(jO On Animals depicted on Antique Monuments. 



then engraved, in 1671, in the Latium of P. Kircher * ; and, 

 in 1690, M. Ciampiiii published another engraving of it, which 

 differed considerably from the former. It was on account of 

 this discrepancy that the Cardinal Francis Barberini, grand- 

 nephew of the former, caused the mosaic to be again copied in 

 172] in new plates of a much lai-ger size ; though some errors 

 appear to have crept even into these. It was to rectify these 

 that Montfaucon, and, later still, the Abbe Barthelemy, have 

 both published delineations, in which this mosaic is represented 

 in such dimensions, and with so much accuracy, that we can 

 form determinate ideas respecting the different animals and ve- 

 getables which are represented, points to which we shall solicit 

 the particular attention of our readers -f-. 



The different authors who have studied the purpose and ob- 

 ject of this antique, seem to have inferred it from a passage which 

 occurs in Pliny. According to this author, the mosaics deno- 

 minated Lithostrata, were in use at Rome under Sylla ; and there 

 is yet, he adds, to be seen at Praeneste the one which he caused 

 to be formed in the Temple of Fortune \. It has been concluded 

 from this passage, that we must discover, either in the vicissi- 

 tudes of fortune, or in the life of Sylla, marked references to 

 the mosaic of Palestrina. Kircher has adopted with ardour the 

 first of these opinions §. 



But others have discovered in it Alexander arriving in Egypt 

 at the time when the oracle of Jupiter Hammon had legalized 

 his conquests; believing that, under this emblem, Sylla de- 

 sired to recall those oracles which warranted his own eleva- 

 tion ^. Others, among whom is Father Valpi, have seen in 

 the figures no traits but those which characterize the Romans, 

 and have chosen to believe that Sylla caused himself to be re- 



• Latium Vetus Roman. 1671, p. 100. Also Monim., torn. i. p. 82. 



t Montfaucon, L'Antiquite explique'e, torn. ii. du Supplem. 1754 — Expli- 

 cation de la Mosaique de Palestrine. Paris, 17C0 — Mem. de I'Academie 

 des Inscriptions, tom. xxx. p. 505. 



+ Pliny, 1. 34. cap. 25. Ed. Harl. 



§ Veter. Latium, tom. ii. p. 150 and 152. 



^ This opinion has been maintained by Cardinal Polignac, as may be seen 

 in his Dissert, in Calc. delineat. Edit, a Card. Baberin. 



