EXPLANATION OF THE MAP OF THE AQUEDUCTS
2. However, so that no one can object that I had made the aforementioned Map as a flight of fancy, I deem it appropriate in this regard to caution that I, having on the basis of ancient Writers as well as the extant remains of ancient buildings and the fragments of the ancient Map of Rome reproduced at the beginning of the Volume, made a large iconographic Plan of ancient Rome that I will soon publish, in which the definitive locations of the buildings, the Gates of Rome, and the Gardens have been established, and near which, according to Frontinus, the Aqueducts passed. From this same Plan, through which the perimeter of the 14 ancient regions of Rome becomes clear, regions which are mentioned by the same Author and which correspond completely with the Indexes by Victor and Rufus, I have been able to derive with confidence, and free from any imposture, the progression of the same Aqueducts.
3. I would also have liked to have been able to describe all of the Fountainheads that distributed water throughout the City, and, in consequence, to point out the innumerable distributions of the same water to every reservoir and fountain: but since neither Frontinus, nor any of the other ancient Writers define such places, I am therefore content to have been able to determine them with respect to each of these aforementioned Regions.
4. And it seems to me that for the explanation of the Map itself, and for the understanding of the true ancient progression of the Aqueducts shown therein, nothing could help more than what Frontinus has left us written in this regard; therefore, it will be the merit of this Work to reproduce his Commentary here in the Compendium, translated from the Latin into the vulgar tongue with complete accuracy, and maintaining its very same order, so that the friendly reader can compare it concerning the areas near and within Rome with the indications that can be read in the same Map.
5. Thus Frontinus writes: “For 441 years, the Romans were happy with the use of the water from the Tiber, from wells, and from the springs of the City. The memory of the springs is still held in holy reverence, for the fact that they are believed to heal the sick, as C. Marinus Apollinaris recalls. Afterwards, distributed in Rome were the Aqueducts APPIA, ANIONE VECCHIO, MARCIA, TEPULA, GIULIA, VERGINE, ALSIETINA which is also called Augusta, CLAUDIA, and ANIONE NUOVO (1).
6. “Under the consulate of Marcus Valerius Maximus and of Publius Decius Mus, that is 31 years after the beginning of the Samnite War, the Acqua Appia was brought into the city by the Censor Appius Claudius Crassus … It started in the Field of Lucullus between the seventh and eight milestone of the Via Prenestina, deviating 780 paces to the left. The aqueduct, from start to finish, that is, until the Salinae near the Porta Trigemina, is 11 miles and 190 paces in length. It proceeds underground for a stretch of 11 miles and 130 paces, and for the remaining 60 paces continues above ground through substructures and arches near the Porta Capena (2). This Aqueduct, near the Speranza Vecchia on the border of the Orti Torquaziani, is joined by a branch called Augusta (3) added as a supplement to the Appia by Augustus: for which the place where they joined was called the Twins (4). This branch is drawn from a spring at the sixth milestone of the Via Prenestina, deviating at this point 980 paces to the left, which arrives near the Via Collazia. The Aqueduct, from its source to the Twins, continues in a channel underground for 6 miles and 380 paces. The Appia then began to distribute water at the foot of the Clivus Publicius near the Porta Trigemina in the place called the Salinae (6).
7. “Forty years after the Acqua Appia was constructed, that is, 481 years from the founding of Rome, under the Consulate of Spurious Carvilius and Lucius Papirius, the Censor Manius Curius Dentatus … was contracted to assist with the Aqueduct now called the ANIONE VECCHIO, with funds from the spoils taken in the war against Pyrrhus. And two years later ... Curius was dead ... and this Aqueduct was completed by Fulvius Flaccus. The Anione Vecchio was derived from the river of the same name, that is, north of Tivoli, 20 miles from Rome …The course of this Aqueduct is 43 miles long, due to its winding path, which needed to be levelled. It proceeds 42 miles and 779 paces underground and passes 221 paces above ground through substructures (7) …
8. “In the 612th year of Rome, under the consulate of Gaius Laelius and Quintus Servilius, the Acqua Marcia was distributed to the Campidoglio by the Praetor Quintis Marcius, a Judge regarding differences between Citizens and Foreigners ... This Aqueduct started 36 miles from Rome, proceeded along the Via Valeria, and deviated 3 miles to the right, which is the same as saying 36 miles from Rome, proceeding along the Via Sublacense ... and deviating from a point 200 paces to the left. The Aqueduct of the Marcia from its source to Rome is 61 miles and 710 and a half paces in length, that is 54 miles and 247 and a half paces in a channel underground, and 7 miles and 463 paces above ground, and in several places ... at a distance from Rome, there are 463 paces of arches: and close to Rome, that is from the seventh mile, one counts 528 paces of substructures, and 6 miles and 472 paces of arches (8).
