^{page 170 note 1} Some light is thrown on his character and methods by a letter at the beginning of the Bodleian MS. which purports to be a copy of one sent by Ligorio himself to Ercole Basso of Ferrara on May 14th, 1585, and the date was used by Bormann, (C.I.L. vi, i, p. liGoogle Scholar, sqq.) as evidence to support the assertion that Ligorio died in 1593 Borsetti, (Historia Gymnasii Ferrarensis, ii, 193Google Scholar) is misquoted by Bormann as giving the date as 1593, while Hülsen, (Röm. Mitt. vi (1891), 77Google Scholar) rightly quotes the same passage in favour of the date October, 1583.

Tiraboschi, (Stor. Lett. vii, 2, 243Google Scholar; ix, 166) also gives the date as 1583: and it is confirmed by a passage from the documents relating to the marriage between Eleonora de Medici and Vincenzo Gonzaga, published in the Bibliotechina grassoccia by Orlando and Bacchini (vol. v, Florence, 1887, p. 59) where under date 16th January, 1583—which would be 1584 according to modern reckoning—the daughters of M. Pirro Ligorio are mentioned as having recently lost their father (è poco che mori, havendo lassato la moglie, che non è ferrarese ma romana, donna di buona vita, e similmente molte figliole con pochissima fecoltà di recapitarle).

^{page 171 note 1} One need only note how many times in the Addenda et corrigenda to C.I.L. vi, part v. (which is dedicated to the forged inscriptions of the city of Rome, for the great majority of which Ligorio is responsible) we find the remark ‘N … est genuinus huius vol. n….’ In some cases, too, the actual inscription has been rediscovered.

^{page 171 note 2} We may instance, as F. F. Abbot does (Classical Philogy 1908 27) the audacity with which he pretends to have found many of his forgenes in well-known places in Rome, and adds a drawing or elaborate details.

^{page 171 note 3} Lanciani, in Ausonia i (1906), 101Google Scholar: Callari, Palazzi di Roma, 212.

^{page 171 note 4} Baglioni, Vite de' pittori (1642), 9.

^{page 171 note 5} Mommsen in C.I.L. ix, and x, p. xlix, says after giving a list of all his works, ‘Haec fere volumina Pyrrhi sunt quae hodie extant vel olim constant extitisse. Sed longe plura ab eo profecta esse aut latentia aut deperdita certium est, acceperuntque ab homine male sedulo aequales complures collectanea maiore ex parte consententia cum iis quae nobis praesto sunt, sed ut inessent item propria quaedam nec in Illis redeuntia.’

A proper study of the whole of Ligorio's MSS., with a view to definity establishing their relations to one another, would be a work of great utility and has so far only been undertaken in the field of epigraphy. The present article does not profess to be based upon more than an examination of the Bodleian MS. and of those in the Vatican library.

^{page 172 note 1} It was to be divided into 50 books, but there are many apparent lacunae, due, however, perhaps Only to changes of plan (Mommsen cit. xlviii, 5)Google Scholar. Dessau, (in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, xl (1883), 1080Google Scholar, n. 2) notes that Mommsen appears to have counted 25 books, but himself gives the titles of only 22, the last of which is the 50th. Barb. Lat. 5083, 5084 contain copies of portions of this version.

^{page 172 note 2} But little light is thrown on the question of the sources of Vat. Lat. 3439 by an examination of the Bodleian MS. The drawings of tombs in the former (f. 33–45) are not identical with those in the latter in any single instance, but have been taken from the Neapolitan version; a comparison of the numerous reproductions of drawings from the Naples MS. given by Ripostelli and Marucchi, Via Appia, will make this clear. Hülsen's, suggestion in Röm. Mitt. vi (1891), 78Google Scholar, thus proves to be unfruitful. It consists, too, almost entirely of drawings, with hardly any text.

^{page 172 note 3} Ashby, in Archaeologia lxi, 228Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 4} For further information see Friedländer, , Das Kasino Pius des Vierten, Leipzig, 1912, and references on pp. 8–10Google Scholar: the MSS. are dealt with from the point of view of their epigraphic interest in C.I.L. vi, p. li; ix. and x. p. xlviii. : cf. also Hülsen, in Röm. Mitt. xvi (1901), 130, 145Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 5} Cod. Ottob. 3364–3377. It is, however, not complete, having only 14 volumes instead of 18. The first part of the letter A is missing (3364 begins with A1) and the letter B is entirely wanting: C only goes as far as Ch; while N and O are in the Barberini library (Barb. Lat. 5085), having apparently been stolen from the Altemps library (Forcella, , Cat. dei Manoscritti della Biblioteca Vaticana, ii, p. 5)Google Scholar. A number of the drawings, too, have not been copied.

