^{page 75 note 1} The portion of the marble plan of Septimius Severus, on which the Mausoleum should appear, is lost; nor does it appear on any antique relief that I have seen.

^{page 75 note 2} vita Hadr., 19, ‘fecit sui nominis pontem et sepulchrum iuxta Tiberim’; Vita Pii, 5, ’Hadriano … mortuo reliquias eius … in hortis Domitiae collocavit.’

^{page 75 note 3} Cass. Dio LXIX. 23, ἐτάϕη δὲ πρὸς αὐτῷ τῷ ποταμῷ, πρὀς τῇ γεϕύρᾳ τῇ Αἰλίᾳ ἐνταῦθα γὰρ τὸ μνῆμα κατεσκευάσατο τὸ γὰρ τοῦ Αὐγούστου ἐπεπλήρωτο, καὶ οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς ἐν αὐτᾢ ἐτέθη. It is called Άντωνινεῖον (cf. infra, p. 4, n. 2). The various mentions of the Mausoleum in the later Vitae of the Hist. Aug. (Vita Severi, 19, 3–24, 2; Vita Carac. 9, 12; Vita Macrini, 5, 2; Vita Getae, 7, 2) are simply copied from Dio (see von Domaszewski, , ‘Topographie Roms bei den Script. Hist. Aug.’ in Heidelb. Sitzber. 1916, 7, Abb., p. 5Google Scholarsqq.). In the last passage there is a further confusion due to a misunderstanding of the sources which the writer had at his command.

^{page 76 note 1} Proc., De Bello Gothico, I, 22Google Scholar; cf. Fea-Winckelmann, iii, 384; Gregorovius, (Hamilton), Rome in the Middle Ages, i, 387Google Scholar; Borgatti, , Castel S. Angelo (1890), p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 2} Leonis Magni opera (Ven. 1753) i, 442 (Migne P.L. liv, 511), ‘ibi est constituta memorie Adriani imperatoris, mirae magnitudinis et pulcheritudinis templum constructum.’ The attribution to Leo I is due to Mallius, and is erroneous (Fabre-Duchesne, : Liber Censuum, i, p. 278Google Scholar n. 52: see Jordan, : Top. Stadt Rom, ii, 426Google Scholar, sqq., who considers the expression templum as an indication that it belongs to a later period).

^{page 76 note 3} Loc. cit. He considers (p. 434) that the additions of the Mirabilia are unduly fantastic; and that all that the writer saw was the square base of the Mausoleum, still faced with marble and decorated with reliefs, while the circular drum had already been almost entirely deprived of its marble and decorations. But in this connexion it must be remembered that Jordan wrote before the discovery of the foundation of the bronze railings in 1891.

^{page 76 note 4} In the following quotation from the Mirabilia the variations and additions of the text of Mallius are inserted within brackets following the passages varied or added to: ‘Est et Castellum quod fuit templum Adriani, sicut legimus in sermone festivitatis sancti Petri ubi dicit: (memoria Adriani imperatoris sicut legitur in sermone S. Leonis Papae de festivitate S. Petri …) memoria Adriani imperatoris mire magnitudinis templum constructum, quod totum lapidibus coopertum et diversis storiis est perornatum. In circuitu vero cancellis ereis (aeneis) circumseptum cum pavonibus aureis et tauro (tauro aeneo); ex quibus fuere duo (de illis) qui sunt in cantaro paradisi. In IIIIọṛ partes templi fuerunt IIIIọṛ caballi erei (aenei) deaurati; in una quaque fronte portac eree (aeneae). In medio giro sepulchrum Adriani porforeticum, quod nunc est Lateranis (ante folloniam) sepulchrum papae Innocentii; (in quo sepultus est Innocentius papa II, cuius) co-opertorium est in paradiso sancti Petri super sepulchrum prefecti. (Inferius autem portae eree, sicut nunc apparent).’ The text given by Fabre-Duchesne (Liber Censuum i, 269), which is followed above, agrees with that given by Urlichs, Cod. Top. U.R., 106, except that the words ante folloniam (fulloniam) are omitted.

