^{page 230 note 1} Röm. Mitt. 1891, p. 22.

^{page 230 note 2} v. Manilli, Villa Borghese (1650), p. 46; cf. Montelatici, Villa Borghese (1700), p. 172.

^{page 230 note 3} Louvre (Héron de Villefosse, Cat. Sommaire), Nos. 978, 1089, 1098.

^{page 230 note 4} Matz, Berl. Sitzungsberichte, 1871, p. 445.

^{page 230 note 5} Professor Hülsen tells me that these and several other leaves of this codex are by Panvinius having been intended originally for his lives of the popes. For instance f. 88 is marked Cal(ixtus) II, and Anacl(etus) II, the leaf in its present state consisting of two gummed together; f. 83 is marked Cl(emens) II, and f. 85 Ben(edictus) II and Inn(ocentius) V (?). The other leaves are not so marked but are of the same quality of paper; this applies also to the leaves on which are the drawings of the arch of Titus: v. Röm. Mitt. 1891, p. 79.

^{page 230 note 6} S. Reinach, L'album de Pierre Jacques.

^{page 230 note 7} Michaelis, Röm. Mitt. 1891, Pl. III, pp. 21 seqq.

^{page 230 note 8} Reproduced by Schulze, Arch. Zeit., 1872, Pl. I.

^{page 230 note 9} Reproduced by Hülsen, Röm. Mitt. 1889, p. 251; the pediment was engraved by Piranesi, Della Magnificenza ed Architettura de' Romani, Pl. 198.

^{page 231 note 1} No. 1178; quoted incompletely by Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi, ii. p. 124Google Scholar; the full version here given I owe to Professor Hulsen.

^{page 231 note 2} Lanciani reads fatti; Professor Hulsen is not certain what the word is, but from his copy it seems to me to read facia

^{page 231 note 3} The paper is torn at the corner.

^{page 232 note 1} Uffizi, No. 1211; Vasari, , Vite, ed. Milanesi, , 1880, v. p. 493Google Scholar. Lanciani (op. cit., loc. cit.) takes the first passage in connection with three inscriptions copied by Smetius (p. 67, 2 = C.I.L. vi. I. 1497) and Boissard (MS. pp. 410, 412 = C.I.L. vi. I. 996, 1497, 1549), and dates the excavation to 1555 according to the date given by Smetius lor the finding of one of the inscriptions. Antonio da Sangallo the younger died in 1546, so the incorrectness of Lanciani's statements is obvious.

^{page 232 note 2} v. Fabriczy, Handzeichungen Giuliano's da Sangallo, pp. 26 (f. 6^V), 51 (f. 38^V).

^{page 232 note 3} Therefore Michaelis' conjecture (Röm. Mitt. 1891, p. 20) that Marliani saw this relief amongst those parietibus inclusa in the Palazzo dei Conservatori before 1540, falls to the ground.

^{page 232 note 4} Memorie, 9.

^{page 233 note 1} For the position of the church and an explanation of the name Spoglia Cristo, see Adinolfi, , Roma nell' età di mezzo, ii. p. 55Google Scholar.

^{page 233 note 2} Lanciani, , Storia degli Scavi, ii. pp. 123, 125, 126, 161Google Scholar.

^{page 233 note 3} Pellegrini, Bull. Inst. 1863, p. 78; Visconti, , Archivio del Min. d. Belle Arti, 1863, v. I. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 233 note 4} Op. cit. i. p. 224.

^{page 233 note 5} Drawings in the Uffizi, No. 2076; cf. Lanciani, , op. cit. i. p. 224Google Scholar.

^{page 233 note 6} C.I.L. VI. i. 996, VI. iv. 2. 31215.

^{page 233 note 7} Urlichs, Codex Topographicus, p. 239.

^{page 233 note 8} Lanciani (op. cit. ii. p. 124) in commenting on this passage of Poggio says, without giving any reason for his statement, that in the Codex Vaticanus 3439 there are several drawings of the reliefs found on this occasion. In particular according to him f. 84^V represents the capture of Decebalus on a fragment from Vacca's triumphal arch. It is really a drawing of the inside face of one of the piers of the Arcus Argentariorum.

