No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2011
The garden of the British Embassy in Rome is traversed by a stretch of some 400 yards of a Roman aqueduct of the first century A.D. This being an Ancient Monument on British territory, its consolidation and repair were considered in 1957 by the then Minister of Works, now Lord Molson, to be a proper task for the Ancient Monuments division of that ministry, just as the care and maintenance o the embassy itself is the task of another division of the same ministry.
page 82 note 1 Forma Urbis, sheet 31.
page 82 note 2 It is not certain whether this levelling-up is to be at least, earlier. ascribed wholly to the Princess Wolkonsky, or is, in part
page 82 note 3 Suetonius, Claudius, 20.
page 83 note 1 C.I.L. vi, 1256.
page 83 note 2 The plans and elevations were prepared by Miss D. Moore or staff under her direction. The writers are indebted also to Mr. B. Field, A.R.I.B.A., for general assistance in the preparation of this paper. Miss Moore and Mr. Field serve on the architects staff of the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
page 83 note 3 Its course is shown on Lanciani Forma Urbis sheets (from E. to W.) 32, 31, 37, 36, 35. The embassy is on 31.
page 83 note 4 Aq. ii, 76.
page 84 note 1 When, after the fire of 66, Nero started to build his new palace, the domus aurea, he perhaps intended to lead the water to that rather than to the Palatine, which would no longer have been the imperial residence. It may have been this channel which fed the stagnum Neronis on the site of which the Colosseum was built. Cf. Ashby, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, p. 249.
page 84 note 2 Aq. i, 20.
page 84 note 3 C.I.L. vi, 1259.
page 84 note 4 C.I.L. vi, 1257: ‘intermissas dilapsasque per annos novem.’
page 84 note 5 C.I.L. vi, 1258.
page 84 note 6 Ashby, op. cit., p. 250.
page 84 note 7 Aq. i, 20.
page 84 note 8 Cf. C.I.L. vi, 3867 — 32058, though this fragmentary inscription is not certainly attributable to this aqueduct.
page 85 note 1 Atti del Camerlengato, tit. iv, fasc. 941; see Ashby, op. cit., p. 247, n. 5, for details.
page 85 note 2 The ascription of this work to the German period of occupation of the villa is not based on any documentary evidence: but it is unlikely that work of this character would have been done before 1920, during a period when the Italian Government would have been able to intervene and to supervise.
page 88 note 1 PI. xxxiv, a; C.I.L. vi, 9151, cf. 9152.
page 88 note 2 Bay 9 apparently was not repaired till the fifth (?) century, and then only superficially.
page 89 note 1 On the south side this fact is masked by refacing of 1826–33, but it is clear on the north side.
page 90 note 1 It would only be necessary to strip the plaster rendering to prove this.
page 90 note 2 See below, p. 91.
page 90 note 3 Ashby, op. cit., p. 245, attributes these inserted arches to the Severan restoration, throughout the length of the aqueduct. He seems to have been unable to make a detailed examination of the section within the grounds of the Villa Wolkonsky, or he would certainly have noticed the three different periods of work, the latest of which is certainly Severan. See Bay 14, pi. xxx, b, which has arches of all three periods.
page 91 note 1 It is possible that the Neronian piers remain embedded in the Domitianic reconstruction; but there is no visible evidence of this.
page 91 note 2 C.I.L. xv, 312–18. It is most unlikely that the stamp refers to the figlinae Favorianae of Severan date, C.I.L. xv, 216–20.
page 91 note 3 C.I.L. xv, 549.
page 91 note 4 See C.I.L. xv, 45 et seq.
page 91 note 5 C.I.L. xv, 1127.
page 91 note 6 Probably C.I.L. xv, 30.
page 91 note 7 Probably C.I.L. xv, 829.
page 92 note 1 C.I.L. vi, 1259 of A.D. 201.
page 92 note 2 Such bonding-courses also occur occasionally in the Neronian work (see pi. xxiii, a, in the spandrel).
page 93 note 1 Bay 36 is concealed on both sides.
page 96 note 1 In the via di S. Stefano Rotondo there are some lower-tier arches which appear to be part of the original structure; but they are set rather higher than any such arches in the embassy ground could have been, and they clearly did not occur in every bay. They are perhaps attributable to some local feature now below ground.
page 96 note 2 C.I.L. xv, 1581.
page 98 note 1 He knew no Italian and the Italian staff knew no English, but in next to no time communication was established which worked increasingly smoothly as the work progressed.
page 99 note 1 Upon completion of the work this equipment was cleaned and stored in the embassy for use on any future works.
page 99 note 2 Two trees actually rooted in the structure (pi. xxv, b)were not removed.
page 104 note 1 C.I.L. vi, 9151.