^{page 173 note 1} A list of the MSS. of Pirro Ligorio (‘Nota delli Libri di Pirro Ligorio,’ in Barb. Lat. 3118 f. 106) gives a list of the contents of the 18 volumes of the second version, and of 12 supplementary volumes, some or all of which are at Turin, while some of them will be found in Ottob. 3378–3381.

^{page 173 note 2} Lanciani, (Bull. Com. x (1882), 30Google Scholar) calls it ‘il volume meno mendace fra quanti rimangono del falsario napoletano.’

^{page 173 note 3} Archaeologia, li (1888), 489Google Scholarsqq. (cited as M.).

^{page 173 note 4} The MS. contains (ff. 4–161) portions of the draft of the following books : vi. Templa, x. Ludi, xi. Vici et fora, xii. Aedificia varia, xiii. Obelisci, xvi. Aquaeductus urbis, xxxiiii. Neapolis Capua Puteoli, xxxvi. de van marmi e colori di quelli: the last of these, despite its title, really deals with tombs and villas in the neighbourhood of Rome. Neither in title nor in contents do the books correspond with any of those in Naples version, even where the numbering is the same. It is clear, therefore, that the numbering had not yet been decied upon. The drafts are bound up in no sort of order, and at the end are miscellaneous notes.

^{page 174 note 1} Reprinted by Lumbroso, Cassiano dal Pozzo 51 (a reprint from vol. xv of the Miscellanea di Storia Italiana).

^{page 174 note 2} cf. Papers of the British School at Rome, i, 173: Notizie degli Scavi (1912), 197, 265.

^{page 174 note 3} Windsor Inv. 10256 (vol. 184, formerly lettered A 9, f. 68 v). The same lamp is shown in Holkham ii, 72 (Papers viii, 48).

^{page 174 note 4} We may also cite the engraving in Montano, Scietta di V ari Tempietti (1624) 51 = Cinque libri di Architettura (G. G. de Rossi), iii, 33, who gives a plan of the hemicycle, stating that its foundations were discovered in the time of Pius IV.

^{page 174 note 5} cf. also Storia degli Scavi, iii, 109; Hülsen, , Topographie, i, 3, 448, n. 9Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 5} Rom. Mitt. xvii (1902), 45Google Scholar; xx (1905), 54.

^{page 174 note 7} Lanciani op. cit. 20; Hülsen, , Röm. Mitt. xvii (1902), 39Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 1} Hülsen, , Top. i, 3, 360Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 2} Corrected to questo.

^{page 176 note 3} Corrected to tempio.

^{page 179 note 1} In his text Ligorio speaks of it as follows : ‘e per peggio vi hanno (i preti) aggiunto di più questa parte signata X che non vi era prima di sorte, che da una banda dico dalla parte di dietro che toccava il Tempio della pace hoggi vi manca.’

^{page 179 note 2} Up to this point the text is given by Lanciani, . Mon. Linc. i, 551Google Scholar; Ruins 207.

^{page 180 note 1} ‘Hoggi in questo Tempio si è cauato una de le base delle colonne et un capitello la basa è di xii palmi di diametro et il capitello è alto 9 palmi quali sono stati portati in San pietro per guastarsi certamente’ (already given by Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi, ii, 209)Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 1} Atti Accad. Pontif. serie 2, vol. viii, 360 sqq.; Topogr. i, 3, 660; Bull. Com. xxxix (1911), 204Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 2} Antichità di Roma, f. 3.

^{page 181 note 3} See Amelung, , Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums, ii, p. 134Google Scholar: Michaelis, , Jahrb. d. Inst. v (1890). 35Google Scholar.

^{page 181 note 4} Papers of the British School at Rome, ix, 146.

^{page 181 note 5} Storia degli Scavi, ii, 162; iv, 71 (in protocol/622 of the notary de Comitibus, c. 493).

^{page 181 note 6} Prot. cit. c. 494.

^{page 182 note 1} f. 165, 167, 169; cf. Lanciani, op. cit. i, 110Google Scholar.

^{page 182 note 2} Cod. Neap. xiii, B 10; cf. Dessau, in Berliner Sitzungsberichte xl. (1883), 1101Google Scholar, nos. 30, 31.

^{page 182 note 3} Gerhard nos. 493, 495. Ruesch, Guida, 568 (6679), 575 (6687).

