previous next


ROMA (Ῥώμη, Strab. Ptol. et alii: Eth. Romanus, Eth. Ῥωμαῖος), the chief town of Italy, and long the mistress of the ancient world.


Situation 719
Climate 721
I. Traditions respecting the foundation of Rome 722
II. The city of Romulus 724
    Pomoerium 724
    Gates of the Palatine city 727
III. Progress of the city till the building of the walls of Servius Tullius 729
    Legend of Tarpeia--Porta Janualis, and Temple of Janus 729
    Regions of Servius 733
    Septimontium 734
IV. Progress of the city till the time of Augustus 735
    Regions of Augustus 737
    His municipal regulations 739
    Augustan Rome 740
V. History of the city till the building of the walls of Aurelian 741
    Fire under Nero 741
    Changes under subsequent Emperors 741
VI. Decline and Fall of the city 742
    Rome in the time of Constantius II. 743
    The Barbarians at Rome 743
    Rome under the Popes 745
VII. Population of Rome 746
I. Walls and gates of Servius Tullius 748
    Survey under Vespasian, and circumference of the city 756
    False and doubtful gates 757
    Transtiberine wall 757
II. Walls and gates of Aurelian and Honorious 758
III. The Capitol 761
IV. The Forum and its environs 772
    The Sacra Via 773
    Vicus Jugarius and Vicus Tuscus 775
    The Comitium 775
    The Forum under the Kings 778
      during the Republic 783
      under the Empire 789
V. The imperial Fora 797
VI. The Palatine, Velia, and Nova Via 802
VII. The Aventine 810
VIII. The Velabrum, Forum Boarium, and Circus Maximus 812
IX. The Caelian hill 817
X. The district S. of the Caelian 819
XI. The Esquiline and its neighbourhood 822
XII. The Viminal, Quirinal, and Pincian hills 828
XIII. The Campus Martius, Circus Flaminius, and Via Lata 832
XIV. The Transtiberine district 840
XV. Circi, Theatres, and Amphitheatres 843
XVI. Baths 847
XVII. Bridges 848
XVIII. Aqueducts 850
Sources and Literature of Roman Topography 851


Rome was seated on the Tiber, and principally on its left bank, at a distance of about 15 miles from its mouth. The observatory of the Collegio Romano, which is situated in the ancient Campus Martius, lies in 41° 53′ 52″ N. lat., and 12° 28′ 40″ long. E. of Greenwich.

Rome lies in the vast plain now called the Campagna, which extends in a south-easterly direction about 90 miles from Cape Linaro, a little S. of Cività Vecchia, to the Circaean promontory; whilst its breadth is determined by the mountains on the NE. and by the Mediterranean on the SW., in which direction it does not exceed about 27 miles in its greatest extent. Looking from any of the heights of Rome towards the E., the horizon is bounded from the N. almost to the S. by a nearly continuous chain of mountains, at a distance varying from about 10 to 20 miles. This side offers a prospect of great natural beauty, which, to the lover of antiquity, is still further enhanced by the many objects of classical interest which it presents. In the extreme north, at a distance of about 20 miles, lies the round and isolated mass of Soracte. Then follows the picturesque chain of the Sabine Apennines, in which the peaked and lofty summit of Lucretilis, now Monte Gennaro, forms a striking feature. A few miles farther S., at the spot where the Anio precipitates its waters through the chain, lies Tibur, embosomed in its grey and sombre groves of olives. More southward still, and seated on the last declivities of the Sabine mountains, is the “frigidum Praeneste,” celebrated for its Sortes and its temple of Fortune (Cic. Div. 2.4. 1), and, like the neighbouring Tibur, one of the favourite resorts of Horace. (Od. 3.4.) A plain of 4 or 5 miles in breadth now intervenes, after which the horizon is again intercepted by the noble form of Mons Albanus (Monte Cavo), which closes the line of mountains towards the S. This mass is clearly of volcanic origin, and totally unconnected with the Apennines. The mountain awakens many historical recollections. Its summit was crowned by the temple of Jupiter Latiaris, the common sanctuary and meeting place of the Latin cities, conspicuous from the surrounding plain, and even visible to the mariner. Beneath lay Alba Longa with its lake; at its southern foot Lanuvium, and on its northern declivity Tusculum, consecrated by the genius and philosophy of Cicero. To the S. and SW. of Mons Albanus there is nothing to obstruct the view over the undulating plain till it sinks into the sea; but on the W. and NW. the prospect is bounded to a very narrow compass by the superior elevation of Mons Janiculus and Mons Vaticanus.

The plain marked out by these natural boundaries is intersected by two considerable rivers, the Tiber and the Anio. The former, at first called Albula, and afterwards Tiberis or Tibris (Liv. 1.3 ; Plin. Nat. 3.5. s. 9; Verg. A. 8.330, &c.), entering the plain between Soracte and the Sabine chain before described, bends its yellow course to the S. At a distance of about 3 miles from Rome, it receives the Anio flowing from the eastward, and then with increased volume passes through the city and discharges itself into the sea at Ostia. The course of the Tiber marked the limits of Etruria: the angular territory between it and the Anio is attributed to the Sabines; whilst on the southern side the line of the Anio and of the Tiber formed the boundary of Latium.

The Campagna of Rome consists of undulating ridges, from which scanty harvests are gathered; but the chief use to which it is applied is the pasturing of vast herds of cattle. These, with the picturesque herdsmen, mounted on small and half wild horses and armed with long poles or lances, are almost the only objects that break the monotony of a scene where scarce a tree is visible, and where even the solitary houses are scattered at wide intervals. Yet anciently the Campagna must have presented a very different aspect. Even within sight of Rome it was thickly studded with cities at first as flourishing as herself; and in those times, when “every rood of ground maintained its man,” it must have presented an appearance of rich cultivation.

Such is the nature of the country in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. The celebrated group of [p. 2.720]seven hills--the site on which the eternal city itself was destined to rise--stands on the left bank of the Tiber. To the N. of them is another hill, the Mons Pincius or Collis Hortorum, which was excluded from the ancient city, but part of it was enclosed in the walls of Aurelian. The Tiber, at its entrance into Rome, very nearly approaches the foot of this hill, and then describes three bold curves or reaches first to the SW., then to the SE., and again to the SW. The distance from the spot where the Tiber enters the city to the SW. point of the Aventine is, in a direct line, about 2 miles. At the extremity of the second, or most eastern reach, it divides itself for a short space into two channels and forms an island, called the Insula Tiberina. At this spot, at about 300 paces from its eastern bank, lies the smallest but most renowned of the seven hills, the Mons Capitolinus. It is of a saddle-back shape, depressed in the centre, and rising into two eminences at its S. and N. extremities. On its N. or rather NE. side, it must in ancient times have almost touched the Collis Quirinalis, the most northerly of the seven, from which a large portion was cut away by Trajan, in order to construct his forum. The Quirinalis is somewhat in the shape of a hook, running first to the SW., and then curving its extreme point to the S. Properly speaking, it is not a distinct hill, but merely a tongue, projecting from the same common ridge which also throws out the adjoining Viminal and the two still more southern projections of the Esquiline. It will be seen from the annexed plan, without the help of which this description cannot be understood, that the Quirinal, and the southernmost and most projecting tongue of the Esquiline, almost meet at their extremities, and enclose a considerable hollow--which, however, is nearly filled up by the Viminal, and by the northern and smaller tongue of the Esquiline. These two tongues of the Esquiline were originally regarded as distinct hills, under the names of Cispius, the northern projection, and Oppius

  • A. Mons Capitolinus.
  • B. Mons Palatinus.
  • C. Mons Aventinus.
  • D. Mons Caelius.
  • E. Mons Esquilinus.
  • F. Collis Viminalis.
  • G. Collis Quirinalis.
  • H. Collis Hortorum (or Mons Pincius).
  • I. Mons Janiculus.
    • a. Velia.
    • b. Germalus.
    • c. Oppits.
    • d. Cispius.
    • e e. Tiberis Fl.
  • 1. Prata Quinctia.
  • 2. Prata Flaminia.
  • 3. Subura.
  • 4. Carinae.
  • 5. Caeroliensis.
  • 6. Velabrum.
  • 7. Forum Boarium.
  • 8. Vallis Murcia.

[p. 2.721]the southern one ; But they were afterwards considered as one hill, in order not to exceed the prescriptive number of seven. S. of the Esquiline lies Mons Caelius, the largest of the seven; and to the W. of it Mons Aventinus, the next largest, the NW. side of which closely borders on the Tiber. In the centre of this garland of hills lies the lozenge-shaped Mons Palatinus, facing on the NW. towards the Capitoline, on the NE. towards the Esquiline, on the SE. towards the Caelian, and on the SW. towards the Aventine.

It may be observed that, of the seven hills above described, the Quirinal and Viminal are styled colles, whilst the others, though without any apparent reason for the distinction, are called montes. It cannot depend upon their height, since those called colles are as lofty as those dignified with the more imposing name of montes; whence it seems probable that the difference originated in the ancient traditions respecting the Septimontium. A less important eminence, called Velia, which was not reckoned as a distinct hill, projected from the NE. side of the Palatine towards the Esquiline, and separated the two valleys which in after times became the sites of the Forum Romnanum and of the Colosseum. The Germalus was another but still smaller offshoot, or spur, of the Palatine, on its western side.

On the opposite bank of the Tiber, Mons Vaticanus and Mons Janiculus rise, as before remarked, to a considerably greater height than the hills just described. The former of these lies opposite to the Pincian, but at a considerable distance from the river, thus leaving a level space, part of which was called the Ager Vaticanus, whilst the portion nearest the river obtained the name of Prata Quinctia. To the S. of Mans Vaticanus, and close to the river, at the extreme western point of its first reach, the Mons Janiculus begins to rise, and runs almost straight to the S. till it sinks into the plain opposite to Mons Aventinus. The open space between this hill and the southernmost curve of the Tiber formed the Regio Transtiberina. The sinuous course of the river from the Pincian to the Capitoline left a still more extensive plain between its left bank and the hills of Rome, the northern and more extensive portion of which formed the Campus Martius, whilst its southern part, towards the Capitoline, was called the Prata Flaminia.

From the preceding description it will be perceived that the Capitoline, Aventine, Caelian, and Palatine were completely isolated hills, separated from one another by narrow valleys. Those valleys which lay nearest the Tiber seem, in their original state, to have formed a marsh, or even a lake. Such was the Vallis Murcia, between the Palatine and Aventine, in later times the seat of the Circus Maximus ; as well as the low ground between the Palatine and river, afterwards known as the Velabrum and Forum Boarium; and perhaps even part of the Forum Romanum itself. Thus, in the combat between the Romans and Sabines, on the spot afterwards occupied by the forum, the affrighted horse of Mettius Curtius, the, Sabine leader, is described as carrying him into a marsh. (Liv. 1.12.) Nay, there are grounds for believing that the Tiber, in the neighbourhood of Rome, formed at a very remote period an arm of the sea, as pure marine sand is often found there. (Niebuhr, Lect. on Ethnogr. vol. ii. p. 39.)

In order to assist the reader in forming a clear idea of the nature of the Roman hills, we shall here insert a few measurements. They are taken from a paper by Sir George Schukburg in the “Philosophical Transactions,” An. 1777 (vol. lxvii. pt. 2. p. 594), and have been esteemed the most accurate. (Becker, Handbuch, vol. i. p. 83, note.) Other measurements by Calandrelli are also annexed. The latter are according to the Paris foot, which equals 12 785 inches English.

Height above the Mediterranean:--

Janiculum, near the Villa Spada 260
Aventine, near Priory of Malta 117
Palatine, floor of imperial palace 133
Caelian, near the Claudian aqueduct 125
Esquiline, floor of S. Maria Maggiore 154
Capitoline, W. end of the Tarpeian rock 118
Viminal and Quiirinal at their junction, in the Carthusian church, baths of Diocletian 141
Pincian, garden of the Villa Mledici 165
Tiber, above the Mediterranean 33
Convent of St. Clare in the Via de' Specchi. 27
Forum, near the arch of Severus 34

Measurements from Calandrelli, in his and Conti's Opuscoli astronomnici e fisici (ap. Sachse, Gesch. der Stadt Rom, vol. i. p. 69,7):--

  Paris feet
Janiculum, floor of the church of S. Pietro in Montorio (not the highest point of the hill) 185
Aventine, floor of S. Alessio 146
Palatine, floor of S. Bonaventura 160
Caelian, floor of S. Giovanni Laterano 158
Esquiline, floor of S. Maria Maggiore 177
Capitol, floor of S. Maria d'Araceli 151
Viminal, floor of S. Lorenzo 160
Quirinal, Palazzo Quirinale 148
Pincian, floor of S. Trinità de' Monti 150
Vatican, floor of S. Pietro. 93

In ancient times, however, the hills must have appeared considerably higher than they do at present, as the valleys are now raised in many places from 15 to 20 feet above their former level, and in some parts much more. (Lumisden, Ant. of Rome, p. 137.) This remark is more particularly applicable to the forum, which is covered with rubbish to a great depth; a circumstance which detracts much from the apparent height of the Capitoline; whose sides, too, must formerly have been much more abrupt and precipitous than they now are. The much superior height of the Janiculum to that of any of the hills on the W. bank of the Tiber, will have been remarked. Hence it enjoyed a noble prospect over the whole extent of the city and the Camtpagna beyond, to the mountains which bound the eastern horizon. The view has been celebrated by Martial (4.64), and may be still enjoyed either from the terrace in front of S. Pietro in Montorio, or from the spot where the Fontana Paolina now pours its abundant waters :-- “Hinc septem dominos videre montes
Et totam licet aestimare Romam,
Albanos quoque Tusculosque colles
Et quodcunque jacet sub urbe frigus.


