it be gathered from the article that such a thing as a burnt brick was known to the Romans. But if crude bricks were used to such an extent by the Romans, why do we find no traces of them in the ruins of ancient structures. Perhaps public buildings intended to endure for ages were constructed of more durable materials; perhaps, as has been suggested, the crude bricks in the course of ages may have melted away. A Signore Scamosse suggests an explanation, which is quoted only to be ridiculed by the editor of Vitruvius: that, owing to the numerous fires from which Rome had suffered, the terra cruda had become terra cotta. Of the consequences of building with sun-dried bricks we have an illustration in the present century. During the great flood of the Loire, which happened in the year 1859, owing to the disruption of the dikes, there was an extensive downfall of buildings from a similar cause. The Loire, like all rivers that have been embanked for ages, flows in many places above the level of the adjoining country, and when it burst its banks, it laid the fields under water to an extent in one place of twenty miles. Owing to the relative depression of the country, the water remained a long time on the ground, and the consequence was, that great numbers of houses which were built of unburnt brick, or of wood and mud, melted away, and the whole structure fell to the ground. Everyone will remember the allusion of Horace to the great flood in his time, which destroyed the temple of Vesta, and led people to expect a return of the universal deluge. But in Tacitus we have an account of a remarkable inundation, which occurred in the reign of Tiberius, and as the details are interesting, and illustrate the manners and feelings of the time, I will give the description entire, and in the words of the author: "Swollen by incessant rains, the river had inundated all the level parts of the city, and when it retired within its bed, it carried with it the wrecks of buildings which it had overthrown, and the bodies of those that were drowned. It was proposed to consult the Sibylline books; but Tiberius objected, from his inveterate habit of shrouding in mystery all things human and divine; and to Ateius Capito and Lucius Auruntius was assigned the task of keeping the river within bounds." After some time these commissioners brought forward in the senate a plan for moderating its inundations, by turning into new channels the rivers and lakes by which its waters are swelled. No sooner, however, did the municipal towns situated on its tributaries learn what was going on, than they sent deputations to protest against the scheme. The people of Florence intreated that the Clanis might not be turned into their own unruly torrent, and thus bring destruction on their town. In a similar strain, the people of Terni maintained: That the most fertile lands in Italy would go to rack and ruin, if the Nar'-for this also was in contemplation-'were cut up into a multitude of canals, and allowed to saturate or overflow the fields.' Nor did the people of Reate preserve silence. They objected to the Veline lake being blocked up, where it discharges itself into the Nar. 'It would burst, they feared, into the neighbouring fields.' 'Nature,' they observed, had best consulted the interests of man by assigning to rivers their mouths and their courses, their termination as well as their origin. Some consideration, also, should be shown for the religious rites of the associated states, which had dedicated to their ancestral rivers their peculiar sacrifices, their altars and their groves. Nay, father Tiber himself would be unwilling to be bereft of his affluent streams, and to flow henceforward with diminished pride."* It is curious to observe, as illustrating the comparative influence of sentimental and material considerations in ancient and modern times, that, while so much was thought of hurting the feelings of father Tiber, not a word was said about the injury which the navigation would sustain by lessening the volume of water in the river. The result was that, partly owing to the prayers of the colonists, partly to superstitious scruples, as Tacitus irreverently *Tacitus, Ann. Lib. I. 79. calls them, and partly, and perhaps principally, to engineering difficulties, this particular scheme was abandoned. But five conservators of senatorial rank were appointed, to whom was assigned the impossible task of regulating the volume of water in the river, so that there might be no deficiency in summer and no injurious excess in winter.