Duchesne points out that the sarcophagus must have stood ante fulloniam, in front of the washing trough, until it was taken into use for the burial of Innocent II, so that the two different readings allude to two different stages in the history of the sarcophagus, and cannot be combined, as Urlichs and Jordan have tried to do. The bronze doors are mentioned in the Annales romaines in connexion with the death of Pascal II (1118), (Lib. Pont, ii, 344, obiit aput castellum S. Angeli, in dornum iusta aeream portam). They must have been situated in the square base of the Mausoleum, and above them was the dedicatory inscription (infra: C.I.L. vi, 984; Fabre-Duchesne, op. cit. p. 278, n. 56). Petrus Mallius, His. Bas. S. Petri, cap. 7, n. 131; cf. Bollandist, Acta SS. Junii, vol. vii, p. 50Google Scholar; Nibby, , Roma Antica, ii, 497Google Scholar; Gregorovius, , op. cit., iv, 652Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 1} In the translation of Mallius by Borgatti (op. cit., p. 12) mention of the bull is omitted. Cf. J.R.S. ix (1919)Google Scholar on the bull as described by Magister Gregorius (p. 20), and by Mallius (p. 21); also Jordan, , op. cit. ii, 431Google Scholar, sqq. who considers the bull to have been, probably, an exaggerated description of one of the bull's-heads on the frieze, and quotes the German Chronicle of the Emperors (Massmann, , Kaisercronik, iii, 898Google Scholar) which describes the bulls as hewn out of a single stone.

^{page 77 note 2} Amelung, , Die Sculp. der Vat. Mus., i, 894Google Scholar; cf. Middleton, J. H., Ruins of Ancient Rome (1892), ii, 299Google Scholar, mentioning the drawing (showing the peacocks on the roof, in addition to those of the Fountain) in an eleventh-century MS. from the Abbey of Farfa (reproduced by Grisar, , Analecta Romana, i, tav. x)Google Scholar, in the library of Eton College; see also, Ashby, , Top. Study in Rome in 1581 (Roxburghe Club, 1916), p. 36Google Scholar; Hülsen, , Röm. Mitt. xix (1904), 87Google Scholar, sqq. and Lanciani, , Pagan and Christian Rome, p. 136Google Scholar. There are several contemporary drawings and prints, showing the peacocks in position in the Atrium of St. Peter's; e.g., Simione Pollaiuolo, called il Cronaca (1475–1504) (in Bartoli, Monumenti di Roma, i, pl. xiv, fig. 30); Domenico Taselli (beginning of seventeenth century, see Grisar, op. cit. tan. xi, and Eagger, , Römische Veduten, i (1911)Google Scholar, pl. 25); Gio. Antonio Dosio (c. 1550; see Eagger, loc. cit. pl. 24); and the engraving of G. B. de Cavalieri (1575) given Egger, loc. cit. p. 28, fig. 17.

^{page 77 note 3} See Lanciani, , Monumenti antichi dell' Accademia Reale dei Lincei (1891) i, 437Google Scholar, sqq., and Hülsen, Röm. Mitt., 1891, p. 142.

^{page 77 note 4} C.I.L. vi, 984 to 995 inclusive.

^{page 77 note 5} Hülsen, loc. cit. and fig.

^{page 78 note 1} That Marcus Aurelius himself was interred in the Mausoleum is clear from the passage of Herodian quoted below, n. 2.

^{page 78 note 2} Cassius Dio (xxvi, 15, 4; lxxxviii, 9, 1; 24, 3, who gives Julia Domna. Septirmus Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, as being buried in the ‘Antoninium’; the Emperor Septimius Severus was certainly buried in the Mausoleum, his ashes being brought from York in two urns of gold and one of alabaster, in A.D. 211. (Herodian. 4. 1.4, ‘ἀπέθεντο (τὴν κάλπην) ἐν τῷ νεῷ ἔνθα Μάρκου τε καὶ τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ βασιλέων ἰερὰ μνήματα δείκνυται’). Cf. Jordan-Hülsen, Top. der Stadt Rom. 1, 3, 664, n. 108; and Borgatti, op. cit. p. 11.