The climate of Rome appears to have been much, colder in ancient times than it is. at present. [p. 2.722]Dionysius (12.8) records a winter in which the snow lay more than 7 feet deep at Rome, when houses were destroyed and men and cattle perished. Another severe winter, if it be not the same, is mentioned by Livy (5.13) as occurring B.C. 398, when the Tiber was frozen over and the roads rendered impassable. (Cf. 40.45, &c.) A very severe winter is also alluded to by St. Augustin (de Civ. Dei, 3.17). That such instances were rare, however, appears from the minuteness with which they are recorded. Yet there are many passages in the classics which prove that a moderate degree of winter cold was not at all unusual, or rather that it was of ordinary occurrence. Thus Pliny (17.2) speaks of long snows as being beneficial to the corn; and allusions to winter will be found in Cicero (ad Qu. Fr. 2.12), Horace (Od. 1.9, 3.10), Martial (4.18), and in numerous other passages of ancient writers. At the present time the occurrence of even such a degree of cold as may be inferred from these passages is extremely rare. One or two modern instances of severe winters are indeed recorded; but, generally speaking, snow seldom falls, and never lies long upon the ground. This change of climate is accounted for by Dr. Arnold as follows: “Allowing that the peninsular form of Italy must at all times have had its effect in softening the climate, still the woods and marshes of Cisalpine Gaul, and the perpetual snows of the Alps, far more extensive than at present, owing to the uncultivated and uncleared state of Switzerland and Germany, could not but have been felt even in the neighbourhood of Rome. Besides, even in the Apennines, and in Etruria and in Latium, the forests occupied a far greater space than in modern times; this would increase the quantity of rain, and consequently the volume of water in the rivers; the floods would be greater and more numerous, and before man's dominion had completely subdued the whole country, there would be a large accumulation of water in the low grounds, which would still further increase the coldness of the atmosphere.” (Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 449.)

But if the Roman climate is ameliorated with regard to the rigour of its winters, there is no reason to believe that the same is the case with respect to that unhealthy state of the atmosphere called malaria. In ancient times, Rome itself appears to have been tolerably free from this pestilence, which was confined to certain tracts of the surrounding country. This may have been partly owing to its denser population; for it is observed that in the more thickly inhabited districts of Rome there is even at present but little malaria. Strabo, speaking of Latium, observes that only a few spots near the coast were marshy and unwholesome (v. p. 231), and a little further on gives positive testimony to the healthiness of the immediate neighbourhood of Rome (ἐφεξῆς δ᾽ ἐστὶ πεδία, τὰ μὲν πρὸς τὴν Ῥώμην συνάπτοντα καὶ τὰ προάστεια αὐτῆς, τὰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν: τὰ μὲν οὖν πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν ἧττόν ἐστιν ὑγιεινά, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα εὐάγωγά τε καὶ παραπλησίως ἐξησκημένα, ib. p. 239). To the same purpose is the testimony of Livy, who represents Camillus describing the hills of Rome as “saluberrimos colles;” and of Cicero (de Rep. 2.6): “locumque delegit et fontibus abundantem et in regione pestilenti salubrem: colles enim sunt, qui cum perflantur ipsi, tum afferunt umbram vallibus.” It is surprising how Becker (Handbutch, p. 82) can interpret Cicero's meaning in this passage to be that the lower parts of Rome were unhealthy, when it is obvious that he meant just the reverse,--that the shade of the hills secured their healthiness. Little can be inferred with regard to any permanent malaria from the altars which we are told were erected to the goddesses Orbona and Febris on the Esquiline and in other places. (Cic. N. D. 2.2. 5; Plin. Nat. 2.5; Valer. Max. 2.5.6.) Even the most healthy spots are not always exempt from fevers, much less a populous city during the heats of autumn. The climate of Rome is at present reckoned unhealthy from June till October; but Horace dreaded only the autumnal heats. (Od. 2.14. 15; Sat. 2.6. 19.) The season is more accurately defined in his Epistle to Maecenas, where he places it at the ripening of the fig:-- “dum ficus prima calorque
Designatorem decorat lictoribus atris.

Ep. 1.7. 5.)

In the same epistle (5.10) he seems to expect as a usual occurrence that the Alban fields would be covered with snow in the winter.



The history of the foundation of Rome is lost in the darkness of remote antiquity. When the greatness of the city, and its progress in arts and letters, awakened curiosity respecting its origin, authentic records on the subject, if indeed they had ever existed, were no longer to be found. Hence a license of conjecture which has produced at the least no fewer than twenty-five distinct legends respecting the foundation of Rome. To record all these, many of which are merely variations of the same story, would be beside the purpose of the present article. The student who desires a complete account of them will find them very clearly stated in Sir G. Cornewall Lewis's Inquiry into the Credibility of the early Roman History (vol. i. p. 394, seq.), and also, though not so fully, in Niebuhr's History of Rome (Eng. Transl. vol. i. p. 214, seq.), chiefly derived from the following ancient sources: Dionys. Halic. 1.100.72--74; Plut. Rom. 1, 2; Servius, ad Virq. Aen. 1.273; and Festus, s. v. Roma. The importance of the subject, however, and the frequent allusions to it in the classical writers, will not permit us to pass it over in perfect silence; and we shall therefore mention, as compendiously as possible, some of the principal traditions.

All the theories on the subject may be reduced to three general heads, as follows :--I. That Rome was founded in the age preceding the Trojan War. II. That it was founded by Aeneas, or other persons, a little after the fall of Troy. III. That Romulus, grandson of Numitor, king of Alba Longa, was its founder, several centuries after the Trojan War.

Many who held the first of these opinions ascribed the building of Rome to the Pelasgi, and thought that its name was derived from the force (ῥώμη) of their arms. (Plut. Rom. 1.) Others regarded it as having been founded by an indigenous Italian tribe, and called Valentia, a name of the same import, which, after the arrival of Evander and other Greeks, was translated into Rome. (Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. p. 214.) A more prevalent tradition than either of the preceding was, that the city was first founded by the Arcadian Evander, about sixty years before the Trojan War. The fact that Evander [p. 2.723]settled on the Palatine hill seems also to have been sometimes accepted by those who referred the real foundation of Rome to a much later period. The tradition respecting this settlement is interesting to the topographer, as the names of certain places at Rome were said to be derived from circumstances connected with it. The Palatium, or Palatine hill, itself was thought to have been named after the Arcadian town of Pallantium, the n and one 1 having been dropped in the course of time; though others derived the appellation in different ways, and especially from Pallas, the grandson of Evander by his daughter Dyna and Hercules (Pals. 8.43; Dionys. A. R. 1.32.) So, too, the Porta Carmentalis of the Servian city derived its name from a neighbouring altar of Carmentis, or Carmenta, the mother of Evander. (Dionys. l.c.; Verg. A. 8.338.) Nothing indeed can be a more striking proof of the antiquity of this tradition, as well as of the deep root which it must have taken among the Roman people, than the circumstance that to a late period divine honours continued to be paid to Carmenta, as well as to Evander himself. Another indication of a similar tendency was the belief which prevailed among the Romans, and was entertained even by such writers as Livy and Tacitus, that letters and the arts of civilisation were first introduced among them by Evander. (Liv. 1.7; Tac. Ann. 11.14; Plut. Q. R. 56.)

The greater part of those who held the second opinion regarded Aeneas, or one of his immediate descendants, as the founder of Rome. This theory was particularly current among Greek writers. Sometimes the Trojans alone were regarded as the founders; sometimes they are represented as uniting in the task with the Aborigines. Occasionally, however, Greeks are substituted for Trojans, and the origin of Rome is ascribed to a son of Ulysses and Circe; nay, in one case Aeneas is represented as coming into Italy in company with Ulysses. But though this view was more particularly Grecian, it was adopted by some Latin writers of high repute. Sallust (Sal. Cat. 6) ascribes a Trojan origin to Rome; and Propertius (4.1), without expressly naming Aeneas as the founder, evidently refers its origin to him:-- “Hoc quodcunque vides, hospes, qua maxima Roma est,
Ante Phrygem Aenean collis et herba fuit;

though in the same passage he also refers to the occupation of the Palatine hill by Evander. One very prevalent form of this tradition, which appears to have been known to Aristotle (Dionys. A. R. 1.72), represents either a matron or a female slave, named Rome, as burning the ships after the Trojans had landed. They were thus compelled to remain; and when the settlement became a flourishing city, they named it after the woman who had been the cause of its foundation.

The third form of tradition, which ascribed the origin of Rome to Romulus, was by far the most universally received among the Romans. It must be regarded as ultimately forming the national tradition ; and there is every probability that it was of native growth, as many of its incidents serve to explain Roman rites and institutions, such as the worship of Vesta, the Lupercalia, Larentalia, Lemuria, Arval Brothers, &c. (Lewis, vol. i. p. 409.) The legend was of high antiquity among the Romans, although inferior in this respect to some of the Greek accounts. It was recorded in its present form by Fabius Pictor, one of the earliest Roman annalists, and was adopted by other ancient antiquarians and historians (Dionys. A. R. 1.79). Nay, from the testimony of Livy we may infer that it prevailed at a much earlier date, since he tells us (10.23) that an image of the she-wolf suckling the two royal infants was erected near the Ficus Ruminalis by the curule aediles, B.C. 296. 1 The story is too well known to be repeated


here. We shall merely remark that although according to this tradition Aeneas still remains the mythical ancestor of the Romans, yet that the building of two cities and the lapse of many generations intervene between his arrival in Italy and the foundation of Rome by his descendant Romulus. Aeneas himself founds Lavinium, and his son Ascanius Alba Longa, after a lapse of thirty years. We are little concerned about the sovereigns who are supposed to have reigned in the latter city down to the time of Numitor, the grandfather of Romulus, except [p. 2.724]in so far as they may serve to ascertain the era of Rome. The account which has the most pretensions to accuracy is that given by Dionysius (1.65, 70, 71) and by Diodorus (Fr. lib. viii. vol. iv. p. 21, Bipont). The sum of the reigns here given, allowing five years for that of Aeneas, who died in the seventh year after the taking of Troy, is 432 years--that is, down to the second year of Numitor, when Rome was founded by Romulus, in the first year of the 7th Olympiad. Now this agrees very closely with Varro's era for the foundation of Rome, viz., 753 B.C. For Troy having been taken, according to the era of Eratosthenes, in 1184 B.C., the difference between 1184 and 753 leaves 431 years for the duration of the Alban kingdom.

Varro's date for the foundation of Rome is that generally adopted. Other authorities place it rather later: Cato. in 751 B.C.; Polybins, in 750; Fabius Pictor, in 747.

This is not the place to enter into the question whether these dates of the Alban kings were the invention of a later age, in order to satisfy the requirements of chronology. It will suffice to remark that the next most prevalent opinion among those Romans who.adopted the main points of this tradition assigned only three centuries to the Alban kings before the foundation of Rome. This was the opinion of Virgil (Aen. 1.272),--“Hie iam tercentum totos regnabitur annos,”

--of Justin, of Trogus Pompeius (43.1), and of Livy (1.29), who assigns a period of 400 years for the existence of Alba, and places its destruction a century after the foundation of Rome. At all events the preponderance of testimony tends very strongly to show that Rome was not founded till several centuries after the Trojan War. Timaeus seems to have been the first Greek writer who adopted the account of the foundation of Rome by Romulus. (Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. p. 218.)


The Roman historians almost unanimously relate that Rome originally consisted of the city founded by Romulus on the Palatine. (Liv. 1.7; Vell. 1.8; Tac. Ann. 12.24; Dionys. A. R. 1.88; Gel. 13.14; Ov. Tr. 3.1 29, &c.) The ancient settlement of Evander on the same hill, as well as a city on the Capitoline called Saturnia (Varr. L. L. 5.42, Müll.; Festus, p. 322, Müll.), and another on Mons Janiculus called Aenea or Antipolis (Dionys. A. R. 1.73; Plin. Nat. 3.9), must be supposed to have disappeared at the time of its foundation, if indeed they had ever existed. It seems probable enough, as Dionysius says, that villages were previously scattered about on the seven hills ; but the existence of a place called Vatica or Vaticum, on the right bank of the Tiber, and of a Quirium on the Quirinal, rests solely on the conjecture of Niebuhr (Hist. vol. i. p. 223, seq., 289, seq., Eng. Trans.)

Pomnoerium.--Tacitus has given in the following passage the fullest and most authentic account of the circuit of the Romulean city: “Sed initium condendi, et quod pomoerium Romulus posuerit, noscere baud absurdum reor. Igitur a foro Boario, ubi aereum tauri simulacrum adspicimus, quia id genus animalium aratro subditur, sulcus designandi oppidi coeptus, ut magnam Herculis aram amplecteretur. Inde certis spatiis interjecti lapides, per ima montis Palatini ad aram Consi, mox ad Curias Veteres, tum ad sacellum Larum; forumque Romanum et Capitoliun non a Romulo sed a Tito Tatio additum urbi credidere.” (Ann. 12.24.)

According to this description, the point where the furrow of the pomoerium commenced was marked by the statue of a bull, whence the name of the Forum Boarium was by some writers afterwards derived. The Forum Boarium lay under the westernmost angle of the Palatine; and the furrow probably began a little beyond the spot where the Arcus Argentarius now stands, close to the church of S. Giorgio in Velabro, embracing the altar of Herculles, or Ara Maxima, which stood in the same forum:--

Constituitque sibi, quae Maxima dicitur, aram,
Hic ubi pars urbis de bove nomen habet.
Ov. Fast. 1.581.)