9. “In the 627th year of Rome, the Consuls Marcus Plautius Hypsaeus and Flavius Flaccus, and the Censors Gnaeus Servilius Caepio and Lucius Cassius Longinus, brought the Water called the TEPULA to Rome and the Campidoglio, from the Lucullan Field, or, as some believe, the Tusculan. This Tepula started 10 miles from Rome, proceeding along the Via Latina, and deviating for a stretch of 11 miles to the right. It was constructed in Rome from a particular source. However, in the 729th year of Rome, under the second Consulate of Emperor Caesar Augustus, and the consulate of Lucius Volcatius, Marcus Agrippa, when serving as aedile, tapped, 12 miles from Rome, proceeding along the Via Latina, and deviating from a point 2 miles to the right, the Aqueduct of the GIULIA, called thus by Agrippa in honor of Augustus, and to this he added the Tepula, diverting it from the aforesaid particular source. The Aqueduct of the Giulia is 15 miles and 426 paces in length, among which 7 miles are above ground, and from the seventh mile 528 paces of substructures, and 6 miles and 472 paces of arches (9) ...
10. “The same Agrippa, having already been Consul for the third time, that is, under the Consulate of Gaius Sentius and Quintis Lucretius, thirteen years after he had constructed the Aqueduct of the Acqua Giulia, also brought the Aqueduct of the Acqua VERGINE to Rome, called thus because a Young Virgin had shown some Soldiers looking for water the springs, which were accordingly unearthed by Diggers who found a great supply of water. The Painting in the small Chapel near the spring illustrates how this aqueduct was discovered. It was constructed in swampy areas through an enclosure, or rather a wall made of mortar and bricks, constructed in the Segni territory. The Aqueduct began 8 miles from Rome, proceeding along the Via Collazia, and it was augmented by many springs for a stretch of 14 miles and 505 paces in an underground channel, and one mile and 240 paces of substructures in several places, and 700 paces of arches (10).
11. “Caesar Augustus then ... brought to Rome the Aqueduct of the ALSIETINA, called Augusta, perhaps to use it for the Naumachia he constructed beyond the Tiber. Regarding its surplus, it was left for watering the gardens and for the use of Private citizens, since the water of this Aqueduct was unhealthy and was not fit for domestic use by the People unless strictly necessary, when, for example, the waters from the other bank of the Tiber were unavailable due to the restoration of bridges. The Aqueduct drew from the Alsietinian Lake, 14 miles from Rome, proceeding along the Via Claudia, and deviating to the right for a stretch of 6 miles and 500 paces. The Aqueduct is 22 miles and 572 paces in length, including 358 paces of arches (11).
12. “The same Augustus, seeing that there was a need to supply water in times of drought when the level of the Acqua Marcia was low, had, through an underground channel, brought another supply of water of equally good quality, also called the AUGUSTA. Its source was born from the spring of the Marcia, and its Aqueduct is 800 paces up to its junction with the Marcia.