^{page 233 note 9} Antike Bildwerke in Rom, iii. No. 3518, v. below p. 243, Fig. I.

^{page 234 note 1} Antiq. Statuarum Urbis Romae icones, No. 58.

^{page 234 note 2} f. 56, v. Reinach, op. cit.

^{page 234 note 3} Bicci, Notizia della famiglia Boccapaduli, pp. 19, 20, 21.

^{page 234 note 4} Bicci, op. cit. p. 134.

^{page 234 note 5} Bicci, op. cit. pp. 115, 129.

^{page 234 note 6} Lanciani, , op. cit. ii. p. 124Google Scholar.

^{page 234 note 7} It is possible that the well known relief believed to show the pediment of the temple of Venus and Rome, now in the Museo del Terme, was also in Boccapaduli's possession. The relief was drawn by Pighius (1547–1555, v. Jahn, Sächs. Berichte, 1868, p. 161), and by the Coburgensis (1550–1554, v. Matz, Berl. Sitzungsberichte, 1871, p. 445), but was lost again till 1819, when it was found in a house near Sant' Angelo in Pescaria, also in the Ghetto and by the original home of Boccapaduli. Ashby believes the relief was the model for one of the drawings attributed to Coner (Papers B.S.R. ii. Pl. 64^b), which would imply that the relief was found about 1520. The Lateran fragment, which Petersen has proved to be the bottom part of the relief (Röm. Mitt. 1895, p. 244, Pl. V.), was according to Nibby (Roma nel 1838, parte antica, ii. p. 218) found on the site of Santa Eufemia, a church that stood close to Santa Maria in Campo Carleo. This fragment is, as Benndorf and Schoene rightly remarked (Die ant. Bild. d. Laleranischen Museums, No. 20), Trajanic in style. But the temple of Venus and Rome, which it and its fellow are supposed to represent, was built by Hadrian, and dedicated in 135, though it must have been begun earlier (v. Richter, Topog. d. S. Rom ² p. 166. Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographie, I. 3. p, 17Google Scholar). This question will be discussed below. It must be observed that, whatever the date of the finding of the first fragment, it may have been in Boccapaduli's possession, and that the second is definitely said to have come from Trajan's forum. Cf. Matz-von Duhn, op. cit. iii. No. 3519.

^{page 235 note 1} Bicci, op. cit. p. 107. 1.

^{page 235 note 2} Bicci, op. cit. p. 104.

^{page 236 note 1} Röm. Mitt. 1891, Pl. III.

^{page 237 note 1} Papers B.S.R. iii. Pl. XXIV. 3.

^{page 237 note 2} v. above, p. 232, Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 165, note.

^{page 237 note 3} For an account of the Trajanic, style see Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 280, 292Google Scholar.

^{page 238 note 1} Wickhoff, Roman Art, p. 109, Figs. 37, 38; cf. below, p. 261.

^{page 238 note 2} S. Reinach, L'album de P. J., f. 18.

^{page 238 note 3} Orestes occurs as the name of a sculptor in a Pergamene inscription; Fränkel, , Inschriften v. P. i. 75Google Scholar. For the form of the name compare M. Cossutius Kerdon and A. Sextus Eraton; Loewy, Inschriften griech. Bildhauer, 334, 376. For the introduction of the artist's signature into the relief compare the inscription on the wall-paintings from the Farnesina; Helbig, , Führer², ii. p. 221Google Scholar.

^{page 239 note 1} He also appears in the Aurelian panel representing a sacrifice before the same temple, Papers B.S.R. iii. Pl. XXVI. 7.

^{page 240 note 1} See above, p. 230.

^{page 240 note 2} For previous discussions of the pediment, see Schulze, Arch. Zeit, 1872, Brunn, , Kleine Schriften, i. p. 105Google Scholar, Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. Capitolium.

^{page 240 note 3} v. Brunn, Kleine Schriften, loc. cit. Fig. 31.

^{page 240 note 4} See above, p. 230.

^{page 240 note 5} Audollent (Mélanges d' Arch, et Hist. 1889, p. 125) criticizes this drawing adversely. It is however for a sketch exceedingly good, and compares very well with the others. To obtain an idea of Panvinius as an accurate artist, see the drawings of the arch of Titus. Cod. Vat. 3439, ff 75, 89.

