this seems to me to be equally proved by the general proportions of the buildings and by the comparison with other amphitheatres. I leave those who are specially learned in amphitheatres to settle the details. I leave Mr. Parker and his opponents to settle the exact way in which the amphitheatre was flooded for the naumachia. But common sense is enough to tell us that the whole thing did not go on at the bottom of a deep hole.

Before I have done this article, I may notice that this writer in the Times gives us one of those queer pieces of quotation of which there have been so many during the whole dispute. In answer to the notion that the beasts were brought to the amphitheatre in cages, he asks, " how, if they were introduced in cages, could a hundred lions have bounded together upon the arena with a roar which made the building shake, as we are told by Vopiscus was the case during the games given by the Emperor Probus?" Now this passage of Vopiscus (Probus 19), which has been made the subject of a long and learned note by Salmasius, is exceedingly puzzling, and the text seems uncertain; but anyhow it does not mention the shaking of the building, and it distinctly shows that there were two ways of bringing the beasts into the amphitheatre, one of which was thought to afford better sport than the other. After describing the shows given by Probus in the circus, Vopiscus says

"Addidit alia die in amphitheatro una missione centum jubatos leones, qui rugitibus suis tonitrua excitabant: qui omnes contificiis [al. posticis] interempti sunt, non magnum præbentes spectaculum quum occidebantur. Neque enim erat bestiarum impetus ille qui esse e caveis egredientibus solet."

Here again I must ask for the help of experts to say exactly what the lions did; but thus much is plain, that, while the modern quoter of the passage seems specially struck with the bounding of the lions, the spectators at the time seem to have complained that they did not bound so much as they should have done. I have in these cases sometimes been troubled with an uncharitable doubt

without giving exact references, have always read the passages which they talk about.

The

A far more ingenious essay on the subject than that of the "Occasional Correspondent" of the Times appeared, where one would have hardly looked for it, in a paper called, La Saison: Guide-Journal des Etrangers à Rome, on November 12, 1874. The writer of this paper clearly wrote under the "inspiration," as some people call it, of Cavaliere Rosa. He at least had the sense to see that the question cannot be settled without looking beyond Rome, to the amphitheatres in other places, and above all to that at Capua. He does not however say a word about Arles or Nîmes. He tries to make out a distinction between the original arrangements of the Roman and the Capuan amphitheatres, and between the shows for which each was meant. Colosseum, according to him, was peculiar in having its shows originally designed to be carried on, as I before said, at the bottom of a deep hole. At Capua, if I rightly understand him, there were no naval fights, and the gladiators fought on a boarded arena at the present level of the ground-that is to say, at the top of the under-ground works-in short the Capuan arrangement was what the arrangement of an amphitheatre was commonly supposed to have been. But at Rome, on the other hand, he contends that, when the Colosseum was built, people cared less for shows of wild beasts, and more for the naval fights. The gladiators fought down at the bottom, the beasts were brought in in cages, and when there was to be a naval fight, the place was flooded. Afterwards tastes changed, the naval fights went out of fashion, the substructures were built, and the arena was laid upon them at the higher level. All this is decidedly ingenious; only I at least cannot see the evidence for it, and this writer, as I have already shown, is no more lucky in quoting Vopiecus than the writer in the Times. One thing at least comes out in this article; namely, that Cavaliere Rosa at one time actually wanted to destroy the underground walls, but that his

by the good sense and firmness of the minister, Signor Bonghi. It certainly was a singular ambition on the part of Signor Rosa to have his name handed down as the James Wyatt of amphitheatres.