13. “In the 789th year of Rome, under the Consulate of Marcus Aquila Julianus and Publius Nonius Asprenas, Gaius Caesar Caligula, in the second year of his Reign ... began two other Aqueducts, the work of which was later completed with the greatest magnificence and dedicated to Claudius under the consulate of Sulla and Titianus in the 803th year of Rome on the first of August. One of these Aqueducts, which proceeded from the Caerulean and Curtian springs, was called CLAUDIA, which equaled the Marcia in its abundance. The other one, taller than all the Aqueducts, started to be called the ANIONE NUOVO to distinguish it from the previous Anione, to which the name Vecchio was added. The Claudia started 38 miles from Rome, proceeding along the Via Sublacense and deviating to the left for a stretch of 300 paces. The Claudia also received water from a spring called the Albudina, which is so great that, when needed, it also supplemented the Marcia without affecting its quality. The Spring of the Augusta first joined with the Marcia, but then was later joined with the Claudia, since it was recognized that the Marcia was enough on its own, although a canal of the Augusta remained available to the Marcia in case it was needed. The Aqueduct of the Claudia is 46 miles and 230 paces in length in an underground channel, and 10 miles and 176 paces above ground, including 3 miles and 76 paces of arches at various points outside Rome, and from the seventh mile toward Rome, 609 paces of substructures, and 6 miles and 491 paces of arches (12). The Anione Nuovo derived from the river Anione ... 42 miles from Rome proceeding along the Via Sublacense. At the entrance to the Aqueduct there was a limestone pool that is between the river and the aqueduct channel, for the purification of water ... It joins with the Herculean Brook the source of which is near the area of the Acqua Claudia’s spring, on the other side of the river and the aforesaid Via Sublacense, or 38 miles from Rome proceeding along the same Street. The Aqueduct of the Anione Nuovo is 58 miles and 700 paces in length, including 49 miles and 300 paces of underground channel, and 9 miles and 400 paces of channel above ground, which includes a stretch of 2 miles and 300 paces of substructures and arches at various points outside Rome, and from the seventh mile toward Rome, 609 paces of substructures, and 6 miles and 391 paces of arches (13) which are very high, in some places reaching 109 feet in elevation.
14. “Such vast and impressive structures, indispensable for the Aqueducts of so many waters, are certainly more worthy of appreciation than even the Pyramids of Egypt or, indeed, the famous, yet completely frivolous and useless Works of the Greeks!
15. “All the aforesaid Aqueducts reached the city at different heights, hence, some flow from higher ground and others cannot rise as much, especially those on the hills that have grown higher with the ruins of Buildings caused by frequent fires. There are five that tower over every point of the City, and among these some flow with more force, and others with less. The tallest of them all is the Anione Nuovo. The Claudia is in second place, the Giulia third, the Tepula fourth, the Marcia fifth ... the Anione Vecchio sixth ... the Vergine seventh, the Appia eighth ... and the Alsietina is last (14) …
16. “There are six of them that, at the seventh milestone of the Via Latina, flow into covered pools for purification ... Among these the Marcia, the Tepula, and the Giulia which, from the aforesaid pools, are carried over the same Arches. The highest channel of these is the Giulia: at the middle is the Tepula: and the lowest is the Marcia. All three of these Waters flow underground toward the Viminal Hill and reach as far as the Gate of the same name, where they emerge again (15). The first part of the Giulia (16) flowed into different Castella in the Speranza Vecchia quarter and was distributed up to the Caelian Hill. Part of the Marcia behind the Gardens of Pallas (17) also descended to the Caelian Hill through a brook called Herculean which, because of its profound depth, does not administer water to the Hill and terminates beyond the Porta Capena (18).
17. “The Aqueducts of the Anione Nuovo and the Claudia also flowed to Rome from the aforementioned pools over a similar set of Arches, which were higher than the other Aqueducts, and through separate streams, with the Anione Nuovo being the highest. Their arches terminate behind the Orti Pallanziani (19), and then the water flows by means of pipes for use in the City. However, near the Speranza Vecchia, part of the Claudia proceeds through the Neronian arches, which flows toward the Caelian Hill and terminates near the Temple of Claudius (20). A quantity of water is distributed around the Caelian Hill itself, as well as on the Palatine and Aventine Hills, and in the Region beyond the Tiber.
18. “There, at the fourth milestone, the Anione Vecchio ... also has a pool. Then, within the second milestone, a part of the water of the same Anione, proceeding along a channel called Ottaviano, reaches the quarter of the Via Nuova near the Orti Asiniani (22) and is distributed in that area. The main aqueduct then, coming from inside the Porta Aquilina and proceeding along the Speranza Vecchia area, branches off into other waterways throughout the city (23).