^{page 78 note 3} Lanciani, , Destruction of Ancient Rome (1899), p. 151 (see part ii, p. 80, (no. 16) infra)Google Scholar.

^{page 78 note 4} Codex Palatin. Graec. 93, f. 47. etc., the passage is printed by Cramer, E., Anecdota Parisina, ii (1839). 396Google Scholar (cf. Jordan-Hülsen, , op. cit. i, 3, 665Google Scholar, n. 113): ἐγένετο δέ μετὰ θανάτον Ἁδριανῷ τηλικῦτον ἄγαλμα μετὰ τεθρίππου, ὤστε διὰ τοῦ ὀϕθαλμοῦ ἑκάστου ἵππου παχύτατον ἄνδρα διεῖναι Οί δὲ ἐν γῇ βαδίζοντες ἐκ τῆς ὑπερβολῆς τοῦ ὕψους τοῦ κτίσματος, αὐτοὺς δὲ τοὺς ἴππους βραχυτάτους καὶ τὸν 'Αδριανὸν νομίζουσι' κτί … Hülsen, in Boll. Ass. Arch. Rom., iii, (1913) 27Google Scholar, refuses to take the story seriously, pointing out that the little church of S. Angelus de Castro or inter nubes, which was probably founded by Pope Boniface IV, at the beginning of the seventh century (see his chiese di Roma, p. 196. no. 58 ) must have been standing on the top of the castle for a considerable time already.

^{page 81 note 1} The Mausoleum is placed with its sides almost exactly towards the cardinal points of the compass.

^{page 81 note 2} An examination of various archaeological opinions shows a great uncertainty as to the identity of the constructor of the right bank fortifications, and the same uncertainty exists even with regard to those on the left bank on this part of the Tiber. The conclusions mentioned as possible are that either Aurelian or Honorius built the walls on the right bank as a bridge-head protection, with rather more evidence that it was Aurelian who fortified the left bank. It would appear (and I believe that Dr. Ashby holds this to be most probable) that after Aurelian, the Mausoleum was still outside the main wall, but that Honorius made it into a fort projecting from the walls, having the bridge as a connexion. The whole question of the fortifications at this part of the river is a very difficult one; for a general discussion, see Tomassetti, , Campagna Romana ii, 472Google Scholar; cf. Jordan-Hülsen, , Top. der Stadt Rom., I, i, p. 385Google Scholar, seq.

Jordan identifies the Porta Aurelia (‘Porta S. Petri’) with the Porta Cornelia, holding that the passage through the fortifications of the Mausoleum was not viewed as a city gate at all. But he has not been generally followed; the Porta Aurelia is generally placed at the end of the Pons Aelius on the left bank, and the Porta Cornelia near the south-west corner of the Mausoleum. The latter gate was probably founded in the fourth century in connexion with the porticus between the Mausoleum and St. Peter's. Later the fortification were continued to the bank of the river, and the Porta Cornelia formed a passage through them.

The description of the walls in A.D. 403 shows that the Mausoleum was strongly fortified as a bridge-head: ‘in Hadrianio sunt turres VI, propugnacula CLXIIII, fenestrae maiores jorinsecus XIIII, minores XVIIII.’ (I am indebted to Dr. Ashby for much of the above note, inasmuch as he has kindly allowed me to read his MS. for the revised Platner, Topography of Rome, which is, I understand, shortly to be published).

^{page 82 note 1} See under Gio. Alberti, supra, Part ii, p. 80.

^{page 82 note 2} This inner wall is perforated on its outer face, at more or less regular intervals with small holes. These have apparently no connexion with the external stone wall which under more normal circumstances would be interpreted as indicative of the remains of the plug fastenings for a marble slab facing; but I could not find any marble or plugs in situ. This discovery would seem to suggest that the original intention of the builders was to make the inner brick wall the outside wall of the square base, and that, before some unrecorded alteration of the plan, they had already commenced the marble-work, of which we here see the remains.