^{page 242 note 1} As a mere conjecture, these may have been Ceres and Saturnus.

^{page 242 note 2} Cf. WaldsteiD, Essays on the Art of Pheidias, pp. 178 seqq.

^{page 243 note 1} Richter, Topographie d. Stadt Rom ², p. 125.

^{page 243 note 2} Cohen,² Vespasian 486, Titus 242, 243, Domitian 23, 172–174.

^{page 244 note 1} Hartwig, Röm. Mitt. 1904, Pl. IV.

^{page 244 note 2} Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae, pp. 63, 67.

^{page 244 note 3} On the composition of Greek pediments see Furtwängler, Aegina, pp. 316 seqq.

^{page 244 note 4} v. Sieveking apud Brunn-Bruckmann, 580; Strong, Roman Sculpture, Pls. XLVII, XLVIII.

^{page 244 note 5} Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 226, Fig. 1; in Les Monuments Antiques du Mttsée Napoléon, iv. (1806), Pl. 77Google Scholar, its provenance is given as Trajan's forum; Louvre, Cat. Somm. No. 412.

^{page 244 note 6} Mrs. Strong, Roman Sculpture, Pl. L., Messrs. Duckworth have most kindly lent the block for this illustration.

^{page 244 note 7} Jones, Stuart, Papers, B.S.R. iii. p. 215, Pl. XXGoogle Scholar.

^{page 244 note 8} A is 1·96 m. high (it must have been at least 2·50 m. originally; the slabs on the arch of Constantine, B I, are 3·00 m. high; the highest fragment of C is about 2·30 m. high.

^{page 244 note 9} In A the figures are 1·41 m., in B 2·27 m., and in C 1·70 m. high.

^{page 244 note 10} Museum No. 460; Benndorf-Schoene, Die ant. Bildwirke d. Lat. Museums, 223; the relief is 1·75 m. high, and the standing figure in its present state is 1·61 m. high.

^{page 246 note 1} Louvre, Cat. Somm. 992; Monumenta Matteiana, iii. p. 74, Pl. XXXVIII; from the Mattei collection it passed to that of Cardinal Fesch, thence to the Aguado collection, and afterwards came to the Louvre. H. 1·65 m.; L. 2·09 m., the whole relief was probably about 2·30 m. high originally. M. Michon writes as follows concerning it, certains indices m'ont donné la conviction que ce bas-relief devait provenir du même édifice, sans doute un arc de triomphe, que le No. 1079. No. 1079 is a relief representing five Roman soldiers. It has been much restored, but the soldiers are beardless, and their eyes are plain. The style also is Trajanic, especially in the drill ornamentation. Other Trajanic reliefs are the fragments in Turin (Memorie dei Lincei, Ser. V. Vol. viii, pp. seqq.). Similar in style also are two heads from high reliefs at Berlin (Ant. Skulpturen B. Museums, 960) and at Mantua (Museo Civico, 221, Dütschke, iv. 807).

^{page 247 note 1} v. Petersen, Röm. Mitt. 1895, p. 244, Pl. V.; v. above, p. 234, n. 1. According to the Chronica the date of its dedication was 132 or 135. In Pauly-Wissowa (i.¹p. 508, s.n. Aelius, 64) von Rhoden gives the date as 128. As Hadrian was in or near Rome from 118 to 120, from 126–128, and from 134 till his death, and most probably dedicated so important a temple himself, its dedication must fall in one of the periods given. Possibly the temple of Venus and Rome like his villa (Winnefeld, Villa Hadrians, p. 26) was begun between 126 and 128 and finished after his return in 134. For a restoration of the relief see Michaelis, Arch. Anzeiger, 1906, p. 315, Fig. 1.

^{page 247 note 2} Roma nel 1838, parte antica, ii. p. 218.

^{page 248 note 1} v. Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 244, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 248 note 2} Apollodorus was apparently still alive in 133, if Hadrian consulted him about siege operations in the Jewish revolt (v. Pauly-Wissowa, i.¹ p. 513). His adverse criticism of the temple of Venus and Rome, which is supposed to have made Hadrian execute him, was probably expressed after the temple was finished (cf. Cassius Dio, lxix. 4). If the temple was completed in 135, it is possible that Apollodorus was put to death in 136 at the time that Ursus Servianus, another Trajanic veteran, and others were executed after the adoption of Aelius Verus.