* But, as might have been expected, man was impotent against nature, and father Tiber revenged himself for the attempts made to control him, by continuing to lay waste the city and the country. The same historian records an inundation in the reign of the Emperor Otho still more destructive than the one above mentioned. "Rising to an immense height the river carried away the Sublician bridge, and covered not only the low lying and level parts of the city, but places which were thought to be beyond the reach of such disasters. So sudden was the rise of the Tiber that many were swept away in public places, and the escape of many who happened to be in the 'tabernæ,' or one-storeyed shops, was cut off. The foundations of the 'insula' (or detached buildings, usually let out in lodgings) were sapped by the water, and, when the river subsided, they fell to the ground."† "For "the In the country the devastation was equally great. twenty miles above Rome," as Suetonius informs us, Flaminian way was obstructed, and the march of the army of Otho impeded, by the ruins of buildings which had been overthrown by the flood." In the reign of the Emperor Trajan there was another great flood recorded by Pliny the younger, Ep. VIII. 7, to which reference will hereafter be made. And in most of the subsequent reigns there were inundations of greater or less extent, and more or less destructive, culminating in the great flood in the time of Valentinian and Valens, A.D. 371, recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus. I will close the series of inundations in ancient times by * Dio Cassius LVII. 3. transcribing the description of this flood by the last-mentioned historian : "In consequence of excessive rains the Tiber overflowed the banks, and spreading itself so as to lose the appearance of a river, covered almost every spot with its waters. Thus, while the other quarters of the city, which lie at a low level, presented the aspect of a lake, the hills alone, and a few elevated points that rose like islands above the watery waste, were relieved from immediate fear. As, owing to the extent of the flood, nobody was able to leave his house, and there was danger lest many should perish from starvation; provisions in abundance, by means of boats and skiffs, were supplied [to all]. But, when the rainy weather abated, and the river which had burst its bounds returned to its accustomed channel, all fear was banished, and no further inconvenience was apprehended." In this extract the classical scholar will remark the barbarism, and awkwardness of the style, which renders a paraphrase necessary to make the meaning clear; and the general reader will observe how little effect the works executed by the "Conservators of the Tiber" had in preventing, or even moderating, the inundations of the river. Yet there are engineers in the present day who think that, by employing the same means which so signally failed in ancient times, they can succeed on confining the river within its banks. * Tiberis.... effusione imbrium exuberans nimia, et supra amnis speciem pansus, omnia paene contexit, et stagnantibus civitatis residuis membris, quae tenduntur in planitiem molliorem, montes soli, et quicquid insularum celsius eminebat a præsenti metu defendebatur; et ne multi inedia contabescerent, undarum magnitudine nusquam progredi permittente, lembis et scaphis copia suggerebatur abundè ciborum. At vero, ubi tempestas mollivit, et flumen retinaculis ruplis rediit ad solitum cursum, absterso metu nihil postea molestum expectabatur XXXIX. [near the end]." INUNDATIONS IN MODERN TIMES. Many inundations are recorded by writers of the middle ages, the most remarkable of which were those of 555, 589, 725, 778, 1476, 1530, 1557, and 1598. The account of the flood in 555, given by Paulus Diaconus, may be rejected as altogether fabulous. He describes the river as flowing over the walls of Rome, and mentions a dragon, or sea monster of enormous size, which passed through the city and descended to the sea. This monster appears to have availed itself of the opportunity afforded by the flood to pay a flying visit to Rome, and to inspect its curiosities. All the accounts of this age are tinctured with fable, and Paul the Deacon seems to have been of a peculiarly credulous disposition. In November of 589, the year before the Pontificate of Gregory the Great, occurred an inundation which is said by the writers of those times to have consummated the ruin of the city. In the year 725 there was a flood which lasted for seven days, and persons sailed from the Ponte Molle to the steps of St. Peter's in boats of no small size. This was the old St. Peter's. The approach to the new has been considerably raised since that time. In the year 778 an inundation threw down the Flaminian gate, and carried away the wooden portion of the Sublician bridge. The stone piers were removed to make cannon-balls in the fifteenth century. In 1476 the river rose so high that a second deluge, like that of Noah, was anticipated. On this occasion the following verses were composed: Crevit ad hoc signum transcendens limina Tybris Octava Iani, quæ memoranda dies. Territa Roma: Noe redeunt jam tempora, dixit, Diluvio atque iterum corruet omne genus. |