^{page 82 note 3} We have noticed that Procopius mentions the ‘men and horses’ as being in marble, while the Mirabilia mentioned them as of bronze: if we could believe that they were still extant in the twelfth century, we might consider that the difference of description is due to the looseness of the language of Procopius, who gathers both the ‘men’ (statues that adorned the Mausoleum at other points) and the ‘horses’ (of the angles) together into a single phrase.

Borgatti, , Castel S. Angelo (1890), p. 200Google Scholar, note K, gives the view of Ficoroni that the ‘men and horses’ were similar to those found in the Thermae of Constantine and now in the Piazza of the Quirinal, Rome.

^{page 83 note 1} It is assumed that the horses were grouped in pairs, because if placed singly, their size to fill the position adequately would be out of scale with the rest of the building. Artioli, R., Castel S. Angelo (Rome, 1923), p. 23Google Scholar, identifies the four horses of S.Mark's, Venice, with the horses of the angles of the square base of the Mausoleum. He says their style is that of the time of Hadrian, but gives no further historical facts for the support of his hypothesis. During the European war of 1914–1918, these horses (together with many other art treasures) were housed for safety in the Castel S. Angelo.

^{page 83 note 2} The chambers are much lumbered up by fallen portions of the vaults and walls, and by the accumulated rubbish of the last fifteen years.

^{page 83 note 3} See Appendix ii (p. 99) for description of types of brickwork in the Mausoleum.

^{page 83 note 4} See C.I.L., xv, 319, for similar type, date 123 A.D.; ibid., xv, 270, is another type of same date, location in Castel S. Angelo not given; and ibid., xv, 266, brick of same date, reported by Bavari, etc., as coming from the drain which he says surrounded the Mausoleum (see his description quoted by Bunsen, in Beschr der Stadt Rom. ii (1832), i, p. 404Google Scholar, sqq.).

^{page 83 note 5} This difference of dates allows for the clearing of the site and the building of the foundations below ground (say 4 years) and the previous weathering of bricks by the makers; the latter process might occupy a period as long as five years. The date 132 thus arrived at, gives five years for the building of the Mausoleum, which was structurally complete at the death of Hadrian in 138 A.D. This would seem a somewhat short period.

^{page 84 note 1} Hadrian would be at this time able to supervise the building and design; his capriciousness, and memories of other buildings seen in his Near Eastern travels, may have influenced him to command the change in design. There is a similar (though less radical) alteration in Hadrianic work at the Villa of Hadrian near Tivoli; see Winnefeld, Hermann, ‘Die Villa des Had. bei Tivoli’ Jahrb. Arch. Inst. Berlin, Ergänzungsheft, 3 (1895), p. 30Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 2} The radial chambers are now labelled ‘Tomb Chambers’, and are called so by Borgatti. This assumption seems to lack support in the apparent absence of any decorative effect, and in the awkward and difficult shapes of most of the chambers. There are, however, traces of travertine corbels below the springing of the vaults, which may have supported flat wooden ceilings, thus helping to improve the internal appearance of the apartments.

^{page 84 note 3} See Appendix ii (p. 99), on materials, and fig. 62.

^{page 85 note 1} Similar in fact to the niches conjectured as being in a similar position in the Mausoleum of Augustus; see Lanciani, Forma Urbis, sheet 8, and restoration by Canina, Edificii di Roma Antica, iv, pls. 282–283. An investigation into this building, now being carried out by Mr. R. A. Cordingley, Rome Scholar in Architecture, seems, however, to show that the niches in the Mausoleum of Augustus were not visible externally, but were screened by a circular wall, the intervening spaces being filled with earth.

^{page 85 note 2} Lanciani, , Ruins and Excavations, p. 556Google Scholar, and Jones, Stuart, Classical Rome, p. 349Google Scholar, say that some locks of marble still remain ‘on the east side … near the Bastione di San Giovanni,’ but I have not seen them. A rather heavy growth of ivy is beginning to cover a great part of this side of the drum.