Hence it proceeded along the north side of the Vallis Murcia (Circus Maximus), as far as the Ara Consi. According to Becker (Handbuch, p. 98, de Muris, &c. p. 11), this altar must be sought towards the lower end of the Circus, near the southernmost angle of the Palatine; but he gives no authority for this opinion, which is a mere assumption, or rather a petitio principii from the passage of Tacitus before quoted, whence he thinks that it must necessarily be referred to the spot indicated. (Handb. p. 468, and p. 665, note 1438.) But there is nothing at all in the words of Tacitus to warrant this inference; and there seems to be no good reason why we should dispute the authority of Tertullian, from whom we learn that the Ara Consi stood near the first meta of the circus, and therefore somewhere near the middle of the SW. side of the Palatine ( “et nunc ara Conso illi in Circo defossa est ad primas metas,” de Spect. 5). Hence, after turning, of course, the southernmost point of the Palatine, where the Septizonium of Severus afterwards stood, the pomoerium proceeded through the valley between the Palatine and Caelius (Via de S. Gregorio) to the Curiae Veteres. The situation of this last place has been the subject of much dispute. Niebuhr (Hist. vol. i. p. 288), though with some hesitation (ib. note 735), and Bunsen (Beschreibung, vol. i. p. 138), place the Curiae Veteres near the baths of Titus on the Esquiline, and they are followed by Müller (Etrilsker, vol. ii. p. 143). This view appears, however, to be founded on no authority, except that of the modern writers Blondus Flavius and Lucius Faunus, who state that the part of the Esquiline called Carinae, and even the baths of Titus themselves, were designated in ancient notarial documents as “Curia Vetus.” But, first, it is highly improbable that Tacitus, in his description, should have taken so long a stride as from the Ara Consi, in the middle of the SW. side of the Palatine, to the Esquiline, without mentioning any intervening place. Again: if the line of the pomoerium had proceeded so far to the N., it must have embraced the Velia as well as the Palatine, as Bunsen assumes (l.c.); and this must have destroyed that squareness of form which, as we shall see further on, procured for the city of Romulus the appellation of “Roma Quadrata.” That the furrow was drawn at right angles following the natural line of the hill we are assured by more than one authority (περιγράφει τετράγωνον σχῆμα τῷ λόφῳ, Dionys. A. R. 1.88; antiquissimum pomoerium, quod a Romulo institutum est, Palatini montis radicibus terminabatur, Gel. 13.14). But, further, it may be shown from satisfactory testimony that the Curiae Veteres were not seated on the Esquiline, but between the Palatine and Caelian. Thus the Notitia, in describing [p. 2.725]the 10th Regio, or Palatium, marks the boundaries as follows, taking the reverse direction of that followed by Tacitus: “Continet casam Romuli, aedem Matris Deum et Apollinis Rhamnusii, Pentapylum, domum Augustinianam et Tiberianam, Auguratorium, aream Palatinam, aedem Jovis Victoris, domumr Dionis, Curiam Veterem, Fortunam Respicientem,. Septizonium Divi Severi, Victoriam Germanicianam, Lupercal.” The Curiae Veteres are here mentioned in the singular number; but there is some authority for this deviation. Thus Ovid (Ov. Fast. 3.139) says:-- “Janua tune regis posita viret arbore Phoebi;
Ante tuas fit idem, Curia prisca, forces,

where the Curia Prisca is identified with the Curiae Veteres by the following passage in Macrobius:--“Eodem quoque ingrediente mense tam in Regia Curiisque atque flaminum domibus, laureae veteres novis laurels mutabantur.” (Sat. 1.12.) Now, in order to determine the precise situation of the Curia Vetus of the Notitia, it must be borne in mind that the “Domus Augustiniana,” or palace of Augustus, occupied a considerable portion of the NE. side of the Palatine, commencing at the N. corner, as will be shown in treating the topography of the later city, and ending probably opposite to the arch of Titus, where the entrance was situated. Proceeding eastward, along the same side of the hill, we find enumerated the Auguratorium and Area Palatina. Then follows the temple of Jupiter Victor, which we must not confound, as Becker does (Handb. p. 100, cf. p. 422, note 847; see Preller, Regionen, p. 186), with that of Jupiter Stator, since the latter, according to the Notitia, lay rather more northwards in the 4th Regio, and probably on or near the Summa Sacra Via. That of Jupiter Victor, then, must have lain to the E. of the palace, and, as there is but a short space left on this side of the hill, it is probable that the Domus Dionis must be placed at least at its extreme NE. angle, if not on the side facing the Caelian. The Curia Vetus, of course, lay more to the S., and perhaps towards the middle of the E. side of the Palatine. Its site near the temple (or statue) of Fortuna Respiciens is confirmed by the Basis Capitolina, which mentions in the 10th Regio a “Vicus Curiarum” near to another of Fortuna Respiciens. (Gruter, Inscr. ccl.) The fourth point mentioned by Tacitus--the Aedes Larum--lay on the Summa Sacra Via, and therefore at about the middle of the NE. side of the Palatine hill. ( “Aedem Larum in Summa Sacra Via,” Mon. Ancyr.; “Ancus Martius (habitavit) in Summa Sacra Via, ubi aedes Larum est,” Solin. 1.24.) At this point the historian finishes his description of the pomoerium of Romulus, and proceeds to say that the forum and Capitol were believed to have been added to the city not by that monarch but by Titus Tatius. Hence he is charged with leaving about a third of the pomoerium undefined ; and, in order to remedy this defect, Becker (de Muris, &c. p. 14, Handb. p. 102), not without the sanction of other critics and editors, proposes to alter the punctuation of the passage, and to read “turn ad sacellum Larum forumque Romanum; et Capitolium non a Romulo,” &c. But in truth little is gained by this proceeding--only the short space from the arch of Titus to the N. point of the Palatine, whilst the remaining part of the line from thence to the Forum Boarium still remains undescribed. But what is worse, even this little is gained at the expense of truth; since, strictly speaking, a line drawn from the Aedes Larum to the forum would include the temple of Vesta (S. Maria Liberatrice), which, as we learn from Dionysius (2.65), lay outside the walls of Romulus. Moreover, according to the emended punctuation, it might be doubtful whether Tacitus meant that the forum was included in the Romulean. city, or not; and it was apparently to obviate this objection that Becker proposed to insert hoc before et (hoc et Capitolium), But these are liberties which sober criticism can hardly allow with the text of such a writer. Tacitus was not speaking like a common topographer or regionary, who is obliged to identify with painful accuracy every step as he proceeds. It is more consistent with his sententious style that, having carried the line thus far, he left his readers to complete it from the rough indication--which at the same time conveyed an important historical fact--that the forum and Capitol, which skirted at some distance the northern angle of the hill, were added by Tatius, and lay therefore outside the walls of Romulus. His readers could not err. It was well known that the original Rome was square; and, having indicated the middle point in each of the sides, he might have been charged with dulness had he written, “tum ad sacellum Larum, inde ad forum Boarium.”

  • A. Mons Palatinus.
  • B. B. Mons Capitolinus.
  • C. Collis Quirinalis.
  • D. Mons Aventinus.
  • E. Forum Romanum.
    • a. a. Velia.
    • b. Inter duos Lucos.
    • c. Germalus.
    • d d. Clivus Capitolinus.
    • e e e. Sacra Via.
    • f. Summa Sacra Via.
    • g g. Nova Via.
    • h. Clivus Victoriae.
  • 1. Porta Janualis.
  • 2. Porta Carmentalis.
  • 3. Sacellum Larum.
  • 4. Porta Mugionis.
  • 5. Porta Romanula.
  • 6. Lupercal.
  • 7. Ara Consl.
  • 8. Porta Ferentina?
  • 9. Curiae Veteres.

[p. 2.726]

Bunsen, however, has assumed from the omission that the line of wall never proceeded beyond the Sacellum Larum, and that, indeed, it was not needed; the remaining space being sufficiently defended by a marsh or lake which surrounded it. (Beschr. vol. i. p. 138.) But, as the Sacellum Larum lay on high ground, on the top of the Velian ridge, this could not have been a reason for not carrying the wall farther; and even if there was a marsh lower down, we cannot but suppose, as Becker observes (de Mur. p. 14), that the pomoerium must have been carried on to its termination. Indeed the Porta Romanula, one of the gates of the Romulean city, lay, as we shall presently see, on the NW. side, a little to the N. of the spot whence Tacitus commences his description; and if there was a gate there, á fortiori there was a wall.

The line described by Tacitus is that of the furrow, not of the actual wall; but, in the case at least of a newly founded city, the wall must have very closely followed this line. The space between them--the wall being inside--was the pomoerium, literally, “behind the wall” (post moerum = murum); and this space could not be ploughed or cultivated. The line of the furrow, or boundary of the pomoerium, was marked by stones or cippi. The name pomoerium was also extended to another open space within the walls which was kept free from buildings. The matter is very clearly explained by Livy in the following passage:--“Pomoerium, verbi vim solum intuentes, postmoerium interpretantur esse. Est autem magis circa murum locus, quem in condendis urbibus olim Etrusci, qua murum ducturi essent, certis circa terminis inaugurate consecrabant: ut neque interiore parte aedificia moenibus continuarentur, quae nunc vulgo etiam conjungunt; et extrinsecus puri aliquid ab humano cultu pateret soli. Hoc spatium, quod neque habitari neque arari fas erat, non magis quod post murum esset, quam quod murus post id, pomoerium Romani appellarunt: et in urbis incremento semper, quantum moenia processura erant, tantum termini hi consecrati proferebantur” (1.44). Every city founded, like Rome, after the Etruscan manner, had a pomoerium. The rites observed in drawing the boundary line, called “primigenius sulcus” (Paul. Diac. p. 236, Müll.), were as follows: the founder, dressed in Gabinian fashion (cinctu Gabino), yoked to a plough, on an auspicious day, a bull and a cow, the former on the off side, the latter on the near side, and, proceeding always to the left, drew the furrow marking the boundary of the pomoerium. There was a mystical meaning in the ceremony. The bull on the outside denoted that the males were to be dreadful to external enemies, whilst the cow inside typified the women who were to replenish the city with inhabitants. (Joann. Lydus, de Mens. 4.50.) The furrow represented the ditch; the clods thrown up, the wall; and persons followed the plough to throw inwards those clods which had fallen outwards. At the places left for the gates, the plough was lifted up and carried over the profane space. (Varr. L. L. 5.143, Müll.; Plut. Q. R. 27, Rom. 11.) The whole process has been summed up in the following vigorous words of Cato:--“Qui urbem novam condet, tauro et vacca aret; ubi araverit, murum faciat; ubi portam vult esse, aratrum sustollat et portet, et portam vocet.” (ap. Isidor. 15.2, 3.)

The religious use of the pomoerium was to define the boundary of the auspicia urbana, or city auspices. (Varr. l.c.) So Gellius, from the books of the Roman augurs: “Pomoerium est locus intra agrum effatum per totius urbis circuitum pone muros regionibus certis determinatus, qui facit finem urbani auspicii” (13.14). From this passage it appears that the pomoerium itself stood within another district called the “ager effatus.” This was also merely a religious, or augural, division of territory, and was of five kinds, viz. the ager Romanus, Gabinus, peregrinus, hosticus, and incertus, or the Roman, Gabinian, foreign, hostile, and doubtful territories. (Varr. 5.33, Müll.) These agri or territories were called “effati,” because the augurs declared (effati sunt) after this manner the bounds of the celestial auguries taken beyond the pomoerium. (Id. 6.53, Müll.) Hence in this sense the Ager Romanus is merely a religious or augural division, and must not be confounded with the Ager Romanus in a political sense,. or the territory actually belonging to the Roman people. It was the territory declared by the augurs as that in which alone auguries might be taken respecting foreign and military affairs; and hence the reason why we find so many accounts of generals returning to Rome to take the auguries afresh. (Liv. 8.30, 10.3, 23.19, &c.)

