854 EOilA. appeared at Stuttgard in 1829, the last in 1842. As a literary pruducti(}n — we are speakinc; of coarse of the ancient parts — it is of little service to the scholar. The descriptions are verbose, and tlie ancient ones being intermingled with the modern have to be sought through a voluminous work. A still graver defect is the almost entire absence, especially in the earlier volumes, of all citation of authorities. At this period in the history of Roman topography W. A. Becker, paid a short visit to Rome. Becker took up the subject of his researches as a point of national honour; and in his first tract, De Romae Veteris Muris atqiie Portis (Leipzig, 1842), devoted two pages of the preface to an attack upon Canina, whom he suspected of the grave offence of a want of due reverence for German scholarship. But with an inborn pugnacity his weaponswere also turned against his own countrymen. Amid a little faint praise, tiie labours of Bunsen and Urlichs were censured as incomplete and unsatisfactory. In the following year (1843)Beckerpublished the firstvolume oihsIIand- biich del- Romischen Alterthiimer, containing a view of the topography of Rome. A review of his work by L. I'relier, which appeared in the Neice Je- nakche Allijemeine Literatur-Zeitung, though writ- ten with candour and moderation, seems to have stung Becker into fury. He answered it in a pamphlet entitled Die Romische Topographie in Rom, eine Warming (Leipsig, 1844), in which he accused Preller of having taken up the cudgels in flivour of Canina, though that gentleman is a mode- rate adherent of the German school of topographers. Nothing can exceed the arrogant tone of this pam- phlet, the veiT title of which is offensive. It was answered by Urlichs in his Rotmsche Topographie in Leipzig (Stuttgart, 1845), in which, though Becker well deserved castigation, the author adopted too much of the virulent and personal tone of his adversary. The controversy was brought to a close by a reply and rejoinder, both written with equal bitterness; but the dispute has served to throw light on some questions of Roman topography. In a purely literary point of view, Becker's Iland- buch must be allowed to be a very useful production. His views are arranged and stated with great clear- ness, and the constant citation of authorities at the bottom of the page is very convenient to the stu- dent. The writer of this article feels himself bound to acknowledge that it would not have been pos- sible for him to have prepared it without the as- sistance of Beckers work. Nevertheless he is of opinion that many of Becker's views on the most important points of Roman topography are entirely erroneous, and that they have gained acceptation only from the extraordinary confidence with which they are asserted and the display of learning by which they are supported. Amongst other Ger- man topographers we need only mention here L. I'relier, who has done good service by some able papers and by his useful work on the Regions of Augustus (/>(« Regionen der Stadt Rom, Jena, 1846, 8vo.). We may add that the English reader will find a succinct and able sketch of the views of the German school, and particularly of Becker, in a series of very valuable papers by Mr. Bunbury, pub- lished in the Classical Museum, (vols. iii. iv. and v.). We shall close this list with the names of two modern Italian topographers. Between the years 1S20 and 1835, Stefano Piale published some very useful dissertations on various points of Roman to- EOMA. pni^raphy, among which the following uiay be par- ticularly mentioned: Delle Porte settcntrionuli del Recinto di Servio; Delle Porte orientali, delle meri- dionali, e di quelle del Monte Aventino delta stessu cinta ; Delia grandezza di Roma al tempo di Plinio; Del Foro Romano; DcUe Miira Aurellane; e degli antichi ArsenuU delti Xaralia, tfc. But at the head of the modern Italian school must be placed the Commendatore, Luigi Canina. Canina has a real enthusiasm for his subject, which, from his profession, he regards from an architectural rather than a philological point of view; and this, combined with the advantages of a residence at Rome, goes far to compensate the absence of the profounder, but often unwieldy, erudition of the Germans. The later editions of his works have been freed from some of the errors which disfigured the early ones, and contain much useful in- formation, not unmixed sometimes with erroneous views; a defect, however, which in a greater or less degree must be the lot of all who approach the very extensive and very debatable subject of Roman topo- graphy. Canina's principal works are the Indica- zione topografica di Roma antica, 4th ed. Rome, 1850, 8vo. ; Del Foro Romano e sue Adjacenze, 2nded. 1845; and et-pecially his magnificent work in four large folio volumes entitled Gli Edifizi di Roma antica, with views, plans, and restorations. It now only remains to notice some of the prin- cipal maps and otlier illustrations of Rome. The Florentine San Gallo, who flourished in the 15th century, drew several of the most remarkable monu- ments. The sketches and plans of Antonio Labacco, executed at the beginning of the 16th century, are valuable but scarce. We have already mentioned that Raphael designed, or thought of designing, a plan of the restored city. This plan, if ever exe- cuted, is no longer in existence ; but a description of it will be found in a letter addressed by Castiglione to Pope Leo X. (Published in the works of Cas- tiglione, Padua, 1733. There is a translation of it in i Beschreibung , o. . p. 266, seq.) Serlioof Bologna, architect to Francis I., gave many plans and sketches of ancient Roman buildings in the 3rd book of his work on architecture (Venice, 1544, fob), to which, however, he added restorations. Leonardo Buffalini's great plan of Rome, as it was in 1551, was most important for Roman topography. It was drawn on wood in 24 plates; but unfortunately all that now remains of it is an imperfect copy in the Barberini palace. Pirro Ligorio and Bernardo Ga- nmcoi published several views in Rome about the middle of the 16th century. In 1570 appeared the great work of Palladio, Libri IV. dell' Ai-chitettura, cjr. (Venice, fob), in the 4th book of which are several plans of ancient temples; but the collection is not so rich as that of Serlio. Scamozzi's Discorsi sopra le Antichita di Roma (Venice, 1852, fol.) contains some good views, but the letter-press is in- significant. In 1574 Fulvius Ursinus assisted the Parisian architect Du Pdrac in drawing up a plan of the restored city, which was published in several sheets by Giacomo Lauro. It is erroneous, incom- plete, and of little service. Of much more value are the views of ancient monuments published by Du Perac in 1573, and republished by Lossi in 1773. In the time of Du Pe'rac several monuments were in existence which have nov? disa])peared, as the forum of Nerva, the Scptizoninm, and the trophies of Marius. The sketches of Pietro Santi Bartoh, first pubhshed in 1741, are clever but full of mannerism.
