ROMA. Victor. George Fabricius, of Chemnitz, autlinr of Antiquitatum Libri II., Basle, 1550, accused Pan- vinius of stealing from him; but if such was the case, he greatly improved what he purloined. Jean Jacques Boissard, of Besanfon, published at Frank- fort in 1597 a Topograpkia Romanae Urbis, which is not of much value; but the sketches in his col- lection of inscriptions have preserved the aspect of many things tiiat have now disappeared. The next work of any note is the Roma Vetus et Recens of the Jesuit Alex. Donatus of Siena, in which particular attention was paid to the illustration of Roman topography by passages in ancient authors. It was published at Rome, 1638, 4to, and also in the The- saurus of Graevius, vol. iii. But this production was soon obscured by the more celebrated work of Faminiano Nardini, the Roma Antica, which marks an epoch in Roman Topography, and long enjoyed a paramount authority. So late as the year 1818, Hobhouse characterised Nardini as " to this day the most seiTiceable conductor." (Jlist. Illustrations of Childe Harold, p. 54.) Yet, in many respects, he was an incompetent guide. He knew no Greek ; he took the works of the pseudo-Regionaries for the foundation of his book; and it is even afiirmed that, though he lived in Rome, he had never visited many of the buildings which he describes. (Bunsen, Vor- rede ztir Beschreibung , p. xxsix.) His work was published at Rome, 1668, 4to; but the best edition of it is the 4th. edited by Nibby, Rome, 18)8, 4 vols. 8vo. There is a Latin translation of it in Graevius, vol. iv. In 1680, Raphael Fabretti, of Urhino, secretary to Cardinal Ottoboni, published a valuable vfork, De A quaeduciibtis, which will also be found in the same volume of Graevius. Towards the end of the 17th century two learned French Benedictines, jMabillon and Montfaucon, rendered much service to Roman topography. Ma- billon first published the Anonymus Einsiedlensis in his Analecta (vol. iv. p. 50, seq.). Montfaucon, who spent two years and a half in Rome (1698 — 1700), inserted in his Diarium Italkum a descrip- tion of the city divided into twenty days. The
- 20th chapter contains a copy of the Mirabilia. In
1687 Olaus Bon-ichius published a topographical sketch of Rome, according to the Regions. It is in the 4th Volume of Graevius. The work of the Mar- quis Ridolfino Venuti, entitled Accurata e succinta Descrizione Topograjica delle Antichita di Roma (Roma, 1763, 2 vols. 4to.), is a book of more pre- tensions. Venuti took most of his work from Nar- dini and Piranesi, and the new matter that he added is generally erroneous. The 4th edition by Stefano Piale, Rome, 1824, is the best. Francesco Fico- roni's Vestigia e Rariia di Roma Antica (Roma, 1744, 4to.) is not a very satisfactory performance. The most useful portions of it luave been inserted in the Miscellanea of Fea (part i. pp. 118 — 178). The work of our countryman Andrew Lumisden, Remarks on the Antiquities of Rome and its En- virojis (London, 1797, 4to.) was, in its day, a book of some authority. Jlany valuable observations on Roman topography are scattered in the works of the learned Gaetano Marini, and especially in his Attl f/e' Fratelli Arvali ; but he treated the subject only incidentally. The same remark applies to Visconti. The Roma descritta ed illvstrata (Roma, 1806, 2 vol. 4to.), of the Abbate Guattani is the parent of most of the modern guide books. Antonio Nibby luis published several useful works on Roman topo- graphy, which, if sometimes deficient in accurate ROMA. 853 scholarship, display nevertheless considerable acute- ness and knowledge of the subject. His principal works are, Del Foro Romano, della Via Sacra, tjc. Roma, 1819, 8vo. ; Le Mura di Roma, discgnate da Sir W. Gell, ilhistr. da A. Nibby, Roma, 1820- and his Roma Antica, published in 1838. Sir Wm. Gell's Topography of Rome and its Vicinity (2nd Edit., revised and enlarged by Bunbury, Lon- don, 1846) contains some useful information. The Miscellanea flologica, critica ed antiquaria (Rome, 1 790), and the Nuova Descrizione di Roma (Rome, 1820, 3 vols. 8vo.), by Carlo Fea, are useful works. Hobhouse's nistr/ricul Illustrations of Childe Harold, with Dissertations on the Ruins of Rome (London, 2nd ed. 1818, 8vo.) are chiefly valuable for their ac- count of the gradual destruction of the city. The works of two other Englishmen are now out of date viz. Edward Burton's Description of the Antiqui- ties of Rome (Oxf. 1821 ; London, 1828, 2 vols. 8vo.); and the Rev. Richard Burgess's Topography and Antiquities of Rome (London, 1831, 2 vols. 8vo.). P'orsyth's Italy is of little service for Rome. Sachse's Geschichte mid Beschreibung der alten Stadt Rom (Hanover, 1824—1828, 2 vols. 8vo.), though still in some respects a useful production, must now be regarded as superseded by more recent works. We are now arrived at the Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, with which may be said to commence the modern epoch of Roman topography. This work was projected in 1817 by some German literati then residing at Rome, among whom were the present Chevalier Bunsen, and Ernst Plainer, Kduard Gerhard and Wilhelm Rostell. They were joined by the celebrated historian B. G. Niebuhr, who imdertook the superintendence of the ancient part ; for the scheme of the book embraced a com- plete description of the modern city, with all its treasures of art, besides an account of ancient Rome. It is, however, of course only with the latter that we are here concerned, which was undertaken by Niebuhr. Btmsen, and subsequently L. Urlichs. Niebuhr's connection with the work was not of long duration, and only a few of the descriptions are from his hand, which form the most valuable portion of the book. The views of the German scholars threatened a complete revolution in Reman topography. They seemed to have come to Rome with the express design of overturning the paper city, as their ancestors many centuries before had subverted the stone one. In extent and accuracy of erudition they were far superior to their Italian antagonists ; but this advantage is often more than counterbalanced by that want of sober and critical good sense which so frequently mars the produc- tions of German scholars. They have succeeded in throwing doubt upon a great deal, but have esta- blished very little in its place. To Piale, and not to the Germans, belongs the merit of having re- established the true situation of the forum, which may be considered as the most important step in the modern topography of Rome. The German views respecting the Capitol, the comitium, and several other important points, have found many followers ; but to the writer of the present article they appear for the most part not to be proved ; and he has endeavoured in the preceding pages to give his reasons for that opinion. It cannot be denied, however, that the appearance of the Beschreibung did good service to the cause of Roman topography, by awakening a sharper and more extended spirit of inquiry. The first voluniu 3 I 3