19. “The Vergine, Appia, and Alsietina do not have pools. The arches of the Vergine begin below the Orti Luciliani (24) and terminate in the Campus Martius along the facade of the Saepta (25). The Aqueduct of the Appia, passing underneath the Caelian and Aventine Hills, as we have said (26), reemerges at the bottom of the Clivus Publicius. The Aqueduct of the Alsietina terminates behind the Naumachia, for which it seems to have been made (27).
20. “Having given an account of the authors of all the aforementioned Aqueducts, the years in which they were built, the journey and length of their channels, it seems to me that I should add how much water is distributed not only for private use and requirements, but also for pleasure, and the means by which it was distributed through the many castella and in which Regions; how much is used within and outside Rome, that is, how much was distributed to the reservoirs, how much for spectacles, how much for public works, how much in the name of Caesar, and how much for private use. But before discussing the Quinaria ... by which the distribution of water is measured, I consider it reasonable to indicate what type of measurement it is and to trace its origin.
21. “Some think that it was invented by Agrippa, and others by the lead-workers upon Vitruvius's suggestion. Those who credit Agrippa as the inventor assert that it was first used for the distribution of water when it was scarce: five small quantities, all of which were united into one pipe, for which it was called the Quinaria. Those who credit Vitruvius, and the lead-workers, as the inventor, believe it was so named for a lead sheet five digits wide, which, having been made into a round shape, comprised the measurements of this pipe ... However, the most probable reason for it being called Quinaria is from its diameter of 5 quadrants ...
22. “All of the Aqueducts described in the Imperial Records amounted to 12755 Quinariae, and the total distribution amounted to 14018: so that there were 1263 Quinariae more being distributed than was available in reserve ... Hence, it was necessary to measure each Aqueduct, ... and thus it was discovered that they amounted to ten thousand more than what was written in the Records ... which happened due to fraud, not only by the fountaineers who had diverted the water for private use, but also by the owners of the fields where the waters passed, digging them up for their streams ...
23. “Now it must be mentioned how the 14018 Quinariae of water, noted in the Records, were distributed ... Of these, therefore, 4063 are distributed for use outside Rome, that is, 1718 in the name of Caesar and 2345 among private parties. The remaining 9955 were distributed to 247 Castella, giving 1707 ½ Quinariae in the name of Caesar: 3847 Quinariae to private parties, and 4401 for public use, that is to say, 279 Quinariae to 19 camps, 2401 Quinariae to 95 public works, 386 Quinariae for 39 areas dedicated to Spectacles and games, and 1335 Quinariae for 591 reservoirs.
24. “This distribution, however, is made only for the Regions in the name of each Aqueduct, so that, increasing the total to 14018 Quinariae, as we have made clear, only 5 Quinariae are given in the APPIA’s name outside the City, since the water could not be drawn from the low level of the Aqueduct. The remaining 699 Quinariae are divided in portions and distributed within Rome THROUGHOUT THE REGIONS II, VIII, IX, XI, XII, and XIV, IN XX CASTELLA, from which 151 Quinariae are given in the name of Caesar; 194 Quinariae for private use, 354 Quinariae for public use, that is 3 Quinariae to one camp, 123 Quinariae to 14 public works, 2 Quinariae to an area dedicated to Spectacles, and 226 Quinariae to 92 reservoirs.
25. “The ANIONE VECCHIO distributed outside Rome, 104 Quinariae in the name of Caesar and 404 for private parties: and 1102 ½ were left and divided within the City THROUGHOUT REGIONS I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIV, IN XXXV CASTELLA, from which were distributed 60 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, 490 Quinariae for private parties, 552 Quinariae for public use, that is 40 Quinariae to one camp, 196 Quinariae to 16 public works, 88 Quinariae for 9 areas dedicated to Spectacles, and 218 Quinariae to 94 reservoirs.
26. “The MARCIA distributed outside Rome 269 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, and 568 for private parties, 1098 Quinariae were left and divided within the City THROUGHOUT REGIONS I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XIV, IN LI CASTELLA, from which were distributed 116 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, 593 Quinariae for private use, and 439 Quinariae for public use, that is, 41 Quinariae to 4 camps, 41 Quinariae to 15 public works, 104 Quinariae to 12 areas dedicated to Spectacles, and 253 Quinariae to 113 reservoirs.