It is impossible to determine exactly how much space was left for the pomoerium between the furrow and the wall. In the case of the Romulean city, however, it was probably not very extensive, as the nature of the ground, especially on the side of Mons Caelius, would not allow of any great divergence from the base of the hill. Besides, the boundaries already laid down on the N. side, as the Sacellum Larum and Aedes Vestae, show that the line ran very close under the Palatine. This question depends upon another, which there is no evidence to determine satisfactorily, namely, whether the wall crowned the summit of the hill or ran along its base. The former arrangement seems the more probable, both because it was the most natural and usual mode of fortification, and because we should otherwise in some parts hardly find room enough for the pomoerium. Besides, one at least of the gates of the Romulean city, as we shall see further on, was approached by steps, and must therefore have stood upon a height. There seems to be no good authority for Niebuhr's assumption (Hist. vol. i. p. 287, seq.) that the original city of Romulus was defended merely by the sides of the hill being escarped, and that the line of the pomoerium was a later enlargement to enclose a suburb which had sprung up round about its foot. It is surprising how Niebuhr, who had seen the ground, could imagine that there was room for such a suburb with a pomoerium. Besides, we are expressly told by Tacitus (. c.) that the line of the pomoerium which he describes was the beginning of building the city (initium condendi). Indeed Niebuhr seems to have had some extraordinary ideas respecting the nature of the ground about the Palatine, when lie describes the space between that hill and the Caelius, now occupied by the road called Via di S. Gregorio, as “a wide and convenient plain!” (Hist. 1.390, cf. p. 391.) An obscure tradition is mentioned indeed by Greek writers, according to which there was a Roma Quadrata distinct from and older than the city of Romulus (πρὸ δὲ τῆς μεγάλης ταύτης Ῥώμης, ἣν ἔκτισε Ῥωμύλος περὶ τὴν Φαυστύλου οἰκίαν ἐν ὄρει Παλατίω, τετράγωνος ἐκτίσθη Ῥώμη παρὰ Ῥώμου Ῥώμους ταλαιοτέρου τούτων, Dio Cass. Fr. Vales. 3, 5, p. 10, St.; cf. Tzetzes, ad Lycophr. 5.1232). But, as Becker observes (Handb. [p. 2.727]p. 106), we should infer from these words that the Rome alluded to was not on the Palatine, but on some other hill Plutarch, indeed, also alludes to the same tradition (Rom. 9), and describes Romulus as building this Roma Quadrata and afterwards enlarging it. We also find some obscure hints to the same purpose in Latin authors. Thus Solinus: “Nam ut affirmat Varro, auctor diligentissimus, Romam condidit Romulus, Marte genitus et Rhea Silvia, vel ut nonnulli, Marte et Ilia, dictaque est primum Roma quadrata, quod ad aequilibrium foret posita. Ea incipit a silva, quae est in area Apollinis, et ad supercilium scalarum Caci habet terminum, ubi tugurium fuit Faustuli” (1.2). Now we must not take the whole of this account to be Varro's, as Becker does. (De Muris, &c. p. 18, seq., Handb. p. 106.) All that belongs to Varro seems to. be taken from a passage still extant respecting the parentage of Romulus (L. L. 5.144, Müll.), and the words after “vel ut nonnulli,” &c. belong to Solinus himself. Varro, therefore, is not, as Becker asserts, a witness to Rome having been called quadrata. The following passage in Festus, however, manifestly alludes to another sense of Roma Quadrata, namely, as a certain hallowed place which every city built with Etruscan rites possessed, and in which were deposited such things as were considered of good omen in founding a city, and which are described by Ovid (Fasti, 4.821; cf. Plut. Rom. 11): “Quadrata Roma in Palatio ante templum Apollinis dicitur, ubi reposita sunt quae solent boni ominis gratia in urbe condenda adhiberi, quia saxo munitus est initio in speciem quadratam. Ejus loci Ennius memirnit, cum ait: ‘et quis est erat Romae regnare quadratae’ ” (p. 258, Müll.). The place here described was, in fact, the mundus of the Romulean city. The words of Solinus, though we are ignorant of the exact position of the places which he mentions, seem to denote too large an area to be reconciled with the description of Festus. In confirmation of the latter, however, Becker (Handb. p. 107) adduces a fragment of the Capitoline plan (Bellori, Tab. xvi.), with the imperfect inscription REA APO (area Apollinis), and, on the space beside it, a plan of a square elevation with steps at two of its sides. This, he observes, exactly answers to the description of Festus, being a “locus saxo munitus in speciem quadratam;” and the area Apollinis was naturally before his temple. That the whole of the Romulean city, however, was also called quadrata, is evident, not only from a passage of Dionysius before cited, where he speaks of the temple of Vesta being outside of the Rome called Quadrata (ὅτι τῆς τετραγώνου καλουμένης Ῥώμης, ἣν ἐκεῖνος ἐτείχισεν, ἐκτός ἐστιν, 2.65), but also from the mutilated fragment of Ennius, quoted by Festus in the passage just cited. It is without sense as it stands, and Müller's emendation appears certain :--“Et qui se sperat Romae regnare quadratae,”

where the meaning is inapplicable to a mere mundus, and must be referred to the entire city.

Gates of the Palatine city.--It was required that in a town built, like Rome, with Etruscan rites, there should be at least three gates and three temples, namely, to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva (Serv. ad Aen. 1.422); and we learn from Pliny (3.9) that the city of Romulus had, in fact, three if not four gates. In the time of Varro, three gates existed at Rome besides those.of the Servian walls, and two of these can be referred with certainty to the Palatine city. “Praeterea intra muros video portas dici. In palatio Mucionis, a mugitu, quod ea pecus in bucita circum antiquom oppidum exigebant. Alteram Romanulam ab Roma dictam, quae habet gradus in Nova Via ad Volupiae sacellum. Tertia est Janualis dicta ab Jano; et ideo ibi positum Jani signum; et jus institutum a Pompilio, ut scribit in Annalibus Piso, ut sit aperta semper, nisi quom bellum sit nusquam.” (L. L. 5. §§ 164, 165, Müll.) The gate here called Mucio by Varro is the same as that called Mugio by other writers, by an ordinary interchange of c and g, as in Cains for Gaius, Cermalus for Germalus, &c. Thus Varro himself, as cited by Nonius (12.51. p. 531, M.) is made to call it Mugio. In Paulus Diaconus (p. 144, Müll.) we find the adjective form Mugionia, erroneously formed, however, from Mugius, the name of a man; and lastly, the form Mugonia in Solinus (1.24).

The most important passage for determining the situation of this gate is Livy's description (1.12) of the battle between the Sabines and Romans. The former occupy the Capitoline hill, the latter are arrayed in the valley beneath. The Romans mount to the attack, but are repulsed and driven back towards the “old gate” ( “adveterem portam” ) of the Palatium. Romulus, who is stationed on the high ground near it (the summit of the Velia), vows to erect on this spot a temple to Jupiter, under the name of “Stator,” if he arrest the flight of the Romans. At this time the Sabines had driven back the Romans to the extremity of what was afterwards the forum, and their, leader Metius Curtius had even penetrated nearly to the gate of the Palatium. The Romans, however, rally; the Sabines are repulsed, and the combat is renewed in the valley between the two hills. Dionysius confirms the site of the gate by describing it as leading to the Palatium from the Summa Sacra Via; which street, as will be seen when we come to describe the topography of the later city, crossed the ridge of the Velia at this spot (Ῥώμυλος μὲν Ὀρθωσίῳ Διΐ (ἱερὸν ἱδρύσατο) παρὰ ταῖς καλουμέναις Μυκώνισι πύλαις, αἱ φέρουσιν εἰς τὸ Παλάτιον ἐκ τῆς ἱερᾶς ὁδοῦ, 2.50). The spot is further identified by a graphic passage in Ovid, where the citizen who serves as Cicerone to his book conducts it from the fora of the Caesars along the Sacra Via, and, having crossed the eastern extremity of the Forum Romanum, arrives at the temple of Vesta; then proceeding onwards up the Sacra Via, first points out the former residence of Numa, and then, turning to the right, indicates the gate of the palace:-- “Paruit et ducens, Haec sunt fora Caesaris, inquit;
Haec est a sacris quae via nomen habet.
Hic locus est Vestae, qui Pallada servat et ignem;
Hic fuit antiqui regia parva Numae.
Inde peters dextram, Porta est, ait, ista Palatî:
Hic Stator; hoc primum condita Roma loco
” (Trist. iii. 1. 27.)

The site of the temple of Jupiter Stator here given is confirmed by other writers. Thus it is described by Livy (1.41) as near the palace of Tarquinius Priscus, from the windows of which, overhanging the Nova Via, Tanaquil addressed the people. Now, as will be shown in its proper place, the Nova Via ran for some distance parallel with the Sacra Via, and between it and the Palatine, and, at its highest point near this gate, was called “Summa,” like the Sacra Via. Thus Solinus (1.24): “Tarquinius Priscus ad Mugoniam Portam supra Summam [p. 2.728]Novam Viam (habitavit).” The site of the temple of Jupiter Stator near the Summa Sacra Via is sufficiently certain without adopting the proof adduced by Becker from the equestrian statue of Cloelia, the history of which he completely misunderstands. The passage from Pliny (34.13) which he quotes (note 156) relates to another and apparently a rival statue of Valeria, the daughter of Publicola, who disputed with Cloelia the honour of having swum the Tiber, and escaped from the custody of Porsena. Indeed, the two rival legends seem to have created some confusion among the ancients themselves ; and it was a disputed point in the time of Plutarch whether the existing statue was that of Cloelia or Valeria. (Popl. 19.) Becker confounds these two statues, and asserts (note 155) that Pliny, as well as Dionysius, speaks of the statue of Cloelia as no longer existing in his time. But Pliny, on the contrary, in the very chapter quoted, mentions it as still in being: “Cloeliae etiam statua est equestris.” It was the statue of Valeria that had disappeared, if indeed it had ever existed except in the account of Annius Fetialis. Pliny, therefore, must share the castigation bestowed by Becker on Plutarch and Servius for their careless topography; whose assertion as to the existence of the statue in their time he will not believe, though the latter says he had seen it with his own eyes (ad Aen. 8.646). The only ground which Becker has for so peremptorily contradicting these three respectable authorities is a passage in Dionysius (5.35); who, however, only says that when he was at Rome the statue no longer stood in its place (ταύτην ἡμεῖς μὲν οὐκ ἔτι κειμένην εὕρομεν), and that on inquiry he was told that it had been destroyed (ἠφανίσθη) in a fire that had raged among the surrounding houses. But Dionysius may have been misinformed; pr perhaps ἠφανίσθη is to be taken in its literal sense, and the statue was only removed for a while out of sight. We may assume, therefore, that it had been restored to its original position in the period which elapsed between Dionysius and Pliny, and that it continued to adorn the Summa Sacra Via for some centuries after the time of the former writer.

The preceding passages abundantly establish the site of the Porta Mugionis at that spot of the Palatine which faces the Summa Sacra Via, or present arch of Titus; nor does it seem necessary, by way of further proof, to resort to the far-fetched argument adduced by Becker from the nature of the ground (Hlandb. p. 113), namely, that this is the only spot on the NE. face of the hill which offers a natural ascent, by the road (Via Polveriera) leading up to the Convent of S. Bonaventura. That road, indeed, has all the appearance of being an artificial rather than a natural ascent, and may have been made centuries after the time of Romulus. Unfortunately, too, for Becker's round assertion on this subject (Handb. p. 109), that we must ab initio embrace as an incontrovertible principle that gates are to be sought only where the hill offers natural ascents, we find that the only other known gate, the Porta Romanula, was, on his own showing, accessible only by means of steps. For the situation of this gate Varro is again our principal authority. We have seen in the passage before quoted from that author that it opened into the Nova Via, near the Sacellum Volupiae, by means of steps. Varro again alludes to it in the following passage: “Hoc sacrificium (to Acca Larentia) fit in Velabro, qua in Novam Viam exitur, ut aiunt quidam, ad sepulcrutm Accae ut quod ibi prope faciunt Diis Manibus Servilibus sacerdotes; qui uterque locus extra urbem antiquam fuit non longe a Porta Romanula, de qua in priore libro dixi.” (L. L. 6.24, Müll.) The site of the Sacellum Volupiae cannot be determined; but the Velabrum is one of the most certain spots in Roman topography, and is still indicated by the church which bears its name, S. Giorgio in Velabro. We learn from both these passages of Varro--for Scaliger's emendation of Nova Via for Novalia in the former is incontestable--the exact site of the Porta Romanula; for as the sacrifice alluded to was performed in the Velabrum near the spot where the Nova Via entered it, and as the P. Romanula was not far from this place, it follows that it must have been at the lower end of the street or in the infima Nova Via. Varro's account is confirmed by Festus (p. 262, Müll.), who, however, calls the gate Romana instead of Romanula: “Sed porta Romana instituta est a Romulo infimo clivo Victoriae, qui locus gradibus in quadram formatus est: appellata autem Romana a Sabinis praecipue, quod ea proximus aditus erat Romam.” Here the same steps are alluded to that are mentioned by Varro. The Clivus Victoriae was that part of the NW. declivity of the Palatine which overhung the Nova Via. It was so named either from a temple of Victory seated on the top of the hill ( “in aedem Victoriae, quae est in Palatio, pertulere deam,” Liv. 29.14), or more probably--as this temple was not dedicated by L. Postumius till B.C. 295--from an ancient grove, sacred to Victory, on this side of the Palatine, near the Lupercal (Dionys. A. R. 1.32), the tradition of which, though the grove itself had long disappeared, probably led to the temple being founded there.