^{page 85 note 3} On the assumption that the tooled line on the stepped stones mentioned above represents the external face of the finish to the drum, the measurement from this face to the centre of the drum is calculated to be about 120 ft. 6 ins.; while the centre of radiation of the walls dividing the apartments in the square base of the Mausoleum is calculated to be at a point about 79 ft. 9 in. from the same finished face, measured on the diagonal of the square.

^{page 86 note 1} Some authorities mention the possibility of the marble head of Hadrian (now in the Castel S. Angelo hear the great niche at the end of the entrance corridor) having belonged to this figure; but it is more probable that the colossal bust of Hadrian, a fine idealized head, which once belonged to a statue, and is now in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican (no. 543: Helbig, Fübrer 1³, 292; Bernoulli, , Röm. Ikonographie, ii, 2, p. 112Google Scholar, no. 34) was formerly in the Castel S. Angelo, together with a colossal bust of Antoninus Pius, which had also belonged to a statue. Visconti (Musée Pio Clem., Milan, 1821, vi, 211Google Scholar, n. 4) tells us that the latter was in the court in the Maschio. Pius VI replaced it by another head, less well preserved and of less perfect workmanship (p. 220, n. 1), which Bernoulli (p. 112, no. 43) saw ‘in the hall painted by Giulio Romano’ —no doubt the head that is now in the Castel S. Angelo—and ordered the head of Antoninus Pius (Bernoulli, p. 143, no. 34) to be restored, and both of them to be placed in the ‘Salone.” Bernoulli further adds, that from the manner in which the lower part of the necks of these two heads are finished, it is clear that they belonged to statues, which would have been placed in the two (sic) niches of the vestibule; and that the height of the niches corresponds well enough with the colossal size which must be assumed for these statues. (It is worthy of note that, as indicated in the text, the niche at the end, and the square-headed recess in the west wall of the vestibule, are in no way similar in size or shape.)

^{page 86 note 2} See Borgatti, , Castel S. Angelo (1890), p. 180–181.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 3} Van Deman, Esther, The Atrium Vestae (1909), p. 34Google Scholar, and in Amer. Journ. of Arch. xvi (1912), 230Google Scholar, sqq. (see Appendix ii, p. 99 on materials).

^{page 86 note 4} See Bavari's description (op. cit.) and Borgatti, , Annuario di Accademia di S. Luca (1909), p. 124Google Scholar (Mausoleo d'Adriano).

^{page 86 note 5} Rodocanachi, , Le Château S. Ange (1909).Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 6} 12,000 cartloads of earth and rubble were removed from the ramp by galley slaves.

^{page 87 note 1} The plaster has been cleared to show the brickwork; this work is very similar to the standard of Hadrianic work given by Miss Van Deman, op. cit.

^{page 87 note 2} Hülsen, , ‘Mausoleo di Adriano’ in Boll. Assoc. Arch. Rom. Anno iii (1913), p. 28Google Scholar, says ‘the ventilating openings of the Tomb Chamber still exist and are well preserved’. Borgatti, op. cit., p. 24, says that these openings are original, but on his latest drawings of the Castel S. Angelo (now in the Castello), they are shown as later cuttings. Cf. Rodocanachi, op. cit., pl. 4, for the two sections belonging to this set of drawings.

^{page 88 note 1} Hülsen, op. cit., p. 4, does not accept the probability of an unlit tomb-chamber.

^{page 88 note 2} Hadrian as the Sun-god is traditionally supposed to have been the driver of the Quadriga mentioned by John of Antioch.