Next, as far as I know, came a letter from Mr. S. R. Forbes, which I have already mentioned, the particulars in which he thought "might be interesting to the readers" of the Times. They seem to have been thought doubly interesting, for the same letter in the same words appeared in two numbers of the Times, those for November 25 and December 30, 1874. Mr. Forbes talks in one place about the original arena being paved with small bricks, while at another he tells us, that, "as mentioned in the classics, at some date the arena was a movable platform." The brick work is thought to be of the time of the Frangipani, while an amazing date is given to some other part of the structure, namely," the repairs of Belisarius after the earthquake of 486." In a later letter Mr. Forbes explains that he did not mean Belisarius, but "the Præfect Basilius." "For," as he goes on to say, "an inscription states that he restored the arena and podium after the earthquake." I guess that this must be the inscription which I mentioned earlier in this article; but if so, the date of 486 must be yet further wrong than any date in the days of Belisarius, for the inscription undoubtedly records Theodosius as one of the reigning Emperors. Mr. Forbes was answered by Mr. G. E. Street in a most sensible letter in the Times of January 11, 1875, to which Mr. Forbes made an answer in the Times of January 22. It is not very easy to make out what Mr. Forbes' notion is, except that the lower level was flooded for the Naumachiæ. Mr. Forbes too has something to say about Dion, but he makes me more than ever long for an exact reference, for he thus reports Dion's story:

"Commodus, after witnessing the combats, descended into the area, and slew the wild beasts left-handed, then he ordered the arena to be removed for the naval combats, after

banquet was given; he also says that sometimes the wild beasts performed upon the arena and sometimes in the water."

I have read Dion's descriptions of the doings of Commodus several times over on purpose, but I cannot find one word about the naval combats, about the grand banquet, or about the wild beasts performing sometimes on the arena and sometimes on the water. I have tried two editions, an older and a newer, I have tried Gibbon, I have tried indexes and books of reference, but I am altogether baffled. There is something of this kind, and something of another kind, recorded of Nero in 1. lxii. c. 15, but the amphitheatre of Nero was not the existing Colosseum.

Mr. Street does not indulge in quotations, but he gives us something better, namely comparisons between the substructures at Rome and at Puteoli, and some illustrations suggested by his own experience of Spanish bull-fights. scouts, as every man with eyes must do, the notion that there was any time when the fights and huntings went on as he puts it in "a deeply sunk pit."

He

I may add that, in the quarter where we might have reasonably expected to find some mention of the arrangements of the amphitheatre in the latest days of its ancient use, I can find no help at all.

The letter of Theodoric to Maximus (Cassiodorus, Var. lv. 42.) contains a vivid description of the shows which still went on, when the fights between man and man had come to an end-to be revived in the days of chivalry-but when the fights between man and beast still went on. It contains too a noble protest, worthy of the glorious Goth and his great minister, against the brutality of the shows; but it contains nothing for our immediate purpose. The words "in patenti area cancellosis se postibus occulentes " might be taken as confirming Mr. Street's idea that the arena was fenced in by a paling at some little distance in front of the seats; but it need not have that meaning. Cassiodorus again in his Chronicle mentions the shows given by Eutheric in his consulship; and it may be noticed that the

name, does not speak of them with the same horror which he expresses when speaking of them in the name of the Gothic king. But we get nothing that throws any light on the building. In Procopius I have not come across a single word about the Colosseum; but he records what I suppose was the earliest case of what afterwards happened to the amphitheatres of Arles and Nîmes, and indeed to the Colosseum itself. The Goths, in the war with Belisarius, having taken the town of Spoleto, altogether destroyed the town walls and made a fortress of the amphitheatre which stood outside them, not by making subterranean walls, but by blocking up its arches.2 This fact, with a fact of an earlier time that Theodoric gave the ruins of the amphitheatre of Catana to be used for the repairs of the town-walls, helps to mark the time when the shows of the amphitheatres were fast going out of use.

I have said perhaps more than I ought about a subject, like that of the amphi

1 Cassiodorus, Chron. p. 453, ed. 1589. "Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula editionibus singulis, stupente etiam Symmacho orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas dignitates cessit in curia, muneribus amphitheatralibus diversi generis feras, quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. Cujus spectaculi voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit." Theodoric himself built an amphitheatre at Ticinum or Pavia (Anon. Vales, 721), and himself presided at the games at Rome. (Ib. 719.) "Exhibens ludos circensium et amphitheatrum, ut etiam a Komanis Trajanus vel Valentinianus, quorum tempora sectatus est, appellaretur.”