^{page 182 note 4} We may also note the following passage in regard to the discovery of the lex Cornelia de xx quaestoribus and the lex Antonia de Termessibus: ‘sotto il Campidoglio uerso Santa Maria de la Consolatione à san Salvadore in statera, doue furono ancor trouate certe tauole di leggi di bronzo, de quali ho fatto copia, e postala nel libro delle dedicationi delle statue; non è dubio che dette tavole fossero nel tempio di Saturno, perché in esse si legge come erano poste nella cauea del detto tempio: le quali furono primieramente conseruate dall' illustrissimo cardinal della valle, ristaurator delle cose antiche, et poscia conseruate da la diuina memoria del Cardinal di Medici. Et hora sono in casa di Crapanichi.’ (C.I.L. i, 202, 204; cf. Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi, i, 244Google Scholar; iii, 115). Lanciani quotes a longer version of this account from Cod. Paris, Ital. 1129. The only difference is the reversal of the order: for in the Paris MS. it is stated that the inscriptions were given by Cardinal Hippolito de Medici to Cardinal della Valle. As they passed into the Farnese collection, they obviously formed no part of the collection purchased from the Della Valle Capranica family in 1584 by Cardinal Ferdinando Medici, nor indeed are they mentioned in the inventory of that collection.

^{page 182 note 5} The passage is given by Lanciani, op. cit. iii, 258Google Scholar, who gives further interesting details about Antonio Conteschi. The statues were no doubt of the type of Clarac i, 535, 5 and 9 R.

^{page 183 note 1} See Fedini, Vita di S. Bibiana, 59.

^{page 183 note 2} Platner, Ancient Rome, 402.

^{page 183 note 3} P.B.S.R. i, 157 (where part of Ligorio's text is quoted) and Lugli, in Bull. Com. xliii (1915), 155Google Scholar. Cf. also Windsor 10354 (vol. 186 (formerly A 12) f. 1)—plan, external elevation, section, and detail of the stucco of the dome.

^{page 183 note 4} Lugli, cit. 156 and pl. vi, 2.

^{page 184 note 1} P.B.S.R. cit. 158 (q.v. for the text); Lugli, cit. 160.

^{page 184 note 2} Aust, in Pauly-Wissowa, iv, 1633Google Scholar. Cf. Hülsen, , Römische Antikengärten (Heidelberger Abhandlungen, iv), p. 68, no. 105Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 3} Delbrück, , Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, I taf. xiii; P.B.S.R. ix (1920), pl. xxxvGoogle Scholar.

^{page 184 note 4} Martial, , Sped. ii, 9Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 1} Bull. Com. xxxvi (1908), 254Google Scholar. Some fragments of the obelisk, including the summit, are in the Vatican museum of Egyptian antiquities (Marucchi, ibid. xlv (1917), 103).

^{page 190 note 1} The bricks are 38 mm. thick, the mortar joints 18 mm.: the cubes in the opus reticulatum are 85 to 90 mm. square. The building may perhaps be assigned to the end of the 1st century A.D.

^{page 190 note 2} M. fig. 13 wrongly states that it is a reservoir. Ligorio confesses in the text that he was not altogether satisfied with his own plan, as the building was much damaged and difficult to understand. On the same page he speaks of the great reservoir of the Golden House, known as the Sette Sale: but the inscription is, as Lanciani points out, a forgery on the basis of C.I.L. vi, 1239 (Comentari di Frontino in Mem. Lincei, ser. iii, vol. iv (1880), p. 504, no. 17)Google Scholar.

^{page 191 note 1} The plate does not occur in the 1624 edition of the Scielta di vari tempietti, but will be found in his original drawings in the Soane Museum, from which it was undoubtedly taken (ii, 95). See P.B.S.R. ii, 1; vi, 185.

^{page 191 note 2} P.B.S.R. i, 228 (badly described).

^{page 192 note 1} P.B.S.R. iii, 191.

^{page 193 note 1} Labruzzi, , Via Appia, i, 28Google Scholar (Mélanges de l'École français, xxiii (1903), 386Google Scholar) Canina, , Via Appia, tav. ix, fig. 2, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 194 note 1} Ligorio's expressions are confused: for in the elevation R is the upper chamber.

^{page 194 note 2} Candelabri 113; cf. P.B.S.R. cit.

^{page 194 note 3} P.B.S.R. iv, 67.

^{page 195 note 1} It is in the form of a Greek cross: each arm is 17 feet wide inside, while the internal measurement over all is 60 feet.

^{page 196 note 1} Tomassetti, , Campagna Romana, iii (1913), 47Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 1} Storia degli Scavi, iii, 9, 193.

^{page 200 note 1} Inv. 10805 (vol. 190 formerly A 17, f. 18).

^{page 200 note 2} Boni in Not. Scavi (1907), 416, 417, who reproduces two drawings by Dosio from the same volume.

^{page 200 note 1} Bull. Com. xxii (1894), 186Google Scholar (‘volume oblungo’ numbered B n. 10, f. 53 (not 51) r, v).

^{page 200 note 2} Mélanges, cit. 414.