wall on its external front: they were further fortified at intervals with square towers, which in some parts occur regularly at about 100 yards from each other, in other parts are added much more sparingly. These towers seem to have been subsequent additions to the original walls, being of a different and less solid style of construction. The walls themselves are very solidly built of large blocks of travertine, in horizontal courses, but presenting considerable irregularities of construction: the upper part is more regularly finished, and consists of peperino. But both walls and towers are in many places patched with coarser masonry and reticulated work; thus showing that they had been frequently repaired, and at distant intervals of time.

The general plan of the city is very regular, and the greater part of the streets run in straight lines: but the principal line of street, which runs from the gate of Herculaneum to the Forum, is an exception, being irregular and crooked as well as very narrow. Though it must undoubtedly have been one of the chief thoroughfares of the city, and the line followed by the high road from Capua, Neapolis, and Rome itself, it does not exceed 12 or 14 feet in width, including the raised trottoirs or footpaths on each side, so that the carriageway could only have admitted the passage of one vehicle at a time. Some of the other streets are broader; but few of them exceed 20 feet in width, and the widest yet found is only about 30. They are uniformly paved with large polygonal blocks of hard lava or basalt, in the same manner as were the streets of ancient Rome, and the Via Appia, and other great highways in this part of Italy. The principal street, already noticed, was crossed, a little before it reached the Forum, by a long straight line of street which, passing by the teinple of Fortune, led direct to the gate of Nola. In the angle formed by the two stood the public baths or Thermae, and between these and the temple of Fortune a short broad street led direct to the Forum, of which it seems to have formed the principal entrance. From the Forum two other parallel streets struck off in an easterly direction, which have been followed till they cross another main line of street that leads from the gate of Vesuvius directly across the city to the gate adjoining the theatres. This last line crosses the street already noticed, leading from the gate of Nola westward, and the two divide the whole city into four quarters, though of irregular size. Great part of the city (especially the SE. quarter) has not yet been explored, but recent excavations, by following the line of these main streets, have clearly shown its general plan, and the regularity with which the minor streets branched off at intervals in parallel lines. There is also little doubt that the part of the city already excavated is the most important, as it includes the Forum, with the public buildings adjoining to it, the theatres, amphitheatre, &c.

The Forum was situated in the SW. quarter of the city, and was distant about 400 yards from the gate of Herculaneum. As was commonly the case in ancient times, it was surrounded by the principal public buildings, and was evidently the centre of the life and movement of the city. The extent of it was not, however, great; the actual open space (exclusive of the porticoes which surrounded it) did not exceed 160 yards in length by 35 in breadth, and a part of this space was occupied by the temple of Jupiter. It was surrounded on three sides by a

to have been surmounted by a gallery or upper story, though no part of this is now preserved. It would seem that this portico had replaced an older arcade on the eastern side of the Forum, a portion of which still remains, so that this alteration was not yet completed when the catastrophe took place. At the north end of the Forum, and projecting out into the open area, are the remains of an edifice which must have been much the most magnificent of any in the city. It is commonly known, with at least a plausible foundation, as the temple of Jupiter; others dispute its being a temple at all, and have called it the Senaculum, or place of meeting of the local senate. It was raised on a podium or base of considerable elevation, and had a portico of six Corinthian columns in front, which, according to Sir W. Gell, are nearly as large as those in the portico of St. Paul's. From the state in which it was found it seems certain that this edifice (in common with most of the public buildings at Pompeii) had been overthrown by the earthquake of 63, or, at least, so much damaged that it was necessary to restore, and in great part rebuild it, and that this process was still incomplete at the time of its final destruction. At the NE. angle of the Forum, adjoining the temple of Jupiter, stood an arch which appears to have been of a triumphal character, though now deprived of all its ornaments: it was the principal entrance to the Forum, and the only one by which it was accessible to carriages of any description. On the E. side of the Forum were four edifices, all unquestionably of a public character, though we are much in doubt as to their objects and destination. The first (towards the N.) is generally known as the Pantheon, from its having contained an altar in the centre, with twelve pedestals placed in a circle round it, which are supposed to have supported statues of the twelve chief gods. But no traces have been found of these, and the general plan and arrangement of the building are wholly unlike those of an ordinary temple. A more plausible conjecture is, that it was consecrated to Augustus, and contained a small temple or aedicula in honour of that emperor, while the court and surrounding edifices were appropriated to the service of his priests, the Augustales, who are mentioned in many inscriptions as existing at Pompeii. Next to this building is one which is commonly regarded as the Curia or Senaculum; it had a portico of fluted columns of white marble, which ranged with those of the general portico that surrounded the Forum. South of this again is a building which was certainly a temple, though it is impossible now to say to what divinity it was consecrated; it is commonly called the Temple of Mercury, and is of small size and very irregular form. Between this and the street known as the Street of the Silversmiths, which issued from the Forum near its SE. angle, was a large building which, as we learn from an inscription still existing, was erected by a female priestess named Eumachia. It consists of a large and spacious area (about 130 feet by 65) surrounded by a colonnade, and having a raised platform at the end with a semicircular recess similar to that usually found in a Basilica. But though in this case the founder of the edifice is known, its purpose is still completely obscure. It is commonly called the Chalcidicum, but it is probable that that term (which is found in the inscription above noticed) designates only a part of