* Bell. Gotth. iii. 23. Ετύγχανον δὲ Γότθοι, ἡνίκα Ηρωδιανοῦ ἐνδιδόντος Σπολίτιον εἷλον, τῆς μὲν πόλεως τὸν περίβολον ες τὸ ἔδαφος καθελόντες, τοῦ δὲ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως κυνηγεσίου, ὅπερ καλεῖν ἀμφιθέατρον νενομίκασι, τάς τε εἰσόδους ἐς τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἀποφράξαντες καὶ φρουρὰν ἐνταῦθα καταστησάμενοι,

3 Cassiodorus, Var. iii. 49. "Saxa ergo, que suggeritis de amphitheatro longa vetustate collapsa, nec aliquid ornatui publico jam prodesse, nisi solas turpes ruinas ostendere, licentiam vobis eorum in usus duntaxat publicos damus: ut in murorum faciem surgat quod

theatres, on which I have very little technical knowledge. But one can often see that statements are wrong and that arguments are weak, even when one does not know exactly what to put in their places. And at any rate it is a service to scholarship to point out when ancient authors have been misquoted or made to say things which they do not say. And it is a duty to scholarship, though in a lesser degree, to point out the evils of that system of vague and random quotation which is at all times dangerous, and which is vexatious even when the quotations happen to be right. Fully to work out all the questions about the Colosseum which are started by the late diggings would call for a union of qualities which are not often found together in the same man. But a good

deal might be done by men who have those qualities separately working together. I gather from the Times that Mr. Street was at Rome not very long ago. ago. I gather from the last number of this Magazine that Mr. Munro was at Rome about the same time. I do not know whether either of them is there still, but if Mr. Munro, Mr. Street, and Mr. Parker would lay their heads together, and each bring his own particular kind of knowledge to bear upon the questions at issue, I suspect that they would find out a great deal more than the correspondents of the Times, or than Cavaliere Rosa himself.

I will end by coming back from what is to me a kind of excursion into a foreign country to a digging which comes more within my own immediate line. Close by the cross-road leading from St. Paul without the Walls to the Appian Way, a most elegant little basilica has been brought to light by digging, but I am afraid that I must wind up by asking for information rather than by How came a building so far giving it. out of the city to be so completely covered up?

It seems well worth while for an eyewitness to give some account of this memorable feast, as most of the "special correspondents" who wrote in the daily papers concerning it had evidently either not gone to Leyden at all or had not been admitted to any of the ceremonies. They enumerated people as present who were not present. They did not know in what language some of the addresses were delivered. And one of them at least endeavoured to conceal his ignorance by such flippant impertinence, that he has since been personally exposed in the indignant Dutch papers. We are accustomed to letters from Khiva being written in London offices, but it seems hard that the excellent Hollanders should have their contemporary history disposed of in such summary fashion. They had spared no pains to make the Tercentenary of their great Academy famous all over Europe. Months ago a formal bilingual invitation in Dutch and in Latin had been sent to all the academies in Europe asking them to send representatives to Leyden. Thirtyeight responded to the call affirmatively. Many more sent polite and respectful apologies.

From the extremities of Europe-from Hungary and from Ireland, from Finland and from Portugalmen came and brought with them their state robes to do honour to the great mother of Scaligers, Boerhaaves, and Salmasii. The Swedes telegraphed that six feet of snow had suddenly blocked up their railways, and that travelling was impossible. The Romans could not send an embassy from Italy, but chose an eminent Hollander (Professor Boot) to represent them. There was but one strange exception to the eagerness and respect shown by all Europe-Oxford was unrepresented. Nay, more, Oxford

Hollanders have a great respect for Oxford. The late king was educated at Christ Church. The present Master of Balliol was among the half-dozen Englishmen who were selected for honorary degrees. Yet, as Oxford men are rarely discourteous, it was feared by some that they were imperfectly informed as to where Leyden was and what Leyden had done. And yet Leyden is certainly the most celebrated and the most meritorious university in Europe. There is no other centre of education which has so often been the home of the first man of his day. From the days of Scaliger and Boerhaave down to the present day, when Leyden can boast of the best Greek scholar in Europe, this has frequently been the case. If English universities could forget this, or if they were ignorant of it, so much the worse for their own reputation.