The Romulean city must undoubtedly have had at least a third gate, both from the testimony of Pliny and because it cannot be supposed that its remaining two sides were without an exit; but there is no authority to decide where it lay. Becker thinks that it was seated at the southernmost point of the hill; but this, though probable enough,is nothing more than a conjecture. The Porta Janualis, the third gate mentioned by Varro, was most probably as old as the time of Romulus, though it certainly never belonged to the Palatine city. Its situation and true nature will be discussed presently. We find, however, a gate called Ferentina mentioned by Plutarch (Plut. Rom. 20), who relates that Romulus, after the murder of Tatius, which was followed by visible signs of the divine anger, purified Rome and Laurentum by rites which still continued to be observed at that gate. We also find an account in Festus (p. 2 I-3) of a Porta Piacularis, which was so called “propter aliqua piacula quae ibidem fiebant ;” and some have assumed (v. Müller, ad Fest. l c.) that these two gates were identical. It is well known that the Roman gates had sometimes two names; and this seems especially probable in the case of those which had some religious ceremony connected with them. Becker (Handb. p. 177) rejects, however, with something like indignation the idea that such a gate could have belonged to the Romulean city, and would therefore either place it in the Lucus Ferentinae, or alter the text of Plutarch, his usual expedient. Altogether, however, it does not seem quite so improbable that it may have been the third and missing gate of Romulus, since its name indicates its site near the S. extremity of the Palatine, just where we are in want of one. [p. 2.729]


We can only pretend to give a probable account of the progress of the city under the first five kings. The statements on the subject in ancient authors are divergent, though the contradiction is often rather apparent than real. In the course of his reign Romulus added to his original city on the Palatine, the Capitoline hill, then called Saturnius, the Caelian, then called Querquetulanus, and the Aventine. But we must distinguish the nature of these additions. Dionysius (2.37) represents the Capitoline and Aventine as enclosed by Romulus with a strong fortification consisting of a ditch and palisades, chiefly as a protection for herdsmen and their flocks, and not as surrounded with a wall, like the Palatine. Yet it is evident from the account of the attack by the Sabines on the Capitoline (Liv. 1.11) that it must have been regularly fortified, and have had a gate. Romulus had already marked it out as the arx or citadel of his future city; and when he had defeated the Caeninenses and slain their king, he carried thither and dedicated the first spolia opima at an oak-tree held sacred by the shepherds, but which now became the site of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (IB.C. 10). When Livy tells us that this was the first temple consecrated at Rome, he probably means with the exception of those which were usually erected at the foundation of every city. That the Capitoline was a much more important hill in the time of Romulus than the Aventine and Caelian is also shown by the fact of his opening upon it the asylum for slaves and fugitives, in order to increase the population of his city. This asylum was situated somewhere in the hollow between the two eminences of the Capitoline, and the site retained till a late period the name of “Inter duos lucos” (IB.C. 10; Dionys. A. R. 2.15; Strab. 5.230; Plut. Rom. 9; Ov. Fast. 3.431, &c.).

The Capitoline hill, or Mons Saturnius, appears then to have been a real addition to the Romnulean city; but the Aventine seems to have remained down to the time of Ancus Martius a mere rudely fortified enclosure for the protection of the shepherds. Various etymologies, all perhaps equally unsatisfactory, have been invented for the name of Aventinus. One legend derived it from an Alban king so called, who was buried on the hill (Liv. 1.3; Varr. L. L. 5.43, Müll.; Paul. Diac. p. 19, Müll.), another from a descendant of Hercules, mentioned by Virgil (Aen. 7.656). Servius in his commentary on this passage makes Aventinus a king of the Aborigines, but adds from Varro that the Aventine was assigned by Romulus to the Sabines, who named it after the Avens, one of their rivers. This account is not found in the remains which we possess of Varro, who, however (l.c.), adds a few more etymologies to that already given. One of them, taken from Naevius, derives the name of the hill from the birds (aves) that resorted thither from the Tiber, to which Virgil also seems to allude (Aen. 8.233). Varro himself thinks that it was so called “ab adventu,” because, being formerly separated from the other hills by a marsh or lake, it was necessary to go to it in boats: whilst others derived the name “ab adventu hominum,” because, having upon it a temple of Diana common to all the Latin people, it was a place of great resort. But these various etymologies only prove that nothing certain was known.

The preponderance of authority tends to show that the Caelian hill was also colonised in the time of Romulus. Caelius Vibennus, or Caeles Vibenna, an Etruscan general who came to the assistance of Romulus against Tatius and the Sabines, had this hill assigned to him and settled upon it with his army; whence it derived its name of “Caelius,” it having been previously called Querquetulanus from its woods of oak. (Varr. L. L. 5.46, Müll.; Dionys. A. R. 2.36; Paul. Diac. p. 44, Müll.) The traditions respecting the incorporation of this hill are, however, very various. Some authors relate that it was added by Tullus Hostilius (Liv. 1.30; Eutrop. 1.4; Aur. Vict. Vir. Ill. 4), others by Ancus Martius (Cic. Rep. 2.18; Strab. v. p.234) ; whilst some, again, place the arrival of Caeles as low down as the reign of Tarquinius Priscus. (Tac. Ann. 4.65; Festus, p. 355, Müll.) The last account probably arose from some confusion between the arrival of the Tuscans under Romulus, and a subsequent one under the Tuscan king Tarquinius. But the sacred books relating to the Argive chapels established by Numa mention the hill under the name of Caelius (Varr. ib. § 47), and it therefore seems probable that the arrival of Vibenna must be placed under Romulus. This Tuscan settlement appears, however, not to have been permanent. After the death of their leader a portion of his followers incurred the suspicion of the Romans, and were removed from the hill to a less defensible position on the plain, apparently between the Palatine and Capitoline, where they founded the Vicus Tuscus; whilst the remainder were transferred to the adjoining hill called Caeliolus (Varr. ib. § 46). Whence also Propertius:-- “Et tu, Roma, meis tribuisti praemia Tuscis
Unde hodie vicus nomina Tuscus habet;
Tempore quo sociis venit Lycomedius armis,
Atque Sabina feri contudit arma Tati.
” (4.2. 49.)

Here the Tuscan general is named Lycomedius, which seems to be derived from Lucumo, the name given to him by Dionysins (2.42, 43), and which was probably only an appellative for an Etruscan prince. The hill having been vacated by this removal of the Tuscans, was again colonised under a subsequent king, which in some degree reconciles the conflicting accounts: but all we shall say further about it at present is, that in the reign of Tiberius an attempt was made to change its name again, and to call it Mons Augustus, either because Tiberius had laid out a great deal of money there in repairing the damage occasioned by a fire, or from a decree of the senate, which appointed that name to be used because a statue of Tiberius had been saved from the flames. (Tac. Ann. 4.64; Suet. Tib. 48.) But this name never came into common use.

Legend of Tarpeia.--Porta Janualis and Temple of Janus.--The story of Tarpeia involves two or three points of topographical interest, It shows that the Capitoline hill was regularly fortified, and had a gate. The deed of Tarpeit, whether treacherous or patriotic, for there are two versions of her history, occasioned a change in the name of the hill. It had previously been called Mons Saturnius, from Saturn, to whom it was sacred (Fest. p. 322); and there was a tradition that some Eleans, who had obtained their dismissal from the army of Hercules on his return from his western expedition, had been attracted to settle upon it by the resemblance of its name to that of Κρόνιος, a mountain of their own country. (Dionys. A. R. 1.34.) After the foundation of the Capitol [p. 2.730]its appellation, as we shall have occasion to relate further on, was again altered to that which it ever afterwards continued to bear; yet one part of the southern portion of the hill still retained the name of Rupes Tarpeia, from the vestal having been buried on it. (Varr. L. L. 5.41, Müll.) Dionysius (2.40) adopted the account of Piso, who attributed the death of Tarpeia to a patriotic attempt to deceive the Sabines, in preference to that of Fabius, which brands her with disloyalty. The latter, however, seems to have obtained most currency among the Romans ; and Propertius even derives the name of the hill from her father, Tarpeius, who commanded the Roman garrison,--“A duce Tarpeio mons est cognomen adeptus” (5.4. 93),--whilst he brands the tomb of the vestal with infamy. ( “Tarpeiae turpe sepulcrum,” 5.4. 1). The obscure legend of the Porta Pandana, which existed somewhere on the Capitol in the time of Varro (L.L. 5.42), is also connected with the story of Tarpeia; and Tatius is said to have stipulated, in the treaty which he made with Romulus, that this gate should always be left open. (Fest. p. 363, and Paul. Diac. p. 220, Müll.) According to an incredible account in Solinus (1.13), it was a gate of the old Saturnian city, and was originally called Porta Saturnia; nor is the version of Polyaenus more satisfactory (Stratag. 8.35), who refers the story of the Porta Pandana to the treaty with the Gauls, by which the Romans engaged always to leave one gate open, but, in order to evade the consequences, built it in an inaccessible place.

After peace had been concluded between Romulus and Tatius, they possessed two distinct but united cities,--the former reigning on the Palatine, the latter on the Capitoline, and dwelling on the spot where the temple of Juno Moneta afterwards stood (Plut. Rom. 2; Sol. 1.21.) When Tacitus says, in the passage before cited, that Tatius added the Capitoline to the city, we are perhaps therefore to understand that he built upon it and made it habit. able, whilst previously it had been only a sort of military outpost. The valley between the two hills formed a kind of neutral ground, and served as a common market-place. The gate called Janualis, mentioned by Varro in the passage cited from him when treating of the Romulean gates, seems undoubtedly to have belonged to the Sabine town. Niebuhr, who is followed by Bunsen (Beschr. vol. i. p. 145), is of opinion (Hist. 1.292) that it was built by the two cities as a barrier of their common liberties ; that it was open in time of war in order that succour might pass from one to the other, and shut during peace, either to prevent the quarrels which might arise from unrestricted intercourse, or as a token that the cities, though united, were distinct. Becker, on the other hand, denies that it ever was a gate at all, maintaining that it only got that name catachrestically, from the temple which it subsequently formed being called “Porta Belli” (pp. 118, 119, and note 167). But there seems to be ample evidence that it was originally a gate. Varro, in the passage cited, evidently considered it as such ; and it is also mentioned by Macrobius as a real gate, though the situation which he assigns to it will hardly be allowed even by those who give the greatest extention to the walls of the Romulean city ( “Cum bello Sabino--Romani portam, quae sub radicibus collis Viminalis erat, quae postea ex eventu Janualis vocata est, claudere festinarent,” Sat. 1.9). We may learn from Ovid, not only its real situation, but also that it was the very gate which Tarpeia betrayed to the Sabines. The passage fixes its site so accurately, and consequently also that of the temple of Janus,--an important point in Roman topography, that it is necessary to quote it at length :-- “Presserat ora deus. Tune sic ego nostra resolvo,
Voce mea voces eliciente dei:
Quum tot sint Jani cur stas sacratus in uno,
Hic ubi templa foris juncta duobus habes?
Ille manu mulcens propexam ad pectora barbam
Protinus Oebalii retulit arma Tati,
Utque levis custos, armillis capta Sabinis,
Ad summae Tatium duxerit arcis iter.
Inde, velut nunc est, per quem descenditis, intuit,
Arduus in valles et fora clivus erat.
Et jam contigerat portam, Saturnia cujus
Dempserat oppositas insidiosa seras.
Cum tanto veritus committere numine pugnam
Ipse meae movi callidus artis opus,
Oraque, qua pollens ope sum, fontana reclusi
Sumque repentinas ejaculatus aquas.
Ante tamen calidis subject sulphura venis,
Clauderet ut Tatio fervidus humor iter.
Cujus ut utilitas pulsis percepta Sabinis,
Quae fuerat, tuto reddita forma loco est.
Ara mihi posita est, parvo conjuncta sacello.
Haec adolet flammis cum strue farra suis.

Fast. 1.255. seq.)

We see from these lines, that the gate attacked by the Sabines lay at the bottom of a path leading down from the Capitoline, which path still existed in the time of Ovid, and was situated between the forum of Caesar and the Forum Romanum. The gate was consequently at the bottom of the NE. slope of the Capitoline hill, a little to the N. of. the present arch of Septimius Severus. We also learn that a small temple or sacellum was dedicated to Janus at this spot. Whether the ancient gate was incorporated in this temple, or whether it was pulled down, or whether the temple was erected by the side of the gate, cannot be determined; but at all events its former existence was commemorated by the title of Porta Janualis. It is no objection to Ovid's account, as far as the topographical question is concerned, that it differs from the one usually received, which represents the Sabines as successful through the treachery of Tarpeia, and not as repulsed through the intervention of Janus. He seems to have combined two different legends ; but all that we are here concerned for is his accurate description of the site of the temple, and consequently of the gate.

Its site is further confirmed by Procopius (B. G. 1.25. p. 122, Dind.), who mentions it as situated a little beyond the statues of the three Fates, as will appear in the second part of this article. The temple was dedicated by the peace-loving Numa, who made the opening and shutting of it the sign of war and peace. (Liv. 1.19.) Niebuhr, therefore, besides assigning an inadmissible and even absurd meaning to this custom, has forestalled its date, when he mentions it as coming into use at the union of the two independent cities.

After writing what precedes, the compiler of this article met with an essay by Dr. Th. Mommsen, published in the Annali dell' Instituto for the year 1844 (vol. xvi.), and entitled De Comitio Romano, in which that writer (p. 306, seq.) considers that he has irrefragably established that the temple of [p. 2.731]Janus was not situated in the place here assigned to it, but in the Forum Olitorium outside the Porta Carmentalis. As the opinion of so distinguished a scholar as Mommsen is entitled to great attention, we shall here briefly review his arguments. They may be stated as follows. That the temple of Janus was in the Forum Olitorium may be shown from Tacitus: “Et Jano templum, quod apud Forum Olitorium C. Duilius struxerat (dedicavit Tiberius),” (Ann. 2.49); and also from Festus: “Religioni est quibusdam porta Carmentali egredi et in aede Jani, quae est extra eam, senatum haberi, quod ea egressi sex et trecenti Fabii apud Cremeram omnes interfecti sunt, cum in aede Jani S. C. factum esset, ut proficiscerentur” (p. 285, Müll). But this temple was undoubtedly the same as the famous one founded by Numa, and Duilius could only have restored, not built it; since it can be shown that there was only one Temple of Janus at Rome before the time of Domitian. Thus Ovid (as may be seen in the passage before quoted) asks Janus,-- “Cum tot sint Jani cur stas sacratus, in uno,
Hic ubi juncta foris templa duobus habes?

