previous next


THE method of quotation from periodicals is that followed by Professor Platner himself in his earlier work, but many other abbreviations have been introduced; and, in order to effect a further saving in space, the names of the authors of articles have as a rule been omitted.1 Further, it has not been thought necessary to refer to the accounts of the same discovery in both the Notizie degli Scavi and the Bullettino Comunale, except when (as sometimes happens) one account tacitly corrects or supplements the other, so that scholars cannot safely refrain from consulting both.2While I am on this subject, I may remark that those writers who introduce new and more accurate modes of subdivision or quotation often display singularly little consideration for the convenience of students. Thus Schreiber, in his republication of Vacca's Memorie,3 quite correctly divides No. 60 into two parts: but instead of calling the second half No. 60a, he starts a new numbering for the later Memorie, without adding a comparative numbering in the margin, which causes the greatest inconvenience to those students who are not fortunate enough to possess a copy of his article. In the text I have given Fea's numbering (Miscellanea, i. 52 sqq.) and Schreiber's in brackets where it differs.4

It should be remembered that, even if the methods used in the older books are erroneous and require gradual supersession, the student may lose a good deal of valuable time if they are not at first retained as well as the new ones.

It is, for instance, a great pity that both Jordan and Urlichs should in the same year have published the text of the Mirabilia, with a slightly different numbering of the chapters. I have in this case followed the former.

Nor does it often happen that authors who publish second editions of their works are considerate enough to give the paging of the first in the margin. Wissowa's Religion und Kultus der Romer is one of the works which has given me most trouble in the preparation of the present book.5

And there are other aids to students which are urgently needed. I myself feel that it might have been useful to add to the present work a list of the false denominations of the buildings of Rome-of those names which have been current from Renaissance times or even earlier,6 and which, though now demonstrably incorrect, will yet be found in many of the books, especially those of a century or two back, which may fall into the hands of the advanced scholar. Certainly the need is even greater in regard to works of art: for, if modern criticism has discovered that a statue which, for example, has been known from the sixteenth century up to the last few years as an Antinous, is in reality an Apollo, one may search in vain for it under its old and commonly current denomination in the index to any museum catalogue. Of course, on the other hand, I have no desire to encourage the uncritical acceptance of these rejected appellations. For example, the existence of a temple of Juno Martialis near the Forum is maintained by Pichler (Numism. Zeitschr. v. (1873) 92-101), who is followed by Bernhart (Handbuch zur Munzkunde, 126): but the assertion that it was in Rome is made by no better an authority than the so-called Sextus Rufus (Richter 9). It is a pity that a presumably up-to-date numismatic work (though Roman topography is not the author's strong point) should insert a statement which acts on so insecure an authority.

As a contrast, Von Domaszewski's criticism of the topographical allusions in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae errs, perhaps, on the side of undue severity. I have generally quoted him in the several articles: but it may be worth while to refer to his discussion once more in a general way.7 Whether he is right in considering all the biographies to be the work of a single author, who was the curator of a library known as the Bibliotheca Ulpia, situated in the thermae Traianae at Nemausus (Nimes), and posterior in date to the Gaulish poets of the sixth century A.D., may well be questioned. And he is certainly going too far in suggesting that all the topographical information which is not directly copied from other authors was taken from a commentator who had before him a plan of Rome 8 drawn under Antoninus Pius, on which the Aurelian Wall had later been added. But even Hohl, who sharply criticizes Von Domaszewski's views in regard to the date and composition of this work, is ready to allow ' that the articles on the topo- graphy of Rome, etc., contain many remarks on points of detail which deserve consideration.' 9

An inevitable consequence of the adoption of the system of a dictionary has been the omission of such discoveries as cannot be associated with any building the ancient name of which is known to us. The most striking example is the house found near the Villa Farnesina, not far from the tomb of C. Sulpicius Platorinus, which has yielded to the Museo delle Terme the beautiful stuccoes and wall-paintings of the Augustan period which are among its chief treasures.10 These of course would have found their place in a complete topographical manual, which might also have on occasion gone beyond the Aurelian Wall, which has been taken as the general limit. On the other hand, I have made considerable additions to the list of domus, after going carefully through the inscriptions on lead pipes published in CIL xv. and have admitted far more names than Hulsen had included in the Nomenclator attached to KH.

I would add in explanation that when a pipe is found on the top of an isolated hill like the Capitol or Aventine, there is some considerable presumption that the building to which it led was not far off: while in regard to other pipes I have thought it worth while to add a number of names that had previously been omitted, even though they did not allow of the exact fixing of the site of the house. I should probably not have done this had CIL xv. been indexed. It may freely be admitted that a good many of the names entered under domus might as well have been placed under horti, especially those on pipes found on the right bank of the Tiber.

In the text, a star immediately after the name means that the Addenda et Corrigenda should be consulted.

1 This has not been done with any idea of denying to their authors the credit that is fairly due to them: but, in order to meet the criticism brought by Cantarelli against Professor Platner in regard to this matter (BC 1905, 286; 1911, 307), it may be pointed out that it would have been necessary, for consistency's sake, to give the names of the writers of articles in encyclopaedias such as DE, DS, and RE, which would have added still further to the bulk of what is already a quite sufficiently large and costly volume.

2 See my remarks in PBS iii. 3, 4, 41, n. 2.

3 Schsische Berichte, 1881, 43 sqq.

4 As an instance where I have myself been led into confusion I may refer to the Catalogue of the Museo Capitolino, where on p. 21 the numbering is Fea's, and on p. 38 Schreiber's.

5 I must express my own regret that I have not inserted references to Dessau's invaluable Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae throughout, as well as to CIL.

6 e.g. Palatium Decii, a name which comes from the interpolated acta of S. Lorenzo (cf. HJ 376; HCh 292).

7 'Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie, 1916, Abh. 7, 15; 1917, Abh. 1; 1918, Abh. 6, 13 ; 920, Abh. 6. An index of passages discussed, at the end of the last article, makes reference easy.

8 He adds that the author may even have had this plan before him in the porticus attached to the library !

9 Bursian's Jahresbericht, cc, 197.

10 Paribeni passim (cf. esp. p. 186). Other examples will be found in NS 1922, 222-226, and BC 1926, 235-269.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: