Слике страница

was in no way bettered. Scattered and isolated resistance to the demands for feudal service went on after the rising as before; it was not till thirty years later that these demands began to die out, and then only in consequence of the great economic change from arable farming to pastoral, which called for a smaller supply of labour and permitted the forced services to lapse. We think that in this argument M. Petit-Dutaillis has not got quite to the root of the matter. We prefer the Bishop of Oxford's estimate, that • the indirect permanent results of the rising give it a

singular importance both constitutionally and socially.' With this Mr. Trevelyan agrees. The rising, he says, 'made a very great impression on the minds of contem* poraries. It could not be without influence on the life • of the succeeding generation. Though the King's promises were annulled, though the rebellion put an end to all chance of philanthropic legislation in the direction of emancipating the serfs, and in this sense may be said 'to have retarded liberty,' the memory of it must have acted in another way. It taught the landlords to fear the serf, to fear the risk of levying the feudal services with the old rigour, and thus, by the want of labour, drove them to the agricultural change which M. Petit-Dutaillis appears to regard as spontaneous.

As we conclude we would express a hope that in this interesting work Mr. Trevelyan has given us but a foretaste of what we have to receive from his fourteenthcentury studies. The reign of Richard II. has never been examined with the care and fulness to which its constitutional importance entitles it; and Mr. Trevelyan's success in this volume gives us almost a right to expect that he should continue the task which he has so well begun. It seems, too, peculiarly fitting that the grand-nephew and literary descendant of Lord Macaulay should write the history of the Revolution of 1399, which in many respects compares with, in others contrasts with, the still greater Revolution of 1688. We may, however, hope that in doing so he will start with an open mind; will distinguish between the barons of the fourteenth century and the Whigs of the seventeenth, or the Radicals of the nineteenth ; will weigh, evaluate, and be guided by the evidence, and not consider it as bound to illustrate and confirm the curt statement made in this volume—that as in the first part of his reign Richard was a boy, so in the last part he was a fool. This has often been asserted, but has never been satisfactorily proved.

ART. V.-1. Forma urbis Romæ. Consilio et auctoritate

regiæ academiæ Lynceorum . . . delineavit RODULPHUS

LANCIANI. Milan : 1893-9. 2. Formæ urbis Romæ antiquæ. Delineaverunt H. KIEPERT

et CHR. HUELSEN. Berlin : 1896. 3. The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome.

A companion book for students and travellers, by RODOLFO

LANCIANI. London: 1897. 4. Le Forum Romain et les Forums Impériaux, par HENRY

THÉDÉNAT. Paris : 1898. 5. Stele con iscrizone arcaica latina scoperta nel Foro

Romano. DA G. BONI, G. F. GAMURRINI, L. CECI. Rome:

1899. To every, lover of Roman antiquity, whether learned

specialist or ordinary educated reader, the city of Rome must always provide the central feature of his landscape and the goal of his pilgrimages. And yet it is in some sense a strange centre, a goal which when we reach it does not seem altogether what we expected. For it has two distinct characteristics : the one visible at the first glance to every eye, the other less recognisable and often unrecognised, but none the less potent to touch the mind. The first is, of course, the charm of Rome. Even if, by an effort, we disregard for a while the thousand medieval and modern associations of the Eternal City, the magic of the older Rome abides with us, inevitable and imperishable. We stand in the soft spring air on the southernmost edge of the Palatine and look across the undulating green Campagna to the little towns, the Castelli Romani,' dotted along the Alban hills, and the august summit above them where the most ancient Latin god preserved his immemorial temple. We wander down the Appian Way, past the little chape of ‘Domine Quo Vadis,' and the great sepulchre of Cæcilia Metella, where the tourists turn, on to the lonely land where the grass grows over the broken pavement of the road, and only the cattle moving among the ruined tombs disturb the silence. We sit, on a bright April morning, amidst the plants and flowers and fragments of Roman monuments in the graceful cloister which was built out of the Baths of Diocletian, and has now in turn become a museum. Or we climb the low Cælian hill to the ruined platform of the temple of Claudius, and linger under the ilexes and cypresses of the Passionist Fathers, one of the last relics of that old Rome, which, like our English Oxford, spread her gardens to the moonlight and whispered from her towers the enchantments of the Middle Age. There are few intellectual pleasures like these.

But if we turn from sentiment to fact, if we make the attempt which all educated men must desire to make in Rome, and endeavour to realise the ancient city and its buildings with some rude precision, we find at once that our surroundings are far from helpful. Ruins abound. But they are essentially ruins, most of them shapeless and enigmatic, save to a handful of specialists, and few of them perfect enough to give that direct contact with ancient life which the mind naturally requires. Rome has no Acropolis like Athens, no Parthenon or Erechtheum. She has less than one might have expected to match the remains of infinitely smaller provincial towns in Spain or Africa or southern Gaul. Of all the stately buildings erected during the four centuries of the Empire, the Pantheon and one or two triumphal arches and columns alone stand intact - one edifice for each of those centuries. The Capitol is a modern quarter: standing there to-day, you would never guess even the shape of the ancient hill. The Palatine is a labyrinth of brick substructures, crypts, and cellars, denuded now of the palaces above them, but never meant for free eyes to see. On the floor of the Forum the column of Phocas, poor product of a late age, towers over débris, and the course eren of the Sacred Way cannot be accurately distinguished. In the Campus Martius, a few buildings, choked by modern houses, faintly indicate the size and number of the edifices which once covered that wide expanse. The life and strife of fourteen centuries have passed over ancient Rome. Its treasures of marble and alabaster have been stolen for churches and palaces; its foundations have been buried beneath the dusty wreck of its roofs and walls. So dear a price has it paid to be called the Eternal City.

