Pliny also refers to the work of Marcius: “Sed dicantur vera æstimatione invicta miracula; Q. Marcius Rex jussus a senatu aquarum Appiæ, Anienis, Tepulæ ductus reficere, novam a nomine suo appellatam cuniculis per montes actis intra præturæ suæ tempus adduxit.” (Nat. Hist., lib. xxxvi. c. 121; see also further details in Plin., xxxi. 41, and ibid.)
[67] “Qui lapide quadrato ampliores ductus excitavit, perque illos aquam quam acquisiverit rei publicæ commodo, trium millium opera fabrorum duxit cui ab auctore,” &c. These words are wanting in the best manuscript, that of Monte Cassino. In place of them we have “( ... priores ductus restituit et tertiam illam aquarum in urbem perduxit) cui ab auctore,” &c. This does not agree with the opinion of the learned, that the Urbinas Manuscript is a copy of the one at Monte Cassino, unless great liberties were taken with it. The fact that the arcade with the specus of the aqueduct is always built of large squared stones, is strongly in favour of the Codex Urbinas. It is also certain from the nature of the work, that a large number of men must have been employed upon it. This passage seems to have been omitted in the Codex Cassinensis, which is a proof that the Codex Urbinas is not a copy from it. Dederich, p. 15, suggests after “commodo,” the words “trium millium opera fabrorum.”
[68] Frontinus, lib. i. c. 7.
Frontinus states in another chapter (c. 12) that Augustus brought underground another stream, which should be supplementary to the Marcian whenever the dryness of the season rendered extra supply necessary. It was called from the name of the contriver, Augusta, and had its rise above the spring of the Marcian. This additional ductus, or Specus Augusta, was 800 paces long.
[69] Frontinus, c. 18.
[70] “Salientibus aquis instruxit urbem.” Ibid., c. 9.
[71] Ibid., c. 87.
[72] Ibid., c. 8.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid., c. 9.