On the 21st of April, 1917, the embankment of the Rome-Naples railway gave way a short distance outside the Porta Maggiore: the works undertaken to repair the damage led to the discovery of a subterranean building of the greatest interest. One may say, without fear of exaggeration, that this is one of the most important discoveries ever made in Rome, and it raises a formidable number of problems archaeological, historical and artistic. It is impossible in a brief article to describe the building fully or to attempt an interpretation of the stucco reliefs that decorate it, especially as it has not yet been published in detail. I will therefore, in this short study, merely point out some of its most important characteristics and summarize the result of recent studies.

^{page 78 note 1} A full report with photographs of all the details will shortly be published by Dr. Giuseppe Lugli, to whose kindness I am indebted for the photographs that appear in this article and for much helpful criticism. So far, the best description is that given by Gatti and Fornari in the Notizie degli Scavi for 1918, pp. 30-52. The religious symbolism is examined by Cumont, in Revue Archéologique, seriev, vol. viii, (1918), pp. 52Google Scholar ff. Both these articles are examined with important results by Lanciani, in Bullettino della Commisione Archeologica Comunale, vol. xlvi, (1918 but published in 1920), pp. 69–84Google Scholar. Other notices will be found in Cronaca delle Belle Arti, iv, (1917), p. 41Google Scholar: Literary Supplement of the Times, 15th Nov. 1917, 14th Nov. 1918 (both Mrs. Strong), 15th Jan. 1920 (Dr. Ashby): The Year's Work in Classical Studies, 1917, pp. 6 ff (Van Buren): Illustrazione Italiana, 17th March, 1918 (Ricci): Bollettino dell' Associazione Archeologica Romana, viii, (1918), p. 67Google Scholar (Lugli): Illustrated London News, 13th March, 1920 (Lanciani) : American Journal of Archaeology, xxiv, (1920), pp. 146 ff (Curtis)Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 1} Notizie degli Scavi, 1918, pp. 35, 36.

^{page 79 note 2} Ibid. pp. 36, 47, 48. The animals were sacrificed over the pits and then buried in the foundation wall under the throne.

^{page 80 note 1} Lowrie, Christian Art and Archaeology, (1906), pp. 94-101 : Marucchi, Basiliques et eglises de Rome, (1909), pp. 16-18: Lemaire, L'Origine de la basilique, (1911).

^{page 80 note 2} Exploration archéologique de Delos, ii; Leroux, La salle hypostyle.

^{page 80 note 3} Leroux, Les origines de l' edifice hypostyle (1913), chap, xii, and especially pp. 318-341.

^{page 80 note 4} Conze, Hauser, , Benndorf, , Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, i, pp. 47–76Google Scholar, ii, pp. 29, 30; and Leroux, op. cit. pp. 190 ff.

^{page 80 note 5} Judeich, Topographie der Stadt Athen, p. 262 : Leroux, op. cit. p. 318.

^{page 80 note 6} Leroux, op. cit. p. 336.

^{page 80 note 7} A vestibule also precedes the large and important Mithraeum in the Baths of Caracalla which, with its six pillars supporting the vault, offers many analogies with the building at Porta Maggiore: see Ghislanzoni in Notizte degh Scavi, 1912, p. 319.

^{page 80 note 8} Lowrie, op. cit. p. 106; Marucchi, op. cit. p. 19.

^{page 80 note 9} Calza, in Monumenti Antichi, vol. xxiii, 1915,. p. 541Google Scholar ff, and vol. xxvi, (1920), p. 333.

^{page 81 note 1} Gatti in Notizie degli Scavi, 1918, p. 36.

^{page 81 note 2} Literary Supplement of the Times, 15th January, 1920.

^{page 81 note 3} Lanciani in Bullet. Arch. Com. 1918, p. 72.

^{page 81 note 4} The representation of Heracles before one of the Hesperides is strangely similar to the metope of Zeus and Hera at Selinus. Fornari in Not. Scavi, 1918, p. 43.

^{page 81 note 5} Cagnat, and Chapot, , Manuel d'archéologie romaine, i, (1916), p. 695Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 1} Op. cit. p. 55.

^{page 82 note 2} Fornari op. cit. p. 47.

^{page 82 note 3} Cumont, op. cit. p. 61.

^{page 82 note 4} Ibid. p. 56.

^{page 82 note 5} Mrs. Strong, Apotheosis and After-Life, p. 186.

^{page 82 note 6} Ibid. pp. 203, 209; and compare with the Rape of Hylas and the Liberation of Andromeda on the Igel monument, ibid, p. 224.

^{page 82 note 7} Cumont, op. cit. p. 56.

^{page 82 note 8} Iliad, XX) 234.

^{page 82 note 9} Schol, . ad Apoll. Rhod. iii, 115Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 1} Fornari, op. cit. p. 49.

^{page 83 note 2} Heroidum Epistulae, xv, in particular verses 457-184.

^{page 83 note 3} Curtis, in Journal of American Archaeology, xxiv, (1920), p. 149Google Scholar. This interpretation has at least the merit of explaining all the figures.

^{page 83 note 4} Cumont, op. cit. p. 62.

^{page 83 note 5} Ibid. pp.66, 67.

^{page 83 note 6} Ibid. p. 68; and see Mrs. Strong, op. cit. pp. 192, 216. Prof. Cumont has admitted his error, made before seeing the monument itself.

^{page 84 note 1} Ibid. p. 69.

^{page 84 note 2} Not. Scavi. p. 44.

^{page 84 note 3} Bull. Arch. Com. p. 80.

^{page 84 note 4} Notizie degli Scavi, p. 45.

^{page 84 note 5} Ibid. pp. 32, 45, 46.

^{page 84 note 6} Ibid.pp. 46, 52; Mrs. Strong, Literary Supplemeat of the Times, 14th Nov. 1918.

^{page 84 note 7} B. Arch. Com. 1918, p. 83.

^{page 84 note 8} Cumont, op. cit. 61.

^{page 84 note 9} Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae, Tab. 37; Kiepert-Huelsen, Forma (2nd ed.), Tab. ii, and p. 133.

^{page 84 note 10} Annals, xii, 59; Fornari, op. cit. pp. 51, 52.

^{page 84 note 11} Lanciani, op. cit. p. 80 ff.