This characteristic of the remains of ancient Rome is too often ignored in the multitude of delights and interests which modern Rome presents. Nevertheless it is a real characteristic, and it probably affects visitors far more than they are aware. It especially concerns us in an article like the present. We are proposing to describe briefly in the following paragraphs the principal discoveries of Roman antiquity which have recently been made in Rome, and the first fact which meets us is this, that the discoveries are in great part fragments. Many of them are comparatively important fragments, such as an expert can piece together with other like remains, to fill up little gaps in

in our knowledge. Still they are fragments, devoid of individual value, and the results deduced from them are equally devoid of individual value. The progress of research in such a case is necessarily slow, ‘line upon line, line upon line, here • a little and there a little,' and parts of it are unintelligible and uninteresting to any but specialists. We shall not attempt to treat these fragments individually. We shall first sketch summarily the chief work-excavation, chance discovery, criticism--achieved during the period which we have to survey; we shall endeavour to describe rather the general results, as they affect our conception of Rome, than the details or the actual items.

The period which we have to survey is somewhat peculiar. Ten years ago, when this topic was last handled in this Review,* it was possible to point to a vast multitude of discoveries. The mass of new material brought to light between 1871 and 1889 could fairly be described as without a parallel in the history of excavation. Immediately after the occupation of Rome and the definitive establishment of the Italian kingdom in 1870, the Italian Government commenced the organisation of official excavation throughout Italy and not least in Rome. There it was assisted by the rapid developement of the city which naturally followed the events of 1870, and in one way or another no less than four square miles were opened and examined. But before 1889 financial troubles of various kinds had reduced the funds available for excavation and had wholly suspended building operations, and during the ten years with which we are concerned the spade has effected little for Roman archæology. Since the foundations of the Triumphal Arch of Augustus were detected in 1888, excavations practically ceased in the Forum till last year; only one excavation was made on the Palatine during the same period, and very little elsewhere in Rome. Now we appear to be standing at the commencement of a new excavatory period. The initiative is due mainly to the present Minister of Public Instruction, M. Guido Baccelli, whose tenure of that office in the past was already honourably connected with some of the most striking discoveries of the last twenty years. The generosity of an Englishman, Mr. Lionel Phillips, has helped the work, and

* Vol. clxx., pp. 479, foll., October, 1889.

during the last twelve months M. Giacomo Boni has carried out excavations in the Forum with energy and success. The gist of M. Boni's results will be sketched below, so far as his work has yet gone. It is not yet finished, and we may here be content with felicitating him and his country on the very striking discoveries with which he has commenced. If he has not found the Tomb of Romulus, as the daily newspapers proclaimed last May, he has found something almost as strange.

Meanwhile, though excavations have lingered, chance discoveries have been made continuously, and three deserve single notice. In the autumn of 1890 a long inscription was unearthed, incomplete but intelligible, which described the ritual of the Secular Games celebrated by Augustus. The inscription attracted notice because it actually contained the line

Carmen composuit Q. Horatius Flaccus,' Horace wrote the “ Carmen Sæculare," the ode which we still possess. Perhaps, as we shall point out, it is no less interesting in that it illustrates the character of the rule of Augustus. Two years later, in the early part of 1892, fresh light was shed on the most perfect of all ancient buildings in Rome and the most beautiful—the Pantheon. The wellknown inscription on the portico of this temple ascribes it to Agrippa, colleague and friend of Augustus, and, as the ancient historian Cassius Dio relates that Agrippa actually built such a temple, authorities had agreed to ascribe it to him. Chance need of repair to the roof in 1892 altered the whole question. It was found that the roof and, as subsequently appeared, the whole building, are constructed of bricks dated to A.D. 115-124, that is, to Hadrian's reign. That is to say, this masterpiece of architecture is not the work of Agrippa but of Hadrian, and another great work must be credited to that master-builder among emperors. Agrippa, it seems, built a Pantheon ; Hadrian restored it, and in restoring entirely rebuilt it, altering even the ground plan, but retained the name of Agrippa, and, with a moderation rare in emperors, omitted his own name. The third discovery which deserves notice here is that of 451 new fragments of the great marble plan of Rome which was constructed by the order of Caracalla about A.D. 210. This discovery illustrates well our previous observation that finds in Rome are often fragments, intelligible only to specialists. The 451 new fragments seem likely to tell us the positions of a few unknown buildings, and thus to add a few details to

« ПретходнаНастави »