In the idea of darkness in the tomb-chamber and the sloping light opening towards the south, it is possible that Hadrian, who would have great interest in the building, was influenced by the Egyptian tombs, and perhaps even by the Great Pyramid of Cheops, which he undoubtedly must have seen during his Egyptian travels. With regard to the contents of the tomb-chamber, as we have already seen, there was a porphyry sarcophagus in existence in the twelfth century, which was supposed to be that of Hadrian (supra p. 77). This sarcophagus was used to contain the body of Innocent II at the Lateran (he was buried on 24th September, 1143), and was destroyed by the fire of 1308; fragments of it were seen in front of the northern door of the church by Panvino in the sixteenth century (Lauer, Le Lateran, 440, p. 176, n. 3, says that they were ‘scellés dans la façade septentrionale,’ which is a mistake). The lid is now used as a font in the first chapel on the left at S. Peter's (Ashby, , Top. Study in Rome, p. 36)Google Scholar. In as much as cremation was in vogue at the time of Hadrian, the tradition, for that reason alone, is unacceptable; and, if we suppose urns only to have been used for the remains of all those who were interred in the Mausoleum (about twenty), we may admit that it would have been possible to place them in the central tomb-chamber.

^{page 88 note 3} Bavari says also that there was a passage opening off the continued ramp, at right angles to it, towards the north. The description given definitely states that the filling of the main opening to the continued ramp is modern, but the drawing by Knapp (1825) shows it as ancient, and it is so described in the legend on the drawing. See Beschreibung, p. 419 (drawings of Castel S. Angelo by Knapp).

^{page 88 note 4} Borgatti, op. cit. (1890), p. 24 and note j, p. 200; Hülsen (Boll. Assoc. Arch. Rom. p. 31) suggests that another trial might be made notwithstanding.

^{page 88 note 5} Op. cit. p. 184. The chamber ‘G’ is room no. 30 on Borgatti's plans.

^{page 89 note 1} See section ‘O-P’ on Borgatti's drawing, op. cit., plate 27a.

^{page 89 note 2} Hülsen, , Boll. Assoc. Arch. Rom. cit. p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 3} If the walls and floors of the various prisons, water-cisterns, ‘silos,’ and oil stores here, could be tested for remains of Roman work, it would probably clear up numerous doubtful points.

^{page 90 note 1} The walls are only cleared of plaster in small patches, so that a complete idea of the decoration or construction is impossible.

^{page 90 note 2} Borgatti suggests that these openings are windows to light the chamber; but on the other hand he provides no way of ingress to the chamber. Hülsen objects to them as windows on account of the difficulty of taking a light-shaft through the earth of the funeral garden on the top of the main drum: this objection is overcome by the supposition that the openings were doors leading into the crosscorridor below the level of the earth-mound of the garden. See Hülsen, , Boll. Assoc. Arch. Rom. cit. p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 3} Borgatti, Monumenti d'Italia No. 4, Castel S. Angelo (Eng. ed. 1911) p. vi, mentions the ‘garden’ and suggests that it was planted with cypresses and holm-oaks. Borgatti's successor (the present custodian of the castle), Emilio Chiorando, in his small guide to the Castello (1921 ?), mentions the ‘garden’ as a definite fact. R. Artioli in a still later guide Castel S. Angelo (Rome 1923)Google Scholar, gives a description of the ‘garden’ as something accepted and proved.

^{page 91 note 1} Borgatti, ‘Mausoleo d'Adriano’ in Ann. dell' Acc. di S. Luca, (1909) p. 121.

^{page 91 note 2} Beschreibung, p. 411, sqq., Bavari found a drain on the south of the Mausoleum in 1825, and concluded that it continued round all four sides of the square base as shown on the drawing by Knapp.

^{page 91 note 3} Borsan in N.S. (1892), p. 420.

^{page 91 note 4} Borgatti, op. cit., p. 123. On the north side of the drunij at a level of a foot or so above modern ground level, a horizontal excavation has been made towards the centre of the Mausoleum. Sig. Chiorando, the present custodian of the castle, told me that it was commenced by the predecessor of Borgatti, and was continued by Borgatti himself; it is doubtless on the information thus obtained, in addition to that obtained in Excavation B4, mentioned in the text above, that Borgatti makes the statement regarding the internal construction of the Mausoleum.

^{page 91 note 5} Hülsen, , Boll. Assoc. Arch. Rom. cit. p. 29 f.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 1} This would be long before the present Renaissance work, and perhaps the cortili were formed by the Crescentii when they fortified the central tower, etc.