^{page 248 note 3} Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 238, Mrs. Strong also believes, following a suggestion of Petersen, that these large Trajanic reliefs do not represent the Dacian Wars already detailed on the column, but thinks they relate to the Dacian campaigns of Domitian. To me at least the reliefs appear certainly Trajanic rather than Domitianic (op. cit. pp. 149, 164).

^{page 248 note 4} Coner however thought it was decastyle: Papers B.S R. ii. p. 64 b. Professor Furtwängler tells me he believes that the temple is not decastyle and not that of Venus and Rome; but he thinks the relief is Augustan.

^{page 249 note 1} The pediment sculptures would suit either of these temples. Prof. Hülsen suggests as another possibility the temple of Mars extra portam Capenam.

^{page 249 note 2} See the plan given by Richter, op. cit. Pl. II.

^{page 249 note 3} v. Papers B.S.R. iii. Pls. XXVI. vi.

^{page 249 note 4} v. below, p. 274 and Pl. XXXVII.

^{page 249 note 5} Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 283, Fig. I.

^{page 250 note 1} v. Richter, Topographie d. S. Rom, pp. 61, 71, 318; Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographie, i. 3, p. 216Google Scholar, where it is considered probable that it may be identical with the so-called Arch of Drusus, which had originally three openings, inside the Porta Appia.

^{page 250 note 2} v. above, pp. 244 seqq.

^{page 250 note 3} v. Stuart Jones, Papers B.S.S., pp. 251 seqq.

^{page 250 note 4} Duhn, Matz-von, Ant. Bildwerke in Rom, iii. No. 3526Google Scholar.

^{page 250 note 5} Richter, op. cit. p. 349; Jordan-Hülsen, loc. cit.

^{page 250 note 6} Cod. Vaticanus, 3439, ff. 75, 89.

^{page 251 note 1} Papers B.S.R. iii. Pl. XXVI. vi; cf. Pl. XXIV. iv.

^{page 251 note 2} The ‘bird's-eye perspective’ of Trajan's column cannot be considered here, since it is an entirely different method of composition.

^{page 251 note 3} Papers B.S.R. iii. Pl. XXVI. vii, XXVII. viii.

^{page 251 note 4} Richter, op. cit. p. 349; Jordan-Hülsen, loc. cit.

^{page 251 note 5} C.I.L. vi. 1014. Also on the coins referring to this triumph Victory is seen flying over the procession and does not accompany the victors in the car, Cohen², M. Aurelius 367, Commodus 738.

^{page 251 note 6} v. page 253 seqq.

^{page 251 note 7} H. de Villefosse, Cat. Somm. 1098.

^{page 252 note 1} S. Reinach, L'Album de P. J., Pl. 17 bis.

^{page 253 note 1} The length of the reliefs is 3·89 metres.

^{page 253 note 2} v. p 250..

^{page 253 note 3} Cf. Journal Brit, and American Arch. Soc. of Rome, vol. iii. 8, p. 468.

^{page 253 note 4} Cf. ibid. p. 474.

^{page 254 note 1} v. Papers B.S.R. iii. Pls. XXIII.–XXVIII.

^{page 254 note 2} v. Pauly-Wissowa, ii.² p. 2472.

^{page 254 note 3} C.I.L. vi. 1014.

^{page 254 note 4} Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 253.

^{page 254 note 5} Jordan, , Topographic d. Stadl Rom, ii. p. 463Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 6} The arcus panis aurei in Capitolio was perhaps that of Nero; v. Tacitus, Ann. xv. 18Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 7} Mr. Stuart Jones, who has read this paper in proof, makes the following objections to the argument: (1) The inscription of M. Aurelius was in Capitolio and there was also an arch in Capitolio; it is natural to connect the two; (2) The list of arches in the Mirabilia follows the Via Lata south to S. Marco, and then gives arcus in Capitolio. The Clivus Argentarius continued the Via Lata and there was an arcus argentariorum, so again the connection is natural. Also sub monte Tarpeio (on the slope of the Capitol) might equal in Capitolio when taken vaguely; (3) S. Martina, whence the panels in the Palazzo dei Conservatori came, is on the line of the Clivus Argentarius; (4) The inscription would hardly have travelled from Trajan's forum to the Capitol unless the arch was destroyed, and yet it is represented as probable that the reliefs remained in Trajan's forum.