27. “The TEPULA distributed outside Rome 58 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, and 56 to private parties, and the remaining 331 Quinariae were divided within the city THROUGHOUT REGIONS IV, V, VI, and VII, IN XIV CASTELLA, from which were distributed 34 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, 247 Quinariae for private use, and 50 Quinariae for public use, that is 12 Quinariae to one camp, 7 Quinariae to 3 public works, and 31 Quinariae to 13 reservoirs.
28. “The GIULIA distributed outside Rome 85 Quiriniae in the name of Caesar, and 121 Quinariae to private parties, and the remaining 597 Quinariae were divided within Rome THROUGHOUT REGIONS II, III, V, VI, VIII, X and XII, in XVII CASTELLA from which were distributed 18 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, 196 Quinariae to private parties, and 339 Quinariae for public use, that is 69 Quinariae for three camps, 182 Quinariae to 10 public works, 67 Quinariae to three areas dedicated to Spectacles, and 65 Quinariae to 28 reservoirs.
29. “In the Vergine’s name were distributed outside Rome 200 Quiriniae, and the remaining 2304 Quinariae were divided in Rome THROUGHOUT REGIONS VII, IX, and XIV, IN XVIII CASTELLA, from which were distributed 909 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, 338 Quinariae to private parties, and 1417 Quinariae for public use, that is, 26 Quinariae to 2 areas dedicated to Spectacles, 61 Quinariae to 25 reservoirs, 1330 Quinariae to to 16 public works, including 440 Quinariae that filled the basin for which the name of the Aqueduct is given.
30. “392 Quinariae are distributed by the Alsietina. This is all consumed outside Rome, that is 254 Quinariae in the name of Caesar and 138 Quinariae for private parties (28).
31. “The CLAUDIA and ANIONE NUOVO distributed from separate channels outside Rome; within Rome they mixed. The Claudia distributed outside Rome 217 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, and 439 Quinariae to private parties. The Anione Nuovo, 731 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, and 414 to private parties. The remaining 3824 Quinariae of both Aqueducts were divded within Rome THROUGHOUT THE REGION XIIII IN XCII CASTELLA, from which were distributed 779 Quinariae in the name of Caesar, 1839 Quinariae to private parties, and 1206 Quinariae for public use, that is, 104 Quinariae to 9 camps, 522 Quinariae to 18 public works, 99 Quinariae to 12 areas dedicated to Spectacles, and 481 Quinariae to 226 reservoirs.
32. “The aformentioned quantity of water continued to be distributed in the manner described up until the time of Emperor Nerva Trajan, but now, the providence of this most diligent Ruler has increased the quantity which had been corrupted by the fraud of the fountaineers, or by the fault of the Aqueducts, so that it seems that, having acquired new sources and provided Rome with abundant water, having then made such an exact distribution of them so that the Regions were supplied even more than the usual waters, especially the Caelian and Aventine Hills, where only the Acqua Claudia had flowed across Neronian Arches, such that when the Aqueduct was repaired, these most celebrated hills suffered a drought. Now, they are supplied by more Waters, especially the Marcia, which, by means of a vast network, flows from the Caelian Hill to the Aventine Hill. In all parts of the city, the reservoirs, both new and old, have two Founts of different Waters, so that if accident should impede either of them, the other would supply the deficit.” ... Here ends Frontinus.
FOOTNOTES
(1) Regarding the Aqueducts of all these Waters, there are today various remains inside Rome, referenced in the general Index of the Ruins of Ancient Rome.
(2) These 60 paces of arches are distinguished in the Map at number 1 near the same Gate, also noted there among those part of the most ancient perimeter of city walls.
(3) There were three Aqueducts called Augusta by Frontinus, that is, the Alsietina: the other was added to supplement the Marcia, and is here described; however, all three derive from different sources, as one will see further below at 11 and 12.
(4) The Orti Torquaziani are outlined in the Map at number 2 through a sustained consultation of the ancient Writers regarding their specific location (as one will see in the large Ichnographic Map of Ancient Rome which I will soon publish), and this is in order to determine the location of the Twins, and of the aforementioned place where they are joined at number 3.
