The archæology of Rome, Part 8 : $b The aqueductsParker, John Henry
History
The archæology of Rome, Part 8 : $b The aqueducts
Parker, John Henry
Rome -- Antiquities
[65] “Alexandria est fere tota suffossa, specusque habet ad Nilum
pertinentes, quibus aqua in privatas domos inducitur.” (Aulus Hirtius,
_De Bello Cæsaris Alexandrino_, cap. 4.)
[66] Frontinus, lib. i. c. 7. He also quotes from Fenestella concerning
the delays which occurred, and speaks of the Decemvirs consulting the
Sybilline books, and being supposed to have found that it was not the
Marcian but rather the Anio which should be brought into the Capitol:
(“Invenisse dicuntur, non esse aquam Marciam, sed potius Anionem in
Capitolium perducendam.”) Eventually, however, Marcius prevailed, and his
plan was carried out.
Pliny also refers to the work of Marcius: “Sed dicantur vera æstimatione
invicta miracula; Q. Marcius Rex jussus a senatu aquarum Appiæ, Anienis,
Tepulæ _ductus reficere_, novam a nomine suo appellatam cuniculis per
montes actis intra præturæ suæ tempus adduxit.” (Nat. Hist., lib. xxxvi.
c. 121; see also further details in Plin., xxxi. 41, and ibid.)
[67] “Qui lapide quadrato ampliores ductus excitavit, perque illos aquam
quam acquisiverit rei publicæ commodo, trium millium opera fabrorum duxit
cui ab auctore,” &c. These words are wanting in the best manuscript,
that of Monte Cassino. In place of them we have “( ... priores ductus
restituit et tertiam illam aquarum in urbem perduxit) cui ab auctore,”
&c. This does not agree with the opinion of the learned, that the Urbinas
Manuscript is a copy of the one at Monte Cassino, unless great liberties
were taken with it. The fact that the arcade with the _specus_ of the
aqueduct is always built of large squared stones, is strongly in favour
of the Codex Urbinas. It is also certain from the nature of the work,
that a large number of men must have been employed upon it. This passage
seems to have been omitted in the Codex Cassinensis, which is a proof
that the Codex Urbinas is not a _copy_ from it. Dederich, p. 15, suggests
after “commodo,” the words “trium millium opera fabrorum.”
[68] Frontinus, lib. i. c. 7.
Frontinus states in another chapter (c. 12) that Augustus brought
underground another stream, which should be supplementary to the Marcian
whenever the dryness of the season rendered extra supply necessary. It
was called from the name of the contriver, Augusta, and had its rise
above the spring of the Marcian. This additional _ductus_, or Specus
Augusta, was 800 paces long.
[69] Frontinus, c. 18.
[70] “Salientibus aquis instruxit urbem.” Ibid., c. 9.
[71] Ibid., c. 87.
[72] Ibid., c. 8.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid., c. 9.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Frontinus, c. 19.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account