^{page 255 note 1} v. Helbig, , Führer, i.²559–561Google Scholar.

^{page 255 note 2} Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 215Google Scholarseqq.

^{page 255 note 3} Richter, Topographie d. Stadt Rom ², p. 173. The medallions, which probably came from the Templum Gentis Flaviae, were taken by Constantine for special reasons; v. Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 229Google Scholarseqq. The provenance of the four slabs of the frieze, which are probably Diocletianic, is unknown; v. below, p. 274.

^{page 255 note 4} lxviii. 29.

^{page 255 note 5} Donaldson, Architectura Numismatica, p. 250; Cohen² (167–169), Rossini (Archi Trionfali, p. 11), and Arndt (Brunn-Bruckmann, text to 555, 559, 560, 565) thought the medallions shown on the building of the coins to be the round reliefs on the arch of Constantine. That Jones, Stuart was right (Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 247Google Scholar) in thinking that the medallions on the coin were clipei to contain busts, is shown by the words of Sangallo quoted above (p. 231), due tonde per mettere una testa, which refer to sculpture found in Trajan's forum (cf. Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 148, note).

^{page 256 note 1} v. Hülsen, Roman Forum, pp. 66, 82, 150.

^{page 256 note 2} Richter, op. cit. p. 114.

^{page 256 note 3} Richter, op. cit. p. 112.

^{page 256 note 4} v. above, p. 255.

^{page 257 note 1} The most famous example of this is in the palace of Diocletian at Spalato, a late third century building; Adam, Ruins of Emperor Diocletian's Palace, Pl. XIII. On the development of this architectural motive, see Schulz, Jahrbuch, 1906, pp. 221 seqq.

^{page 257 note 2} Jullien, , Inscriptions de Bordeaux, i. 79Google Scholar, ii. 557, Pls. X, XI; Geymüller, Les Du Cerceau, Fig. 50, p. 107.

^{page 257 note 3} Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, p. 498, Fig. 194; cf. Fabriczy, Handzeichnungen Giuliano's da Sangallo, pp. 24, 25.

^{page 257 note 4} Jordan-Hülsen, , op. cit. I. iii. pp. 514, 545Google Scholarseqq.

^{page 257 note 5} Pauly-Wissowa, s. v.

^{page 257 note 6} Cf. Cohen,² M. Aurelius 1026, Commodus 981.

^{page 258 note 1} Helbig, i.² 564, 565; Michaelis, Röm. Mitt. 1891, p. 53; Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, p. 506; Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 236.

^{page 258 note 2} v. Richter, Topographie d. Stadt Rom, p. 261; Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographie, I. iii. p. 466Google Scholar.

^{page 258 note 3} v. Lanciani, op. cit.

^{page 258 note 4} Bull. Com., 1903, 317 sqq.

^{page 258 note 5} v. Helbig, loc. cit.; Lanciani considers the arch to have been antique and of the Antonine age (Bull. Com. 1892, pp. 18–23).

^{page 260 note 1} Cohen², 27–34.

^{page 260 note 2} Cohen², 27–34, 56.

^{page 260 note 3} Lady Evans, Numismatic Chronicle, 1906, p. 52, Pl. IV. 32; Bernoulli, , Röm. Ikonographie, ii. 2Google Scholar, Pl. XL. pp. 128 seqq.; Wace, , Journal Brit, and American Arch. Society of Home, iii. 8 p. 474Google Scholar.

^{page 260 note 4} See Bernoulli, op. cit.; Lady Evans, op. cit.

^{page 260 note 5} Cf. the base of the column of Antoninus Pius, Amelung, , Cat. Skulp. Vatican. Mus. i. p. 883Google Scholar.

^{page 260 note 6} Part of the laudatio of Matidia spoken by Hadrian, himself is preserved, C.I.L. xiv. 3579Google Scholar.