(5) One observes the difference in origin of this branch of the Augusta from the other two branches, which are referenced below at said 11 and 12.
(6) This Street can be seen labeled in the Map at number 4, as is the neighborhood of the Salinae and the Porta Trigemina among the most ancient perimeter of city walls.
(7) These 221 paces of substructures are indicated in the Map between numbers 5 and 6 for the reasons deduced in the General Index on the Ruins of Ancient Rome under number 20.
(8) One can see part of the arches in the Map from numbers 7 and 8, extending along the traces of their extant remains, demonstrated in the General Index of ancient Rome at numbers 20, 23, 117, 118, 119, and 120.
(9) From the seventh milestone toward Rome, the Aqueduct of the Giulia was the same as that of the Tepula and the Marcia, as one will see at 9 and 16, and as we have demonstrated in the General Index of the Ruins of Ancient Rome at the aforementioned numbers 20, 23, 117, 118, 119, and 120.
(10) These paces of Arches are demonstrated in the Map from number 9 to 10. That they were in the location marked in the Map, it is sufficient to show the form of one of their parts among the Ruins of Ancient Rome at numbers 72 and 73 of the General Index. The progression, then, of this Aqueduct noted in the Map with the numbers 10, 11, and 12, is known to all the current Fountaineers of Rome.
(11) These arches are demonstrated in the Map from number 13 to 14, attested by the extant remains to which they correspond.
(12) Part of these arches, up to their terminus, is demonstrated in the Map with the numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18, attested by its extant remains and ruins, and the fountainhead of the Claudia itself, which remains between numbers 16 and 17, as is mentioned in the General Index at numbers 124, 129, and 133, and is likewise attested by that which is deduced at the following note 13.
(13) From the seventh milestone toward Rome these were the same arches of the Claudia, as one will see at the following 17.
(14) The corresponding height of each of these Aqueducts can be seen in the Map in figure I and was discovered with the most exact elevation I was able to measure; with respect to the two Aqueducts Anione Nuovo and Claudia and their channels, which can be seen in the Fountainhead of the Porta Maggiore; with respect to the Giulia, calculating the height of its channel which was built into the city walls outside of that same Gate, along with the channel of the Claudia; with respect to the Tepula and Marcia, calculating them with the Giulia and their fountainhead at the Porta di San Lorenzo; with respect to the Anione Vecchio, calculating its channel (which can be seen built into the city walls in the location mentioned at number 20 in the General Index) with that of the Marcia outside the aforesaid Porta Maggiore; with respect to the Vergine, calculating at the Quirinal Hill with today’s Acqua Felice (which is at the same level as the Giulia, and whose channel proceeds above the fountainhead of the Porta San Lorenzo) and deducting the degrees until the same Anione; with respect to the Appia, levelling the progression of the Vergine with the channel of the same Appia, which appears today under the Clivus Publicius where it was distributed, as we will discuss at 20, or rather toward the Ripa Grande, as we have referenced at number 176 of the General Index. With respect to the Alsietina, the channel of which there are no remains beyond the Tiber where it drained its quantity of water, yet I did not want to omit making a rough calculation of it, assigning to it the location in the Map where the Naumachia is seen to be situated (and precisely at number 32) at an Elevation discretely higher than the bank of the Tiber.
Meanwhile, it will seem objectionable, given Frontinus’s word that at the present elevation of the Alsietina, which is proposed as the humblest of all the Waters, to then see in the present Map its high progression on the Janiculum, but the ruins of its Aqueduct outside Porta San Pancrazio are incontrovertible, and their direction toward Rome can leave no doubt that it proceeded according to the drawing seen in the Map at numbers 13 and 14. Hence, for the tower, regarding every improbability, it is useful to reflect that Frontinus, discussing the low level of this Water, did not take into account its high level on the Janiculum, but only the low level of its emergence near the Naumachia, since Augustus did not care to maintain the high level of a Water which, being unhealthy, should only serve to be used for the Naumachia itself, and the for watering the adjacent Gardens, as it is said at 11.