The same thing appears from the following passage of Martial (10.28. 2), which shows that, before Domitian erected the Janus Quadrifrons in the Forum Transitorium, the god had only one little temple:--

Pervius exiguos habitabas ante Penates
Plurima qua medium Roma terebat iter.

The same situation of this only temple is also testified by Servius (Serv. ad Aen. 7.607): “Sacrarium (Jani) Numa Pompilius fecerat--Quod Numa instituerat, translatum est ad Forum Transitorium.” And again “Sacrarium hoc Numa Pompilius fecerat circa imum Argiletum juxta theatrum Marcelli.” Thus the situation of the sole temple of Janus is proved by the preponderance of the best authority, and does not rest on mere conjecture.

In these remarks of Mommsen's we miss that accuracy of interpretation which is so necessary in treating questions of this description. The word “struxerat,” used by Tacitus, denotes the erection of a new building, and cannot be applied to the mere restoration of an ancient one. Nor, had there been no other temple of Janus, would it have been necessary to designate the precise situation of this by the words “apud Forum Olitorium.” Again, the words of Ovid refer, not to one temple, but to one Janus, which, however, as we have seen, was converted into a sort of small temple. “When there are so many Jani, why is your image consecrated only in one?” This, then, was not a temple in the larger sense of the word ; that is, a building of such a size as to be fit for assemblies o f the senate, but merely the little sacellum described by Ovid. Let us hear Mommsen's own description of it, drawn from this passage, and from that of Martial just quoted: “Fuit enim Jani aedes (quod luculentissime apparet ex Ovidii verbis supra laudatis) non nisi Janus aliquis, sive bifrons sive quadrifrons, Dei statua ornatus, Ea, quam Numa fecit, fornix erat pervius ad portam Carmentalem applicatus, quo transibant omnes qui a Campo Martio Foroque Olitorio venientes Boarium Romanumve petebant” (p. 307). But--overlooking the point how the building of Numa could have been attached to a gate erected in the time of Servius--how is it possible to conceive that, as Mommsen infers from the words of Festus, the senate could have been assembled in a little place of this description, the common thoroughfare of the Romans? Besides, we have the express testimony of Livy, that the Senatus Consultum, sanctioning the departure of the Fabii, was made in the usual place for the meetings of the senate,--the Curia Hostilia. “Consul e Curia egressus, comitante Fabiorum agmine, qui in vestibule curiae, senatus consultum exspectantes, steterant, domum rediit” (2.48). Livy is certainly a better witness on such a point than Festus; whose account, therefore, is overthrown, not only by its inherent improbability, but also by the weight of superior authority. All that we can infer from his words is, that the temple of Janus, outside the Porta Carmentalis, was sufficiently large to hold an assembly of the senate; but this circumstance itself is sufficient proof that it could not have been the original little temple, or sacellum, of Numa. There are other objections to the account of Festus. It was not ominous, as he says, to go out at the Carmental gate, but to go out through the right arch of the gate ( “infelici via dextro Jano portae Carmentalis profecti, ad Cremeram flumen perveniunt,” IB.C. 49). If the whole gate had been accursed, how could a sacred procession like that of the virgins from the temple of Apollo to that of Juno Regina, described by Livy (27.37), have passed through it? Nor can it be told whether the relative ea refers to the Porta Carmentalis, as sense, or to aedes Jani, as grammar, requires. Further, it would be contrary to the usual custom, as Becker correctly remarks (Handbuch, p. 139, note), for the senate to assemble outside of the gates to deliberate on a domestic matter of this nature. Then, with reference to Ovid's description, he could not have mentioned the sacellum of Janus as adjoining two fora, had it stood where Mommsen places it, where it would have been separated from the Forum Romanum by the whole length of the Vicus Jugarius. Besides, it is plain from the passage of the Fasti before quoted that the original temple stood at the foot of a clivus, or descent from the Capitoline. Yet Mommsen puts it at the very top of the hill over the Carmental gate ( “in ipso monte,” p. 310, vide his plan at the end of the volume), where the hill is most abrupt, and where there could not possibly have been any clivus, and the Porta Janualis at the bottom. We should remark, too, that the reading, “arduus in valles et fora clivus erat,” is not a mere conjecture of Becker, as Mommsen seems to think (p. 810), but the common reading; and that to substitute “per fora” instead would make evident nonsense. Nor in that case do we see how the temple could have been “apud Forum Olitorium,” as Tacitus says, even if apud only means near, not at: and still less how it could have adjoined the theatre of Marcellus ( “juxta theatrum Marcelli” ), as indicated by Servius. What has been said will also be sufficient to refute the last named commentator in stating this to be the original temple. He has evidently confounded the two.

We can therefore only agree in part with the somewhat severe censure which Mommsen has pronounced on Becker on this occasion. “At quod somniavit de aede Jani sine simulacro (p. 259), quod Festum, quod Servium gravissimi erroris incusavit (p. 139, n. 254, seq.), id vix condono homini philologo” (p. 307). It appears, we trust, pretty plainly, that Festus and Servius must have been in error; but we cannot admit a temple without an image. The explanation we have already given, that Ovid is alluding to a Janus, not to a proper temple, may obviate the difficulty; But we [p. 2.732]see no reason why Janus; a very ancient Latin divinity, and to whom the Mons Janiculus appears to have been sacred before the building of Rome, should not have been honoured with a regular temple besides the little affair which was the index of peace and war. As the question, however, is connected with the situation of the Argiletum and Forum Caesaris, we shall have occasion to revert to it, and have mentioned it here only because the legend of Tarpeia, and consequent building of the temple, are closely connected with the history of the city.

Romulus, after his mysterious disappearance, was deified under the name of Quirinus, and his successor, Numa, erected a temple to the new God on the Quirinal. (Dionys. A. R. 2.63; Ov. Fast. 2.509). This hill, which was previously named Agonus (Fest. p. 254; Dionys. A. R. 2.37), appears in the time of Numa to have been divided into four distinct eminences, each named after some deity, namely, Quirinalis, Salutaris, Mucialis, and Latiaris (Varr. L.L. 5.51, Müll.); but from what deity the name of Mucialis was derived remains inexplicable. The name of Quirinalis, which, however, some derive from the Quirites, who had come with Tatius from Cures, and settled on the hill (Varr. and Fest. ll. cc.), ultimately swallowed up the other three. The temple of Quirinus probably stood near the present church of S. Andrea del Noviziato. This question, however, as well as that concerning the sites of the other three temples, will recur when treating of the topography of the city. Numa, who was himself a Sabine, also founded a capitol (Hieron. i. p. 298), subsequently called, by way of distinction, “vetus Capitolium,” on the Quirinal, which hill had been chiefly colonised by his countrymen. Of course the name of “Capitolium” could not have been applied to it till after the foundation of the Roman Capitol, and originally it was the arx of the city, containing the three usual temples of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. (Varr. L.L. 5.158, Müll.) This ancient temple of Jupiter is alluded to by Martial (5.22. 4), and probably stood on the southern part of the Quirinal on the present height of Magnanapoli.

Tuilus Hostilius is said to have added the Caelian hill to the city after the destruction of Alba Longa, when the population of Rome was doubled by the inhabitants of Alba being transferred thither; and in order to render the Caelian still more thickly inhabited Tullus chose it for his own residence. (Liv. 1.30; Eutrop. 1.4; Victor, Vir. Ill. 4.) The two accounts of the incorporation of this hill by Romulus and Tullus contain, as we have before remarked, nothing contradictory; otherwise, Dionysius Halicarnassensis would hardly have committed himself by adopting them both (2.36, 50, 3.1). The first Tuscan settlement had been transferred to another place. But when Cicero (de Rep. 2.18) and Strabo (v. p.234) state that the Caelian was added to the city by Ancus Martius, this is a real divergence for which we cannot account; as the hill could hardly have been incorporated by Tullus and again by Ancus.

Ancus is also said, by the two authorities just quoted, to have added the Aventine; and there is no improbability in this, for Romulus never made it a proper part of his city, and we learn from Plutarch (Plut. Num. 15) that it was uninhabited in the time of Numa. We must remember that the earlier enclosures were made rather to assert a future claim to the ground when the number of citizens was increased, than that they were absolutely wanted at the time of making them ( “Crescebat interim urbs, munitionibus alia atque alia appetendo loca ; quum. in spem magis futurae multitudinis, quam ad id quod tum hominum erat, munirent,” Liv. 1.8). The account of Ancus having added the Aventine is confirmed by Dionysius (3.43) and by Livy (1.33), who state that it was assigned to the citizens of the conquered Politorium. Yet the history of the Aventine is more mysterious than that of any other of the Roman hills. At the end of the third century of the city we find it, as an ager publicus, taken possession of by the patricians, and then, after a hard contest, parcelled out among the plebeians by a Lex Icilia (Dionys. A. R. 10.31, 32; cf. Liv. 3.31, 32), by whom it was afterwards principally inhabited. It remained excluded from the pomoerium down to the time of Claudius, though the most learned Romans were ignorant of the reason. After some further victories over the Latins, Ancus brought many thousands more of them to Rome ; yet we can hardly understand Livy's account (l.c.) that he located then in the Vallis Murcia; not only because that spot seems too limited to hold so large a number, but also because the Circus Maximus seems already to have been designed, and even perhaps begun, at that spot. (Dionys. A. R. 3.68.) At all events they could not have remained there for any length of time, since Livy himself mentions that the circus was laid out by Tarquinius Priscus (1.35). The fortifying of the Janiculum on the right bank of the Tiber, the building of the Sublician bridge to connect it with Rome, and the foundation of the port of Ostia at the mouth of the river, are also ascribed to Ancus Martius, as well as the fortification called the Fossa Quiritium. (Liv. 1.33; Dionys. A. R. 44, 45 ; Victor, Vir. Ill. 5; Flor. 1.4.)

The circuit of Rome, then, at the time of the accession of Tarquinius Priscus, appears to have embraced the Quirinal, Capitoline, Palatine, Aventine, and Caelian hills, and the Janiculum beyond the Tiber. The Viminal and Esquiline are not mentioned as having been included, but there can be no doubt that they were partially inhabited. Whether the first named hills were surrounded with a common wall it is impossible to say; but the fortifications, whatever their extent, seem to have been of a very rude and primitive description (τείχηαὐτοσχέδια καὶ φαῦλα ταῖς ἐργασίαις ὄντα, Dionys. A. R. 3.67). Tarquinius does not appear to have made any additions to the city, but he planned, and perhaps partly executed, what was of much more utility, a regular and connected wall to enclose the whole city. (Liv. 1.36, 38; Dionys. A. R. 3.67.) Nay, according to Victor (Vir. Ill. 6), he actually completed this wall, and Servius only added the agger (Ib. 100.7.) The reign of Tarquin was indeed a remarkable epoch in the architectural progress of the city. We must remember that he was of Tuscan birth, and even of Greek descent; and therefore it is natural to suppose that his knowledge of architecture and of the other arts of civilised life was far superior to that of the Romans and Latins; and hence the improvements which he introduced at Rome. It is satisfactory to discover and point out undesigned coincidences of this description, which greatly add to the credibility of the narratives of ancient writers, since there is too much disposition at the present day to regard them as the inventors or propagators of mere baseless fables. Tarquin also constructed those wonderful sewers for draining the Velabrum and [p. 2.733]forum which exist even to the present day; he improved the Circus Maximus, planned the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter, and erected the first porticoes and tabernae around the forum (Liv. 1.35, 38 ; Dionys. A. R. 3.67-69 ; Tac. Hist. 3.72) ; in short, he must be regarded as the founder of the subsequent architectural splendour of Rome.

The additional space included by Servius Tullius in the line of wall which he completed is variously stated in different authors. Dionysius (4.13) and Strabo (v. p.234) relate that he added the Viminal and Esquiline hills: Livy states that the hills which he added were the Quirinal and Viminal, and that he enlarged or improved the Esquiline ( “auget Esquilias,” 1.44); while Victor (Vir. Ill. 7) mentions that he added all three. It is possible that Livy means all that back or eastern portion of the Quirinal and Esquiline which run together into one common ridge, and which was fortified by the agger of Servius Tullius; and in this way we may account for his expression of “auget Esquilias,” which alludes to this extension of the hill, and the consequent amalgamation of its previously separate tongues, the Oppius and Cispius. Hence there is but little real contradiction in these apparently divergent statements. Though the elder Tarquin may dispute with Servius the honour of having built the walls of Rome, yet the construction of the agger is unanimously ascribed to Servius, with the single exception of Pliny (3.9), who attributes it to Tarquin the Proud. The custom, however, has prevailed of ascribing not only this, but the walls also, to Servius. A description of these walls and of their gates, and an inquiry into the circumference of the Servian city, will be found in the second part of this article; but there are two other points, in some degree connected with one another, which require investigation here, namely, the Regiones of Servius and the Septimontium.

Regions of Servius.--Servius divided the city into four political districts or regions, which, however, were not commensurate with its extent. Their number seems to have been connected with that of the city tribes; but there are many particulars concerning them which cannot be explained. Our knowledge of them is chiefly derived from Varro (L. L. § 45, seq., Müll.), from whom we learn that they were I. the Suburana, the limits of which cannot be precisely determined, but which embraced the Caelian hill, the valley of the Colosseum, and part of the Sacra Via, that western portion of the southern tongue of the Esquiline (Mons Oppius) known as the Carinae, the Ceroliensis,--which seems to have been the valley or part of the valley between the Esquiline and Caelian,--and the Subura, or valley north of the Oppius. II. The Esquilina or Esquiliae, which comprehended the smaller or N. tongue of the Esquiline (Mons Cispius) and its eastern back or ridge, as far as the rampart or agger of Servius, and perhaps also the eastern back of the Oppius. III. The Collina, so called from its embracing the Quirinal and Viminal hills, which, as we have before said, were called colles, in contradistinction to the other hills called montes. The intervening valleys were, of course, included. IV. The Palatina or Palatium, embraced that hill with its two spurs or offshoots, Velia and Germalus.