and was erected by a certain M. Tullius, a citizen and magistrate of Pompeii, who has been supposed to be of the family of Cicero; but the absence of the cognomen renders this highly improbable. The epithet of Fortuna Augusta shows that the temple and its inscription are not earlier than the time of Augustus. It is much in ruins, having probably suffered severely from the earthquake of 63; and has little architectural effect.

Pompeii possessed two Theatres and an Amphitheatre. The former were situated, as seems to have been usual in Greek towns, close together; the larger one being intended and adapted for theatrical performances properly so called; the smaller one serving as an Odeum, or theatre for music. Both are unquestionably of Roman date: the larger one was erected (as we learn from an inscription found in it) by two members of the same family, M. Holconius Rufus and M. Holconius Celer, both of whom appear to have held high civil offices in the municipal government of Pompeii. The period of its construction may probably be referred to the reign of Augustus. The smaller theatre seems to be of earlier date, and was erected at the public expense under the direction of the Duumviri or chief magistrates of the city. The large Theatre is to a considerable extent excavated out of the side of a hill, on the slope of which it was situated, thus saving a considerable amount of the expense of construction. But the exterior was still surrounded by a wall, a part of which always rose above the surface of the soil, so that it is singular it should not have long before led to the discovery of the buried city. Its internal disposition and arrangements, without exactly coinciding with the rules laid down by Vitruvius, approach sufficiently near to them to show that it was constructed on the Roman, and not the Greek model. Its architect (as we learn from an inscription) was a freedman of the name of M. Artorius Primus. It seems to have been almost wholly cased or lined with marble, but the greater part of this, as well as the other decorations of the building, has been carried away by former excavations, probably made soon after the catastrophe. The interior diameter of the building is 223 feet: it had 29 rows of seats, divided into three stories by galleries or praecinctiones, and was capable of containing about 5000 spectators. The smaller Theatre, which communicated with the larger by a covered portico on the level of the orchestra, was not above a fourth of the size of the other, being adapted to receive only about 1500 spectators. We learn from an inscription that it was covered or permanently roofed in, a rare thing with ancient theatres, and doubtless owing to its small size. Its chief architectural peculiarity is that the seats are cut off by the walls at the two sides, so that it is only the lower seats of the cavea, of which the semicircle is complete.

Adjoining the two theatres, and arranged so as to have a direct communication with both, is a large quadrangular court or area (183 feet long by 148 wide), surrounded on ali sides by a Doric portico. Its destination is very uncertain, it has been called a provision market (Forum Nundinarium); but is more generally regarded as having served for the barracks or quarters of the soldiers. Perhaps a more plausible conjecture is that it was a barrack, not of soldiers but of gladiators. On the W. of this, as well as of the great theatre, was the triangular area or forum already noticed, in which the Greek temple was situated. The opening

of this on the N., where it communicated with the street, was ornamented by a portico or Propylaeum composed of eight Ionic columns of very elegant style, but consisting of the common volcanic tufo, cased with stucco.

The Amphitheatre is situated at the distance of above 500 yards from the Theatres, at the extreme SE. angle of the city. It offers no very remarkable differences from other edifices of the same kind; its dimensions (430 feet by 335) are not such as to place it in the first rank even of provincial structures of the class; and from being in great part excavated out of the soil, it has not the imposing architectural character of the amphitheatres of Verona, Nemausus, or Pola. It had 24 rows of seats, and about 20,000 feet of sitting-room, so that it was adapted to receive at least 10,000 spectators. From one of the inscriptions found in it, it appears that it was built, or at least commenced, by two local magistrates, named C. Quinctius Valgus and M. Porcins, after the establishment of the colony under Augustus, and probably in the reign of that emperor.

The only public building which remains to be noticed is that of the Thermae or Baths, which were situated in the neighbourhood of the Forum, adjoining the short street which led into it from the Temple of Fortune. They have no pretence to vie with the magnificent suites of buildings which bore the name of Thermae at Rome, and in some other great cities; but are interesting as containing a complete suite of all apartments really required for bathing, and from their good preservation throw much light upon all similar remains. The details of their construction and arrangement are fully given in the Dictionary of Antiquities [art. BALNEAE], as well as in the works specially devoted to Pompeii.