^{page 260 note 7} For these and other dates, etc. of Hadrian's reign, see Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Aelius, 64. The bearded man might be a personification of the Senate, , cf. Jahreshefte, ii. p. 179Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 1} Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 263, 1, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 2} Domaszewski, , Jahreshefte, ii. p. 179Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 3} Hülsen, Roman Forum, pp. 112 sqq.

^{page 261 note 4} Petersen, Ara Pacis Augustae, Plates.

^{page 261 note 5} Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 280, 281, Fig. 1.

^{page 261 note 6} Wickhoff, Roman Art, p. 109, Figs. 37, 38; Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 280, 281, 292.

^{page 261 note 7} Papers B.S.R. iii. Plates XXIII–XXVIII.

^{page 262 note 1} Richter, Topographie d. Stadt Rom, p. 255. Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographie i. 3. p. 605Google Scholar.

^{page 262 note 2} Richter, op. cit. p. 250. Jordan-Hülsen, op. cit. p. 620.

^{page 262 note 3} v. Amelung, op. cit. Pls. 216, 217, 218.

^{page 262 note 4} It is interesting to observe how the Hadrianic upright panel has broadened into the oblong Aurelian relief. The latter shows the group composition on a relief of the pluleus shape.

^{page 263 note 1} It is hardly likely that the Arco di Portogallo was a memorial arch to Sabina, since every extant account and drawing of the arch lead us to suppose that it was, if not a mediaeval pasticcio, built by some late emperor out of the spoils of earlier monuments. The Mirabilia always calls it Arcus Octaviani. As Poggio (De Var. Fortunae, apud Urlichs, Codex Topographicus, p. 239) apparently saw some remains of its inscription, it is quite likely that Octaviani conceals the name of its builder, a late emperor such as Gratian or Valentinian. It is probable that had the authors of the Mirabilia thought the arch to be that of Augustus they would have called it Arcus Augusti and not Arcus Octaviani. Hülsen (Jordan, , Topographic d. Stadt Rom, i. 3. p. 467Google Scholar) thinks the arch cannot have been earlier than the second century.

^{page 263 note 2} The Ustrinum Antoninorum is not mentioned by any author, and its existence was unsuspected, till it was discovered by excavation. The correct name of the Columna Antonini was also unknown till it was excavated in 1703. v. Amelung, op. cit. p. 883; Richter, op. cit. p. 255; Hülsen, Röm. Mitt. 1889, pp. 48–64; Jordan-Hülsen, op. cit. p. 603.

^{page 263 note 3} Duhn, Matz-von, Ant. Bildwerke in Rom, iii. No. 3516Google Scholar. In Murray's Central Italy and Rome (2nd ed. 1850), p. 515, it is said that the statues in the Palazzo Sacchetti were collected by Cardinal Ricci: I have been unable to find any confirmation of this statement. I am inclined to doubt it, since the same authority says Benedict XIV bought the sculptures and founded the Capitoline Museum. Clement XII, who bought the Albani collection and gave it to the Capitol, was the true founder of that Museum. I have been unable to trace any of the statues given to the Capitol by Benedict XIV to the Sacchetti Collection. Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 301.

^{page 264 note 1} Bull. Inst. 1853, p. 85; Mon. Ann. e Bull. Inst. 1854, p. 78, Pl. II.

^{page 264 note 2} vii. 5. 4.

^{page 264 note 3} v. Journal Brit, and American Arch. Soc. Rome, iii. 8, p. 476.

^{page 265 note 1} Ibid. p. 475.

^{page 265 note 2} Ibid. p. 468.

^{page 265 note 3} Bernouilli, , Röm. Ikon. II. 3. Pl. XXI. p. 51Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 1} Cf. Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 263, I, 2, 249Google Scholar.

^{page 266 note 2} Scriptores Hist. Augustae, xii. 1, 2; 7, 3; Herodian, ii. 15. 2.

^{page 266 note 3} Script. Hist. Aug. xii. 8, 1; Herodian, iii. 5. 2, cf. iii. 6. 1.

^{page 266 note 4} Script. Hist. Aug. x. 10, 3; 10, 6.

^{page 267 note 1} Script. Hist. Aug. x. 14, 3.

^{page 267 note 2} Cohen², 53, 54.