When we compare these regions with the map of Rome we are immediately struck with some remarkable omissions. Thus, the Capitoline hill, with the valley to the E. (forum), and valley to the S. (Velbrumn and Forum Boarium), together with the Aventine, are entirely excluded. Various conjectures have been proposed to account for these omissions. Some have imagined that the Capitol was excluded because the division of Servius regarded only the plebeian tribes, and that the Capitol was inhabited solely by patricians. Becker (Handb. p. 386) rightly rejects this hypothesis; but another, which he prefers to it, seems hardly better founded, namely, that the hill, as being the citadel, was occupied with public buildings to the exclusion of all private ones, or, at all events, as being common to all, could not be incorporated with any one region. But this would have been a better reason for the exclusion of the Quirinal, which was at that time the proper capitol of the city ; nor does it seem to be a fact that private buildings were excluded from the Capitol. Various reasons have also been assigned for the exclusion of the Aventine ; the principal of which are, the unfavourable auguries which had appeared upon it to Remus, and the circumstance of its containing a temple of Diana, which was common to all the Latin nation, and therefore prevented the hill from being made a portion of the city.

But if we attentively read the account given by Varro of the Servian Regions (L. L. 5. §§ 41--54, Müll.), we shall perceive that the division was entirely guided by the distribution of the Argive chapels, instituted probably by Numa; though Varro does not explain why they should have had this influence. Thus, after giving an account of the Capitoline and Aventine, he proceeds to say (§ 45): “Reliqua urbis loca olim discrete, quom Argeorum sacraria in septem et xx. partis urbis sunt disposita. Argeos dictos putant a principibus qui cum Hercule Argivo venere Romam et in Saturnia subsederunt. E quîs prima est scripta Regio Suburana, secunda Exquilina, tertia Collina, quarta Palatina.” He then proceeds to enumerate the sacraria or chapels in each regio, mentioning six in each, or twenty-four in all, though he had called them twenty-seven in the passage just quoted.

The obvious meaning of this passage is, that “the other parts of the city were formerly separated (i. e. from the Capitoline and Aventine) at the time when the Argive chapels were distributed into twenty-seven parts of the city.” It would hardly, perhaps, be necessary to state this, had not some eminent scholars put a different interpretation on the passage. Thus Bunsen (IBeschreibung der Stadt Rom, vol. i. p. 147), whose general view of the matter seems to be approved of by Becker (Handb. p. 127, note 183), takes Varro's meaning to be, that the remaining parts of the city did not originally form each a separate district, like the Capitol and Aventine, but were divided into smaller parts; with different names. This view has been already condemned by Müller (ad loc.), and indeed its improbability is striking; but it requires a somewhat minute examination of the passage to show that it is altogether untenable.: Livy also mentions these chapels as follows: “Multa alia sacrificia locaque sacris faciendis, quae Argeos pontifices vocant, dedicavit (Numa).” (1.21.) Now Bunsen is of opinion that the statements of Livy and Varro are inconsistent, and that whilst the former under the name of Argei means places, the latter alludes to men. In conformity with this view he proceeds to construe the passage in Varro as follows: “The name of Argives is derived from the chiefs who came with the Argive Hercules to Rome and settled in Saturnia. Of these parts of the city we find first described (viz. in the Sacris Argeorumn [p. 2.734]the Suburan Region, as second, &c.” ( “Den Namen Argeer leitet man ab von den Anführern die mit dem Argiver Hercules nach Rom kamen, und sich in Saturnia niederliessen. Von diesen Stadttheilen findet sich zuerst verzeichnet (nämlich in den Sacris Argeorum) die Suburanische Region, als zweite, &c.” (Beschr. 1.690, cf. p. 148.) But to say that the name of Argives was derived from other Argives can hardly be what the author intended. Besides, the sense is disjointed; for the relative quîs (wrongly translated “of these parts of the city” ) cannot be made to refer to an antecedent that is separated from it by a long sentence. As the text stands, quîs must necessarily refer to Argeos in the sentence immediately preceding. It might be thought that this sentence has been interpolated, since Varro called an Argive Argus, not Argivus. “Itaque dicimus ‘hic Argus’ cum hominem dicimus; cum oppidum, Graecanice ‘ hoc Argos,’ cum Latine, ‘ Argei.’ ” (L. L. 9.89, Müll.) We see from this passage that the more ancient Latin name for the town of Argos was Argei (masc. plur.), and hence it might be inferred to be Livy's meaning that the chapels were called Argos or Argoses, not Argives. But Argei, in still more ancient Latin than that of Varro, was also the name for Argqives as we find from a verse which he quotes from Ennius (7.44):--“Libaque, fictores, Argeos et tutulatos ;”

whence we are disposed to think that the name of Argives, however anomalous the usage may appear, was really applied to these chapels, just as a modern Italian calls a church S. Pietro or S. Paolo, and that the meaning of Varro in the second sentence of the passage quoted, is: “It is thought that these Argei (i. e. the sacraria so called) were named after the chiefs who came to Rome with the Argive Hercules;” in which manner Varro would coincide with Livy in making these Argei places. How else, too, shall we explain Ovid (Ov. Fast. 3.791) :--“Itur ad Argeos, qui sint sua pagina dicet?”

And in like manner Masurius Sabinus, quoted by Gellius (N. A. 10.15): “Atque etiam cum (Flaminica) it ad Argeos.” A passage in Paulus Diaconus throws a gleam of light upon the matter; though, with more grammatical nicety than knowledge of antiquity, he has adopted, apparently from the Greek, a neuter form unknown to any other writer: “Argea loca appellantur Romae, quod in his sepulti essent quidam Argivorum illustres viri,” (p. 19, Müll.) Hence it appears that these chapels were the (reputed) burial places of these Argive heroes, and their masculine appellation thus gains still further probability. “E quîs,” &c. would mean, therefore, that the different Servian Regions were marked off and named according to these chapels.

We have already remarked that though Varro mentions 27 of these chapels, he enumerates only 24. Hence Becker (Handb. p. 386), as well as Bunsen, are of opinion that the three odd ones were upon the Capitol. The only reason assigned for this conjecture is that the hill had three natural divisions--two heights with a depression between them. But if we have rightly explained Varro's meaning, it is impossible that the Capitol should have had any of these chapels. Bunsen, however, goes still further, and, connecting the chapels with the Argive men of straw which were annually precipitated into the Tiber, thinks that their number might have been 30, allotting the remaining three to the ancient Capitol on the Quirinal, although Varro had already accounted for his usual number of six in that district. (Beschlr. 1.149.) However, it is not at all improbable that the tradition of the Argive mannikins was connected with that of the chapels, since it may be inferred from the context of the passage in Varro, explaining the line of Ennius before quoted, that they were instituted by Numa. Thus the preceding line (§ 43), “mensas constituit idemque ancilia,” refers to Numa's institutions, who is again alluded to in § 45, “eundem Pompilium ait fecisse flamines.” In § 44 Varro describes the custom regarding the men of straw as follows : “Argei ab Argis ; Argei fiunt e scirpeis, simulacra hominum xxiiii.; ea quotannis de ponte sublicio a sacerdotibus publice deici solent in Tiberim.” The origin of the custom is variously explained; but the most probable account is that it was intended to commemorate the abolition by the Argives of human sacrifices once offered to Saturn, for which these men of straw were substituted. None of the MSS. of Varro, however, gives the number of 27 or 30; though the latter was introduced into the text by Aldus from the account of Dionysius (1.38). Hence it would perhaps be more in accordance with the principles of sound criticism to reduce the number of chapels given by Varro (5.45) from 27 to 24, instead of increasing them to 30; as they would then not only correspond with the number of these Argive mannikins, but also with that of the chapels which Varro separately enumerates.

Septimontiumn.--The Septimontium seems also to be in some degree connected with these Argive chapels and the Servian divisions of the city. The word Septimontium had two meanings ; it signified both the complex of seven hills on which Rome stood, and a festival (Septimontiale sacrum, Suet. Dom. 4) celebrated in commemoration of the traditions connected with them. Now it is remarkable that Antistius Labeo, quoted by Festus (p. 348, Müll.) in his account of the places where this festival was celebrated, omits all mention of the Capitoline and Aventine, just as they seem to have been left out of Numa's town and the regions of Servius subsequently formed according to it: “Septimontium, ut ait Antistius Labeo, hisce montibus feriae: Palatio, cui sacrificium quod fit, Palatuar dicitur. Veliae, cui item sacrificium Fagutali, Suburae, Cermalo, Oppio Caelio monti, Cispio monti.” There were Argive chapels at all these places, and hence a strong presumption that the festival of the Septimontium was founded by Numa, the author of most of the ancient Roman solemnities. That Labeo considered the places he enumerates to be hills is evident, not only as a direct inference from the term Septimontium itself, but also from his express words, “hisce montibus feriae,” --“there are holidays on the hills here recited.” Moreover, we know as a certainty that five of the places mentioned were hills, namely, the Palatium, Velia, Oppius, Cispius, and Caelius,--a strong presumption that the others also were heights. Yet Niebuhr (Hist. 1.389), Bunsen, (Beschr. 1.685), and Becker (Handb. p. 124), assume that one or two of them were no hills at all. The places about which there can be any doubt are Fagutal and Germalus. Respecting Subura there can be no doubt at all ; it was certainly a valley. Now the Fagutal was a ridge of the Esquiline containing the Lucus Fagutalis. It was the residence of Tarquinius Superbus: “Esquiliis (habitavit) supra clivum Pullium, ad Fagutalem lucum” (Solin. 1.25). But if the grove was above the clivus it must [p. 2.735]have been on a height. Servius had occupied a residence not far from it, over the Clivus Urbius (lb.; Liv. 1.48), and it was probably situated at or near the spot now occupied by the church of S. Martina. There is not the slightest ground for Niebuhr's assumption (Hist. 1.390) that the Fagutal was what he calls “the plain” between the Caelian and Palatine. The Cermalus or Germalus--for originally c and g were the same letter--was, like the Velia, only a distinct portion of the Palatine hill. ( “Huic (Palatio) Cermalum et Velias conjunxerunt,” Varr. 5.64, Müll.) Preller (Regionen, p. 180) considers the Germalus to be that side of the Palatine which overhangs the Velabrum between the modern churches of S. Giorgio in Velabro and S. Anastasia; and it is not improbable, as Becker conjectures (p. 418), that the hill formerly projected further to the W. than it now does, and descended in shelves or ledges. It does not appear on what grounds Niebuhr (l.c.) assumed the Germalus to be a “spot at the foot of the Palatine.” It contained the Lupercal, which, being a cave or grotto, must have been excavated in a hill or cliff, as indeed Dionysius states in his description of it: ἦν δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον, ὡς λέγεται σπήλαιον ὑπὸ τῷ λόφω μέγα (1.32).

All the places, then, enumerated by Labeo appear to have been heights, with the exception of the Subura. But on counting the names, we find that he mentions eight places instead of seven, or one more than is required to make a Septimontium. Hence Niebuhr (lb. p. 389) omitted the Subura,--not, however, because it was situated in the plain,--and was followed by Bunsen (Beschr. 1.141), who after. wards altered his mind, and struck out the Caelius (Ib. p. 685); and this last opinion is also followed by Becker (Handb. p. 124) and Müller (ad Fest. p. 341). The chief reason assigned for this view is that a principal part of the first regio (Suburana) was called Caelimontium,--a name afterwards preserved as that of one of the regions of Augustus; and on comparing this name with that of Septimontium it is inferred that, like the latter, it must have indicated a distinct and independent city union, and could not therefore have been included in any ante Servian union. But if there had been any distinct and independent township of this kind, we must surely have heard of it in some of the ancient authors. We do not know when the term Caelimontium first came into use; but it is not improbable that it arose from another small hill, the Caelius Minor or Caeliolum, having been annexed to the larger one. Martial mentions them both in the following lines:-- “Dum per limina te potentiorum
Sudatrix toga ventilat, vagumque
Major Caelius et minor fatigat.

We learn from Varro that the junction of these two hills had taken place in or before his time: “Caeliolus cum Caelio nunc conjunctum” (L. L. 5.46, Müll.), though popular use, as we see from the lines, of Martial, sometimes still continued to regard them as distinct; nor can we tell for what purpose they had been united. Little can be inferred from the order in which the hills are mentioned in the text of Festus, as local sequence is entirely disregarded; or from the circumstance that Cispius is called “mons” and Oppius not, unless we leave out “Caelio” ; or from the omission of Caelius in some of the MSS. of Paulus Diaconus. On the whole it seems most probable that Suburae may be the redundant word; unless indeed we might suppose that there were two Fagutals or groves of Jupiter, and that Suburae was inserted here to define the place of the one which overhung it.

