
ruins of these baths are very considerable, and are impressive by their
vast square mass; and internally, the immense piles of brick and rubble
give it a solemnity of character with which the deep, still blue of an
Italian sky is in perfect harmony, though the tints of the ruin are of
rich and glowing colours. However often one may visit them, it is always
with repeated pleasure that we ramble among their massive constructions.
The great central chamber seems, like the great hall still remaining in
the baths of Dioclesian, to have been covered with groined arches. It
was probably the first instance of groined arches covering a space of
any considerable extent, and as there can be no doubt that so striking a
novelty would be admired and repeated, we are not surprised at finding
it in all the later thermæ. It is true that Palladio introduces this
disposition in his plans of all the baths, but he appears in this, as in
some other instances, to have supplied the deficiencies of one, by
adapting to it the parts of another, without sufficient authority. The
great central building was composed internally of two large colonnaded
courts, one at each end, and vast halls, and a multitude of smaller
chambers between, and on each side of them; on each side of the outer
circuit of buildings, there seem to have been other edifices disposed
circularly, and an octagonal room, which has the appearance of a hall of
entrance, occurred at each end. In one of these the celebrated _Toro
Farnese_ is said to have been found, but I believe the fact is doubtful.
We find in the part which now remains horizontal lines, which probably
mark the situations of the marble cornices, and many other indications
of the enrichments which have been taken away: we trace also pipes in
the wall in various places, some apparently intended to take off the
smoke, while others were to introduce water.
----------------------------
1826.
The Conte di Velo has been at the expense of excavating a considerable
part of these baths. Many fragments were found of sculpture and of
architecture, and an immense quantity of pieces of different coloured
marbles. The white marble of the architecture was Pentelic. At the depth
of six or eight feet, the ancient mosaic pavement was discovered, and
even below this are several curious arrangements of walls and conduits
which I do not comprehend. At the exhibition in the French academy,
there were some beautiful drawings of all the discoveries here made,
with a complete restoration of the edifice; in some parts very happy; in
others very doubtful. The artist has carefully commemorated some
comparatively trifling excavations made by the French academy, and does
not even mention the name of the Conte di Velo, by whose means he has
been enabled to give interest to his drawings.
----------------------------
1817.
The ancient Romans did not permit their dead to be buried within the
city, or if there are a few exceptions, they were granted with a very
sparing hand, and the tombs of the Campus Martius are obliterated,
except a few great ones, by the modern city. The sepulchre of the
Scipios is without the ancient walls, in an opposite direction, but
within those of Aurelian. An inscription was dug up here so long ago as
1616, but the antiquaries having fixed upon a building considerably
farther on, as the tomb of the Scipios, were unanimous in their opinion
that it must be a forgery, and it was not till 1780, that the proprietor
of the _Vigna_, working to enlarge his cellar, dug into the ancient
excavation, and found the remarkable sarcophagus now in the Vatican, and
many other inscribed tablets, which put the matter out of all doubt. It
appears originally to have been a quarry of pozzolana, or more probably
of tufo, before it was appropriated as a tomb. The ancient entrance is
formed by an arch of peperino, adorned with half columns, and this is
nearly all the masonry of an early date. Some additions in brick and
tufo, seem to have been made afterwards; and still later constructions,
of a style of masonry corresponding with that of the circus of
Caracalla, were carried through it, or along one side of it. The falling
in of the earth had not only covered, but had completely obliterated all
traces of the ancient entrance; and a small casino for the vine-dresser,
one of those little things so often constructed on the ancient tombs,
still farther tended to conceal from the observer any object of
interest; a few pieces of old rubble-work are too frequent about the
Campagna to excite attention.
Just before passing the walls, we find the Arch of Claudius Drusus,
built by the senate in 745 A. U. C., eight years before the Christian
era, and ornamented, as is said, with trophies of German victories. Over
the arch, on the face towards the city, one may perceive indications of
a frieze and architrave, and the bed moulding of the cornice, but none
of the corona: there are also remains of a small pediment, hardly
extending across the opening of the arch. All this belongs to the
original edifice, and is easily distinguished from the aqueduct of
Caracalla carried over it; to execute which, it appears to have been
necessary to cut down the work internally, nearly as low as to the
key-stone of the arch. On the external face are two marble columns of
the Composite order. The architrave of these remains, but nothing above
it, and all the rest of the edifice has been stripped of the marble
covering with which it was once coated.
I have already described to you the gate of St. Sebastian. Immediately
after passing it, you enter a vineyard on the right, to see, as you are
told, the _Sepolcro di Marte_; it is of neat brickwork; the bricks on
the external facings being cut to a sharp edge, as in some other
buildings which I shall describe to you: internally, we find a simple
waggon-headed vault, with slight caissoons in stucco, but no other
ornament; and niches for cinerary urns. After this are other fragments,
all of sepulchres, for we are now on or near the Appian way. Names have
been given, but without authority, and the ruins are mostly mere masses
of rubble, to which no form can be assigned. Some however are larger,
and contain vaulted chambers, others are domed. Indeed the form, the
extent, and the materials of the more perfect remains all vary, but it
would be tedious to enumerate them. On the left-hand side of the road,
opposite to one of these, which is of considerable comparative
importance, and formerly attributed to the Scipios, is the little church
of _Domine quo vadis_, so called because St. Peter, having escaped from
prison at Rome, met here our Saviour bearing his cross; and in these
words, for he preferred Latin to Hebrew, Syriac, or Greek, asked him
where he was going. Our Saviour replied that he was going to be
crucified a second time. St. Peter it appears understood the hint, and
returned to submit to the martyrdom required of him. This is not to be
found in the Acts of the Apostles, but is not the less firmly believed
on that account; and moreover you are shown the impression of our
Saviour’s foot in the stone on which he stood. It was politic, at least,
to weave all these little circumstances into the history of St. Peter;
they became united to all the earliest impressions of the Romans, and
are easily connected with the idea of St. Peter having been bishop of
Rome, and of the consequent superior dignity and authority of that
church.