^{page 267 note 3} Script. Hist. Aug. x. 21, 11.

^{page 267 note 4} For other references to the early history of Caracallus, see Fauly-Wissowa, ii. 2, p. 2440.

^{page 267 note 5} Hülsen, Roman Forum, p. 98.

^{page 268 note 1} Helbig, ii.² 778, 779.

^{page 268 note 2} Papers B.S.R. iii. Pls. XXIII–XXVIII.

^{page 268 note 3} Cohen², M. Aurelius 75, L. Verus 159, Caracalla 273; Grueber, Roman Medallions, Pl. XLI. 6, XLVII. 2; Froehner, Médallions de l'empire Romain, pp. 154, 184, 211.

^{page 268 note 4} Richter, Topographic d. Stadt Rom, Pl. 8, a; Hülsen, Forum Romanum, pp. 84 seqq.

^{page 268 note 5} On the Diocletianic relief on the arch of Constantine (Plate XXXVI, Fig. 1) the suggestus has no knobs, but as the rostra in the companion relief (Plate XXXVI, Fig. 2) have no ships' beaks, this omission perhaps need not be taken seriously.

^{page 269 note 1} Papers B.S.R. iii. Pls. XXIII-XXVIII.

^{page 269 note 2} Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Trajanssäule, Plates; Petersen, Domaszewski, and others, Die Marcussäule, Plates.

^{page 269 note 3} Amelung, Cat. Skulp. Vat. Mils. Pl. 217.

^{page 269 note 4} E.g. the Chatsworth relief, Petersen, Röm. Mitt. 1899, Pl. VIII.

^{page 270 note 1} Only those are given who have attempted any detailed description of the scenes.

^{page 270 note 2} See his two papers in the Atti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia, 1901, pp. 107 seqq.; 1904, pp. 3 seqq; and also Bull. Comm., 1900, pp. 75–116. Cf. Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 332.

^{page 271 note 1} Sieveking (text to Brunn-Bruckmann 580) considers that the head has been worked over and made a portrait of Constantine.

^{page 271 note 2} Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. p. 251Google Scholar.

^{page 271 note 3} u. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe auf röm. Münzen, Plates II–IV. The question of the Flavian medallions does not enter into the discussion here; v. Jones, Stuart, Papers B.S.R. iii. pp. 229Google Scholarseqq.

^{page 272 note 1} L'Arc de Triomphe de Salonique, Paris, Libraire Nilsson, 1890Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 1} Camels laden with treasure, etc. are seen on the arch of Galerius at Salonica; v. Kinch, Arc de Triomphe de Saloniqtie, Pl. VIII.

^{page 273 note 2} ix. 27.

^{page 273 note 3} Kinch, op. cit. The four-wheeled cart on our relief may be the Persian harmamaxa which Kinch identifies on the arch of Galerius; v. op. cit. Pl. VII., pp. 30, 31.

^{page 274 note 1} v. Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Congiarium: they were distributed elsewhere; Commodus gave one in the Basilica Ulpia (Script. Hist. Aug. vii. 2. I).

^{page 274 note 2} Hülsen, Roman Forum, pp. 70, 72.

^{page 274 note 3} Kinch, op. cit. pp. 15, 16; Pl. IV. See however Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Draco.

^{page 275 note 1} Mommsen, Chronica Minora, p. 148.

^{page 275 note 2} Mommsen, op. cit. p. 147.

^{page 275 note 3} Fulvio, , Ant. Urbis Romae (1527), iv. p. 60Google Scholar.

^{page 275 note 4} Richter, Topographic d. Stadt Rom, p. 261; Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographic, i. 3. p. 469Google Scholar.

^{page 275 note 5} Topographia (1534), p. 136.

^{page 275 note 6} Bull. Comm. 1895, p. 46, 1; Matz-von Duhn, Ant. Bildwerke in Rom, 3525.

^{page 275 note 7} Michaelis, Jahrbuch, 1891, p. 231, 69.

^{page 275 note 8} op. cit., loc. cit.

^{page 275 note 9} Hülsen, Roman Forum, p. 95; v. Röm. Mitt. 1893, p. 281.

^{page 276 note 1} Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie, Chap. II.