(15) This submersion must not have been far from that of today’s Aqueduct of the Acqua Felice, like the one which must have been likewise caused by the protrusion of the embankment of Servius, behind which we deduce the location of the Aqueduct of these three ancient waters from the described remains at numbers 117 and 118 of the General Index. And thus, I place the beginning of this submersion at number 8 in the Map, outlining it up to the inside of the Porta Viminale, the certain terminus of the same, according to what is read in the Frontinian text mentioned above.
(16) The location of this derivation of the Giulia is mentioned in the Map at number 19, and proceeds along the arches up to the Castellum starting with number 20 for the reasons extensively deduced in the General Index at number 230.
(17) In the Map the Gardens of Pallas are outlined at number 21, based not only on my sustained consultation of the ancient Writers regarding their location, as I said at the beginning, but also regarding the reservoir that still remains behind the same Gardens among the remains of the Aqueduct, as mentioned in the General Index at number 121, and which is, however, labeled in the Map at the corresponding number 22, demonstrating the same reservoir in the section at figure II, where one can see the manner of its construction and function. In this way, the Gardens and the reservoir confirm their respective use and existence.
(18) The Herculean Brook which we are now discussing was different from the other one described at 13, as one observes from the different origins of both. The terminus of this brook can be seen noted in the Map at number 23 in the location where the Porta Capena is also marked, along the most ancient perimeter of the city walls.
(19) The terminus of these arches, along with the progression of the Aqueduct, can be seen noted in the Map at number 18 in the place where there are still remains of the Fountainhead of the Aqueduct itself, as mentioned in the General Index at number 124.
(20) These arches extend in the Map from number 16 to 38 based on their extant remains described in the General Index at numbers 130, 209, 212, 213, and 221, and these same arches have served as my guide, in addition to the consultation of the ancient Writers, in determining the location of the Temple of Claudius in the place noted in the Map with the number 24.
(21) With respect to the Palatine Hill, this distribution of water was carried through the arches, whose remains are described at number 300 in the General Index, and which are also, therefore, marked in the Map at numbers 24 and 26 in the place corresponding to the same remains. With respect to the Aventine Hill, the distribution of water was carried through the arches marked in the Map with the numbers 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, and corresponding to their remains noted in the General Index at number 184.
(22) The Orti Asiniani opened by Frontinus in the Via Nuova quarter is marked in the Map and indicated by Victor in Region XII, which includes the same quarter. I have placed them in the same Map at the location marked with the number 27, and I have done this by a most exact discernment of the ancient buildings, which occupied the same Region, as I will demonstrate in the large Ichnographic Map of Rome that I will soon publish.
(23) Frontinus only makes note of the entrance to this Aqueduct inside the Porta Esquilina along the Speranza Vecchia, and thus its branch to the City; thus, its terminus can be seen noted in the Map at number 28 along the same quarter, and inside said Gate marked on the most ancient perimeter of the city walls.
(24) The Orti Luciliani are noted in the Map at the number corresponding to their description in the text at number 66 in the General Index.
(25) The position of the Saepti, marked in the Map at number 30, has been compared with the extant remains of the portico which was adjacent to it, as one can see in the fragment of the ancient Map of Rome shown in the Map before this work at number 31, and as referenced at number 104 of the General Index.
(26) Explained at note 6.
(27) I refer to the remains of the Naumachia, and the remains of the Emissarium of the Alsietina, at number 156 of the General Index, both of which correlate to the numbers 31 and 32 of the present Map.
(28) I am permitted, with all due respect to the great erudition of the Signor Marquis Poleni, to object to the alleged declaration that he makes regarding two propositions by Frontinus, which should correspond, but seem to be contrary to one another.
The first proposition can be read in article 18 of the Commentary illustrated by the same Signor Marquis, and it is: It is the Alsietina, which supplies the Region across the Tiber and the extremely low areas. The second is mentioned above in our Compendium, and in the text of Signor Marquis it falls under article 85. Here are the words: “The Alsietina distributes 392 quinariae, which is consumed entirely outside the City.”
Thus, he says at note 2, IIII of the aforementioned article 18: “If this water was consumed entirely outside the city, how could it possibly serve the Region of Trastevere which was inside the City? Because I don’t believe that the fields beyond the Tiber should be held as part of the Region of Trastevere.”