^{page 92 note 2} The mediaeval access to the upper room (now the ‘Archives Room’) may have been by an outside staircase upon which one of those now, existing may have been founded; there is no internal access from the second chamber to the ‘Archives Room’ above, even at the present time.

^{page 92 note 3} This is on the assumption that buildings on the north and south of the central ‘keep’ were founded from the earliest times of mediaeval fortification. It is probable, also, that the chapel of S. Angelo, founded as a result of the vision of Pope Gregory I, was situated very near the position of the present Chapel, that is on the south side of the central ‘keep’ (supra p. 78, n. 4).

^{page 92 note 4} See Appendix II (infra, p. 99) on materials.

^{page 92 note 5} The brickwork has been cleared on both sides and agrees with that in the upper circular room. The discovery of this Roman work in the uppermost portion of the existing Castello is due to the investigations of Borgatti (in 1903–4). See Hülsen, Jordan, Top., 13. p. 667.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} Gamucci as early as the middle of the sixteenth century asserts the Roman origin of the ‘second chamber’ (ed. 1565, p. 187).

^{page 93 note 2} op. cit., p. 31.

^{page 93 note 3} In quite a number of early paintings and drawings this tower has been shown standing above a somewhat larger square portion between it and the main drum. Cf. a view of Rome in a fresco by B. Gozzoli in S. Augustine's at S. Gimignano (1465) given in Muntz, , Antiquitis de la Ville de Rome (1886) facing p. 20Google Scholar. See also Seb. Munster's view of Rome in his Cosmografia (middle of sixteen century), given in Muntz, op. cit. facing p. 72. All similar views can be referred back to a lost engraved view of Rome by Pietro Rosselli (brother of Cosimo Rosselli), of about 1490; vide Hülsen, ; Mitt, des kunsthistorischen Inst. in Florenz, i (1900), p. 216Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 4} Given by Hülsen, in Röm. Mitt, vi (1801), p. 138Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 5} The square base for the quadriga as shown by Borgatti would be much too large for a group of suitable dimensions, by reason of the carrying up of the main lines of the second chamber. In both his restorations, the bronze groups of the angles of the lowest square base-storey, as well as the quadriga, have been shown (on the model, etc.) as being of a size much exceeding the general scale of the Mausoleum.

^{page 94 note 1} Prof. Hülsen has informed me that he thinks this is a more probable position for the statues; to place them at the top of the main drum against the sky-line, as in previous restorations, is considered not to be in keeping with the general character of Roman architecture of the period.

^{page 94 note 2} See D'Espouy, , Monuments antiques, iii, pl. 181Google Scholar; and D'Espouy, , Fragments antiques, i, pl. 32Google Scholar.

Cf. e Marucchi, Ripostelli, La Via Appia (1908), p. 139, sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 3} Lanciani in N.S., 1885, p. 190.

^{page 94 note 4} Ripostelli e Marucchi. op. cit. p 263, sqq.

^{page 94 note 5} ibid., p. 243–5.

^{page 95 note 1} See Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Tropaeum, fig. 7122, for restoration, etc.

^{page 95 note 2} See restoration by Niemann, G., in Das Monument von Adamklissi (Benndorf, Niemann and Tocilescu, 1895)Google Scholar. Cf. ‘Tropaeum Traiani’ by Franz Studniczka (1904) p. 6, (from Abh. konigl. sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, xxii, 4); Cat. Mostra Archaeologica, Roma (1911), p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 3} The left-bank road and the Via Tecta also converged on this bridge-head; see Lanciani, Forma Urbis, sheets 7 and 14. The name by which it is sometimes known, viz. Via Recta is not ancient, arising through a misreading for Via Tecta, Jordan-Hülsen, , Top. der Stadt Rom., 13, p. 503Google Scholar, n. 78.

^{page 96 note 1} Visconti, , Bull. Comm. Arch. (1893), p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} See p. 81 n. 2, supra.