But it has since transpired that Oxford was guilty of no intentional discourtesy. The Academy deserves the credit of eliciting the fact, that the ViceChancellor was ill when the invitation arrived, and that it was in consequence mislaid. It is understood that he has now formally expressed the regrets of Oxford to the senate of Leyden. The incident suggests but one remark. the courtesy of Oxford depends so completely on the health of the Vice-Chancellor, it is hoped that in future a sound and vigorous constitution will be made a necessary qualification for that august office.

If

The visitors were invited to arrive before Sunday, 7th February, when the festivities were opened by a sermon in the great church. This sermon was not in a dead language, as was stated in the Athenæum, but in Dutch. The service resembled that of the Scotch Church,

ritual. The preacher obtained for himself pauses in the discourse by giving out hymns, which were sung by 2,000 voices in long-drawn and solemn unison, but so slow withal that the melody was well nigh lost. What made the effect most curious to a foreigner was that most men had their hats on during the sermon, and that several deacons were all the while going round with long landing-nets of black velvet, and fishing for alms among the people. These inexorable deacons, not satisfied with one requisition, returned twice to the charge; and the reckless stranger, who, in imitation of the widow in the Gospel, had cast in his two mites together, began to discover that in Holland alms are paid in instalments, and that had she been a Dutchwoman she would have made two bites of the cherry, and applied each mite separately to satisfy the demands of a new collector.

The

sermon was doubtless very eloquent, to judge from the sonorous strings of great names with which it abounded, but the details, though the general argument was in the main obvious, were High Dutch to almost all the foreigners. Owing to this obstacle there was, it must be confessed, some relief felt when the great congregation began to surge and scatter, pouring out of the doors into the clear, frosty sunlight. The picturesque old town was all hung with streaming banners, and great barges were coming up the canals laden to the water's edge with rich exotic plants and hothouse flowers, with which the lower windows of every street were to be richly set out. Foreign flags marked the houses where the professors were entertaining the representatives of the respective nations; and already groups of strangers, learnedlooking men in spectacles and careless dress, might be seen wandering to and fro, and making their first survey of the town.

But after a five o'clock dinner (the usual hour in Holland), all the learned world was assembled at the first state reception given by the Burgomaster.

not again be witnessed for many a day. Orientalists, Hellenists, Latinists, Historians, Philosophers, Physiologists, Jurists, Theologians-all men of mark in the world-were all introducing and being introduced, all discussing and responding, all jabbering in a number of languages, so that, as was profanely remarked, but for the absence of one most important personage, it seemed a veritable Day of Pentecost. Unfortu

nately the fashion of making speeches seems universal in Holland, and accordingly much hindrance was offered to conversation by the general compliments which polite guests and gracious hosts lavished upon each other. The pleasantest discourse was certainly that of Ernest Renan, who spoke with great frankness and feeling of the miseries of France, and excited general admiration by his elegant style and his vivacious action. But still every moment lost from conversation that evening was well nigh irreparable. There were the great critical scholars, Cobet, Madvig, Pluygers, and Boot-the real successors of Porson and Bentley in Europe; the historians, Dozy and Ernst Curtius; the orientalists, Nöldeke, Kern, Veth, de Goeje, Vullers, Renan; the theologians, Scholten, Kuenen, Kahnis, Biedermann n; the antiquarians, Stark and G. Perrot ;_the physiologists, Milne-Edwards and Donders; the jurists, Jhering and Nypels -and these are selected almost at random from among the 200 that thronged the room. Happily there were several such receptions, so that in spite of the speeches, there was a chance of hearing some fragments of talk from the lips of these giants. So the time ran on till midnight, when the guests who were not fatigued adjourned to the students' club-entitled The Minervathere to enjoy cigars and champagne,1 and more speeches. But here the speeches were a more remarkable feature. After an elegant Latin welcome by M. Kappeyne, the president, speeches were made in Latin, Dutch, French, English, and German, all of which were thoroughly appreciated and enjoyed by