To remove any difficulty, and to explain these two propositions, he insinuates that the two must be quantities of this same Water. One quantity is uncertain, which served the Naumachia and adjacent areas; The other is determined by the said 392 Quinariae, which were all consumed outside the City.
He deduces the uncertain quantity from another proposition by Frontinus, which can be read in article 71, and it is this: The Alsietina's supply is not included in the records, nor can an exact figure be determined under present conditions, because the water from Lake Alsietinus is supplemented from Lake Sabatinus in the area of Careiae, as arranged by the watermen. The Alsietina distributes 392 quinariae.
The argument is very clever, and it would be excellent if the Proposition falling under article 85 did not discuss without specificity the entire supply of the Alsietina, as demonstrated by the following words: which is consumed entirely outside the City. They certainly do not reference the exact quantity suggested by the Signor Marquis, but rather, the distribution of the entire quantity of the Alsietina, which is commonly known to have consisted of 392 Quinariae. And it is thus for several reasons.
The first, because Frontinus at the aforementioned article 7, speaking generally about the supply of this Aqueduct, also attributes to it the same 392 Quinariae, alone and without any distinction: the Alsietina distributes 392 Quinarie.
The second, because in his entire Commentary he makes no mention of the two supposed quantities, and much less for the purpose suggested by the Signor Marquis. That is what he should have done, when the two propositions in question had not been or could not have seemed clear themselves, considering the judgment of anyone who saw how things were going in those times.
The third, because if it were true that the aforesaid 392 Quinariae had been consumed outside Rome, and that this uncertain quantity had also been consumed inside Rome for the Naumachia and adjacent areas, Frontinus would not have failed to mention it, seeing the explanation he gives in article 77, which refers to the distribution and consumption of the water supply of the Aqueducts and which ones they were, that is, their quantities, either uncertain or exact, and specifically for the Regions, as declared by the following words: It remains to account in detail for the distribution of the water, the data for which we found summarily lumped together and even recorded under false names. We must classify this data according to the names of the aqueducts, WHAT EACH ONE HAS, AND ACCORDING TO THE REGIONS OF THE CITY.
It will thus be said, that with my discussion about the two propositions of Frontinus in question and the obscurity from which the Signor Marchese seems to have extracted them, it bears repeating in order to interpret them truthfully and rid them of the bitterness found in them. He says “If this water was consumed entirely outside the city, how could it possibly serve the Region of Trastevere which was inside the City? Because I don’t believe that the fields beyond the Tiber should be held as part of the Region of Trastevere.”
What difficulty could dissuade the Signor Maquis from believing that the consumption of the entire Alsietina outside of Rome could not have also been consumed together with the Region of Trastevere? And yet, as an Antiquarian, should he not have remembered that not all the Regions of Rome were contained inside the city walls, as one sees in the present Map, but rather the regions I, II, V, VI, VII, XI, XIII, and XV discussed here, extended indefinitely outside the City? From which he should have inferred that the Naumachia and its adjacent gardens could have been outside the city walls.
And, in fact, it is hard to suppose that Caesar Augustus found the Region of Trastevere, insofar as it was inside the city walls, an empty place, capable of supplying the Naumachia and, even more, the adjacent gardens since it is known that Trastevere was surrounded by walls, and being most ancient, inhabited by a numerous population, who would not have left even a palmo of space if not to provide for their own comfort.
So that the Naumachia, having been in the place mentioned in the General Index of Ancient Rome at number 156, and which remained with its adjacent gardens outside the perimeter of the city walls, and nevertheless in the Region of Trastevere, the two propositions of Frontinus become clear: one that the Alsietina also supplied the Region of Trastevere, that is for the Naumachia and adjacent gardens, the other, that it was all consumed outside of Rome, with Frontinus stating furthermore: it was consumed entirely outside Rome, and then immediately adding: 254 Quinariae in the name of Caesar and 138 Quinariae for private parties, from which one must believe that the Quinariae that were consumed in the name of Caesar served to supply the Naumachia, and those given to private parties supplied the adjacent gardens.