^{page 96 note 3} Vita Hadriani, 19; Mirabilia etc.

^{page 96 note 4} P. 12; The author was in Rome about 1450; see on the text, C. A. Mills (1911), Brit. and Amer. Arch. Society of Rome's Monograph (1911), cap. iii, fo. 359 r.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 5} The Renaissance drawings of the bridge are enumerated with those connected with the Mausoleum.

^{page 96 note 6} Borsari, N.S., 1892, p. 412, sqq. in which is given a small plan of the excavations at this end of the bridge, together with a long description of the ‘finds,’ and a number of photographs.

^{page 96 note 7} It is possible that the end pedestals, and those over each of the main piers of the bridge, may have been occupied by sculpture. There is a medallion, of which examples exist at Paris, Madrid, Venice (Museo Correr.) and Vienna, which shows (reverse) a series of columns surmounted by figures on the main piers, with sculpture on the pedestals at the ends of the parapets of the bridge; seven arches are also shown, together with the stepped embankments of the river; the small arch nearest the left bank is, however, omitted; on the obverse of the medallion is a bust of Hadrian, with the legend Hadrianus Aug. Cos. III P.P. See Donaldson, p. 246, fig. 46; Visconti, , Bull. Comm. Arch. (1892), p. 264Google Scholar, says that the Paris example is probably false, as also is that at Vienna. Cohen, , Monnaies de l'Empire romaine, ii, p. 234Google Scholar, says that the Paris example is undoubtedly false. Cf. Gnecchi, F., Medaglioni Romani (1912), ii, 1, p. 8, no. 51, plate 42, 4Google Scholar; who concludes that, although some of these medallions are false or copies, the type of the reverse design of the bridge is genuine. I am greatly indebted to Dr. G. F. Hill and Dr. G. Macdonald for their help in specially instituting enquiries regarding the authenticity of his medallion; casts were very kindly sent over from Vienna by Dr. Kubitschek, who has great doubt as to its genuineness; similar doubt is expressed by Dr. Hill and Dr. Macdonald. The medallion has not been accepted, therefore, in the text. The treatment indicated on the medallion is, however, one which is not entirely unsound architecturally. No other coin or medallion, showing either the bridge or the Mausoleum, has been found.

^{page 97 note 1} Lanciani, , Bull. Comm. xxi (1893), p. 14Google Scholar, sqq., and plate 1; see also his Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome.

^{page 97 note 2} These bore stamps of the year A.D. 130 and were similar to that in C.I.L. xv, no. 1212; cf. Borsari, op. cit., p. 420 (see above, p. 91, n. 3).

^{page 97 note 3} Though only one is mentioned by the early writers, it is difficult to see where one could have been placed effectively. See Jordan, , Top. Stadt Rom. ii, p. 426, sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 4} Borsari, op. cit., p. 417.

^{page 97 note 5} Many other details and dimensions are given by Borsari, , N.S., 1892, p. 412Google Scholar, sqq., all of which have as far as possible been included in the restoration.

^{page 98 note 1} C.I.L. vi, 973. Our knowledge of this inscription, as of the Mausoleum inscriptions, is derived from the Einsiedeln MS. It was also copied by Dondi in 1375, ‘in capite pontis S. Petri in tabulis magnis marmoreis ex utroque latere,’ i.e., according to Lanciani, (Bull. Com. xxi, 1893, p. 19Google Scholar), and Hülsen, , (Röm. Mitt. viii, 1893, p. 323Google Scholar), on the slabs of the balustrade.

^{page 100 note 1} Deman, E. Van: The Atrium Vestae (1909) p. 34Google Scholar, and in Amer. Journal of Archaeology, xvi (1129) pp. 230, 387.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 1} It is possible that the heterogeneity of the matrix of the lower portion of the main drum is to be ascribed to the use of materials collected from previous buildings on the site (the gardens of Domitia) or in the neighbourhood; while the more homogeneous upper portion was the outcome of the exhaustion of such material, and the employment of quarried material conveyed to the site by river.