It is impossible here to enter into any details concerning the results of the excavations in regard to the private dwellings at Pompeii, though these are, in many respects, the most interesting, from the light they have thrown upon the domestic life of the ancient inhabitants, their manners and usages, as well as from the artistic beauty and variety of the objects discovered. A few words on the general character of the houses and other private buildings of Pompeii are all that our space will admit of. As these are almost the only remains of a similar kind that have been preserved to us, it must be borne in mind that they can hardly be regarded as representing in their purity the arrangements either of the Greek or Roman mode of building. On the one hand Pompeii, though strongly tinctured with Greek civilisation, was not a Greek city; on the other hand, though there is no doubt that the houses at Pompeii present much more the Roman plan and arrangement than that of the Greeks, we must not conclude that they represent them in all respects. We know, at least, that Rome itself was built in many respects in a very different manner. Cicero, in a wellknown passage, contrasts the narrow streets, the lofty houses, and irregular construction of the capital with the broad streets and regular arrangement of Capua, resulting from its position in a level plain; and it is clear that, in some respects, Pompeii more resembled the capital of Campania than the imperial city. Its streets indeed (as already stated) were narrow, but with few exceptions straight and regular, and the houses were certainly low, seldom exceeding two stories in height; and even of these the upper story seems to have consisted

only of inferior rooms, a kind of garrets, probably | serving for the sleeping-rooms of slaves, and in some cases of the females of the family. From the mode of destruction of the city the upper stories have indeed been almost uniformly totally destroyed; but this circumstance itself, as well as the few traces which occasionally remain, seems to prove that they were built wholly of wood, and could never have formed an important part of the houses. It is only on the W. side of the city, where the ground slopes steeply towards the sea, that houses are found which consisted of three stories or more. Externally the houses had little or nothing of an ornamental character; not a single instance has been found of a portico before a private house; and towards the street they presented either dead walls, with here and there a few small and scanty openings as windows, or ranges of shops, or the most part low and mean in character, even when they occupied (as was often the case) the front of dwellings of a superior description. The interior of the houses of the more wealthy class was arranged apparently on the same model as those at Rome; its disposition is given in detail in the Dictionary of Antiquities under the article DOMUS where a plan is given of the House of Pansa, one of the most extensive and complete of those found at Pompeii. In this case the single house with its garden and appurtenances, including as usual several shops, occupied the whole of an insula or the space bounded by four streets or alleys: but this was unusual; in most cases each insula comprised several houses even where they were of a better description, and must have been the residence of persons of some wealth. Among the most remarkable of these may be mentioned the dwellings known as the House of Sallust, that of the Tragic Poet, of Castor and Pollux, of the Labyrinth, &c. The work of Dr. Overbeck (above cited) gives a very interesting series of these houses, selected so as to afford examples of every description of house, from the humblest dwelling, consisting of only two rooms, to the richly decorated and spacious mansions of Sallust and Pansa. The style of decoration of these houses presents a very general uniformity of character. The walls are almost invariably ornamented with painting, the

atrium and peristyle being decorated with columns; but these are composed only of a soft and coarse stone (volcanic tufo) covered with stucco. The prodigal use of marble, both for columns and slabs to encrust the walls, which had become so general at Rome under the first emperors, apparently not having yet found its way to Pompeii. The floors are generally enriched with mosaics, some of which possess a very high degree of merit as works of art. The most beautiful yet discovered adorned the house known as the House of the Faun, from a bronze statue of a dancing Faun which was also found in it. The illustrations to Gell's Pompeiana (2nd series, Lond. 1835) will convey to the reader a sufficient idea of the number and variety of the artistic decorations of the private houses at Pompeii; though several of the most richly ornamented have been discovered since the date of its publication.

Outside the gate leading to Herculaneum, in a kind of suburb, stands a house of a different description, being a suburban villa of considerable extent, and adapted to have been the abode of a person of considerable wealth. From the greater space at command this villa comprises much that is not found in the houses within the town; among others a large court or garden (Xystus), a complete suite of private baths, &c. The remains of this villa are of much value and interest for comparison with the numerous ruins which occur elsewhere of similar buildings, often on a much more extensive scale, but in a far less perfect state of preservation, as well as for assisting us to understand the descriptions given by Pliny and Vitruvius of similar structures, with their numerous appurtenances. (For the details of their arrangements the reader is referred to the article VILLA, in the Dictionary of Antiquities, and to the work on Pompeii, Lond. 1832, vol. ii. ch. 11.) Between this villa and the gate of the city are the remains of another villa, said to be on a larger scale and more richly decorated than the one just described; but its ruins, which were excavated in 1764, were filled up again, and are not now visible. It has been called, though without the slightest authority, the Villa of Cicero. The one still extant is commonly known as the Villa of Arrius Diomedes, but for no other reason than that