Becker regards the Septimontium not as a proper city festival, but as commemorating traditions connected with the site of Rome long previous to the building of the city. In confirmation of this he refers (Handb. p. 125) to a passage in Varro (L. L. 5.41, Müll.) and to another in Festus (p. 321), where it is said that a people of Reate, called Sacrani, drove the Ligurians and Sicilians out of Septimontium; and a third passage is adduced from Servius (Serv. ad Aen. 11.317) to prove that the Sicilians once occupied the site of Rome; that they were expelled thence by the Ligurians, and the Ligurians in their turn by the Sacrani. Now, without entering into the historical questions connected with these obscure traditions, it may be allowed in general to be probable enough that such traditions were afloat; and when, as we have ventured to assume, Numa instituted the festival, he made them the basis of it; just as he instituted the Argive chapels and the twenty-four mannikins to commemorate the tradition of the Argive chiefs and their abolishment of human sacrifices. But the festival, nevertheless, was a proper city festival. Becker urges (Handb. p. 124) that the Septimontium described by Labeo could not have been in commemoration of a city union immediately preceding that of Servius, because it included the Oppius and Cispius, which were first added to the city by Servius. A great deal depends upon what we understand by the words “added to the city” ( “zur Stadt gezogen” ). To say that they were not included in the wall and agger afterwards completed by Servius would be a mere puerility; but they must have been inhabited and formed part of the city before his time, since there were Argive chapels upon them (Varr. 5.50); and these chapels, as we have seen, formed the basis of the city union formed by him. The festival must certainly have been post-Romulean, since some of the names of places where it was celebrated were not known before the time of Romulus. Caelius occupied the Caelian hill in his reign; the name of Germalus is said to be derived from the twins (germani) Romulus and Remus, who were landed there (Varr. 5.54); whilst Oppius and Cispius are said by Festus (p. 348, Müll.), on the authority of Varro, not to have been so named till the reign of Tullus Hostilius. But as they are mentioned by those names in the sacred books of the Argives (Varr. 5.50) it is probable that they were so called at least as early as the time of Numa.

Such, then, was the ancient Septimontium. The walls of Servius included a different group of seven hills which came to be regarded by the later Romans as the real Septimontium. They are those already described at the beginning of this article, namely, the Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, Aventine, Capitoline, and Palatine.


Having thus brought down the history of the city to the foundation of the Servian walls, we shall proceed to sketch its progress to the time of Augustus, and then till the walls of Aurelian. The former walls marked the rise and consolidation of a city, which, [p. 2.736]though soon to become formidable to its neighbours, was not yet secure from their attacks. The latter, enclosing an area more than twice as large as that defended by the Servian walls, betokened the capital of a large state, which, after becoming the mistress of the world, was beginning to totter under the weight of its own greatness, and found itself compelled to resort to the same means of defence which had protected its infancy--no longer, however, to ward off the attacks of its immediate neighbours, but those of the remotest tribes of Asia and Europe. Thus the history of the city, during this period of eight centuries, reflects in some degree the history of the Roman people, and exhibits the varying fortunes of the greatest of all human empires. Unfortunately, however, the materials even for a slight sketch of so vast a subject and so long a period are scanty and inadequate; nor, even were they more abundant, would our present limits allow more than an attempt to draw such an outline as may serve to illustrate the topography of the city.

Tarquin the Proud, the last of the Roman kings, seems to have effected little for the city, except by completing or improving the works of his predecessors. Of these the most important was the temple of the Capitoline Jove, the description of which will be found in the second part of this article. The expulsion of the Tarquins (B.C. 510) restored to the Roman people the use of the Campus Martius. This ground, which from the earliest times had probably been sacred to Mars (Dionys. A. R. 5.13), had been appropriated by the Tarquins, and at the time of their expulsion was covered with the crops which they had sown. The unholy nature of this property prevented its distribution among the people, like that of the other royal goods. The corn was ordered to be cut down and thrown into the Tiber; and according to the legend its quantity was so great that it caused the island afterwards known as the Insula Tiberina, or that of Aesculapius. (Liv. 2.5; Dionys. l.c. Plut. Publ. 8.)

The defeat of the Etruscans under Aruns, who had espoused the royal cause, was, according to the usual principle of the Romans of incorporating the vanquished nations, the means of adding a fresh supply of citizens, as there will be occasion to relate in another place.

We have little or nothing to record respecting the history of the city from this period till its capture by the Gauls B.C. 390. After the fatal battle at the Allia, the Romans returned dispirited. The city, together with the older inhabitants, was abandoned to its fate; many families escaped to Veil and other neighbouring towns ; whilst the men of an age to bear arms occupied the Capitol, which they prepared to defend. The flight of the Vestal virgins, who succeeded in escaping to Caere, is connected with a topographical legend. Being unable to carry away all their sacred utensils, they buried some of them in casks (doliolis), in a chapel near the house of the Flamen Quirinalis ; whence the place, which seems to have been near the Cloaca Maxima, in the Forum Boarium, obtained the name of Doliola, and was held so sacred that it was forbidden to spit upon it. (Liv. 5.40; V. Max. 1.1.10.) Varro, however (LL. 5.157, Müll.), did not recognise this story, but attributed the name either to some bones having been deposited there, or to the burial at an earlier period of some sacred objects belonging to Numa Pompilius.

The Gauls entered the city unopposed, and through the open Porta Collina. (Liv. 5.41.) The time during which they held it is variously given at from six to eight months. (Plb. 2.22; Flor. 1.13; Plut. Cam. 30; Serv. Aen. 8.652.) Their attempt on the Capitol is alluded to elsewhere. They set fire to and otherwise devastated the city; but perhaps we are not to take literally the words of Livy and other writers, to the effect that they completely destroyed it (5.42,43; Flor. 1.13; Plut. Cam. 21). It is at least apparent, from Livy's own narrative (100.55), that the Curia Hostilia was spared ; and it seems probable that the Gauls would have preserved some of the houses for their own sakes. We may, however, conclude, that the destruction was very great and terrible, as otherwise the Romans would not have discussed the project of emigrating to Veii. The firmness and judicious advice of Camillus persuaded them to remain. But the pressing necessity of the case, which required the new buildings to be raised with the greatest haste, was fatal to the beauty and regularity of the city. People began to build in a promiscuous manner, and the materials, afforded at the public expense, were granted only on condition that the houses should be ready within a year. No general plan was laid down ; each man built as it suited him; the ancient lines of streets were disregarded, and houses were erected even over the cloacae. Hence down to the time of Augustus, and perhaps later, the city, according to the forcible expression of Livy (5.55), resembled in arrangement rather one where the ground had been seized upon than where it had been distributed. It may be inferred from a statement of Cornelius Nepos, as quoted by Pliny, that the greater part of the city was roofed with shingles. ( “Scandula contectam fuisse Romam, ad Pyrrhi usque bellum, annis CCCCLXX., Cornelius Nepos auctor est,” 16.15.) Livy indeed mentions the public distribution of tiles, butt these perhaps may have been applied to other purposes besides roofing, such as for making the floors, &c.; and the frequent and destructive fires which occurred at Rome lead to the belief that wood was: much more extensively used in building than is customary in modern times. Within a year the new city was in readiness; and it must have been on a larger scale than before the Gallic invasion, since it had acquired a great accession of inhabitants from: the conquered towns of Veii, Capena, and Falisci. Those Romans who, to avoid the trouble of building, had occupied the deserted houses of Veii were recalled by a decree by which those who did not return within a fixed time were declared guilty of a capital offence. (Liv. 6.4.) The walls of Rome seem to have been left uninjured by the Gauls, notwith-standing Plutarch's assertion to the contrary. (Can. 32.) We nowhere read of their being repaired on this occasion, though accounts of subsequent restorations are frequent, as in the year B.C. 351 (Liv. 7.20), and again in 217, after the defeat at Trasimene. (Id. 22.8.) Nothing can convey a higher notion of Roman energy than the fact that in the very year in which the city was thus rising from its ashes, the Capitol was supported by a substructure of square and solid masonry, of such massiveness as to excite wonder even in the Augustan age. (Liv. l.c.; Plin. Nat. 36.24. s. 2.)

The censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus, B.C. 312, forms a marked epoch in the progress of the city. By his care Rome obtained its first aqueduct, and its first regularly constructed high-road, the Aqua and Via Appia. (Liv. 9.29.) But the [p. 2.737]war with Pyrrhus which soon ensued, and after-wards the still larger and more destructive ones waged with the Carthaginians, prevented the progress which might have been anticipated from these beginnings. The construction of a second aqueduct, the Anio Vetus, in the censorship of Man. Curius Dentatus and L. Papirius Cursor, B.C. 272, testifies, however, that the population of the city must have continued to increase. In the year B.C. 220 we find the censor C. Flaminius constructing the Flaminian Way, as well as the circus which bore his name. (Liv. Epit. xx.; Paul Diac. p. 89.) But it was the conquests of the Romans in Lower Italy, in Sicily, and Greece, which first gave them a taste for airchitectural magnificence. The first basilica was erected at Rome in the year B.C. 184, and was soon followed by others, as there will be occasion to relate when we come to speak of the forum. But it was not till ten years later that the city was first paved by the care of the censors Q. Fulvius Flaccus and A. Postumins Albinus. They also paved the public highways, constructed numerous bridges, and made many other important improvements, both in the city and its neighbourhood. (Liv. 41.27.) Yet, notwithstanding these additions to the public convenience and splendour, the private houses of the Romans continued, with few exceptions, to be poor and inconvenient down to the time of Sulla. The house of Cun. Octavius, on the Palatine, seems to have exhibited one of the earliest examples of elegant domestic architecture. (Cic. de Off. 1.3. 9) This was pulled down by Scaurus in order to enlarge his own house. The latter seems subsequently to have come into the possession of Clodius (Ascon. ad Cic. Mil. Arg.), and its magnificence may be inferred from the circumstance that he gave 14,800,000 sesterces for it, or about 130,000l. (Plin. Nat. 36.24. s. 2.) Indeed, as we approach the imperial times, the dwellings of the leading Romans assume a scale of extraordinary grandeur, as we see by Pliny's description of that of Crassus the orator, who was censor in B.C. 92. It was also on the Palatine, and was remarkable for six magnificent lotus-trees, which Pliny had seen in his youth, and which continued to flourish till they were destroyed in the fire of Nero. It was also distinguished by four columns of Hymettian marble, the first of that material erected in Rome. Yet even this was surpassed by the house of Q. Catulus, the colleague of Marius in the Cimbrian war, which was also on the Palatine ; and still more so by that of C. Aquilius on the Viminal, a Roman knight, distinguished for his knowledge of civil law. (Plin. Nat. 17.1.) M. Livius Drusus, tribune of the people in B.C. 93, also possessed an elegant residence, close to that of Catulus. After his death it came into the possession of the wealthy M. Crassus, of whom it was bought by Cicero for about 30,000l. (ad Fam. 5.6). It seems to have stood on the N. side of the Palatine, on the declivity of the hill, not far from the Nova Via, so that it commanded a view of the forum and Capitol. It was burnt down in the Clodian riots, and a temple of Freedom erected on the spot; but after the return of Cicero was restored to him, rebuilt at the public expense. (Cic. Att. 2.2. 4, Fam. 5.6.; Veil. Pat. 2.45; D. C. 38.17, 39.11, 20; App. BC 2.15, &c.) The house of Lepidus, consul in B.C. 77, was also remarkable for its magnificence, having not only columns, but even its thresholds, of solid Numidian marble. (Plin. Nat. 36.8.) The luxury of private residences at Rome seems to have attained its acme in those of Sallust and Lucullus. The distinguishing feature of the former, which lay on the Quirinal, was its gardens (Horti Sallustiani), which probably occupied the valley between the Quirinal and Pincian, as well as part of the latter hill. (Becker, Handb. p. 583.) The house of Lucullus, the conqueror of Mithridates and Tigranes, was situated on the Pincian, and was also surrounded with gardens of such remarkable beauty, that the desire of possessing them, which they awakened in the breast of Messalina, caused the death of their subsequent owner, P. Valerius Asiaticus. (Tac. Ann. 11.1; D. C. 60.31.) From this period they formed one of the most splendid possessions of the imperial family. (Plut. Luc. 39.)

The ambitious designs entertained by the great leaders of the expiring Republic led them to court public favour by the foundation of public buildings rather than to lay out their immense wealth in adorning their own residences. The house inhabited by Pompey in the Carinae was an hereditary one; and though, after his triumph over Mithridates and the pirates, he rebuilt it on a more splendid scale and adorned it with the beaks of ships, yet it seems even then to have been far from one of the most splendid in Rome. (Plut. Pomp. 40, seq.) On the other hand, he consulted the taste and convenience of the Romans by building a theatre, a curia, and several temples. In like manner Caesar, at the height of his power, was content to reside in the ancient Regia; though this indeed was a sort of official residence which his office of Pontifex Maximus compelled him to adopt. (Suet. Jul. 46.) But he formed, and partly executed, many magnificent designs for the embellishment of the city, which his short tenure of power prevented him from accomplishing. Among these were a theatre of unexampled magnitude, to be hollowed out of the Tarpeian rock; a temple of Mars, greater than any then existing; the foundation of two large public libraries; the construction of a new forum ; besides many other important works, both at Rome and in the provinces. (Suet. Jul. 26, 44; App. BC 2.102, &c.)

The firm and lengthened hold of power enjoyed by Augustus, and the immense resources at his disposal, enabled him not only to carry out several of his uncle's plans, but also some new ones of his own; so that his reign must be regarded as one of the most important epochs in the history of the city. The foundation of new temples and other public buildings did not prevent him from repairing and embellishing the ancient ones; and all his designs were executed with so much magnificence that he could boast in his old age of having found Rome of brick and left it of marble. (Suet. Aug. 28.) In these undertakings he was assisted by the taste and munificence of his son-in-law Agrippa, who first founded public and gratuitous baths at Rome (D. C. 54.29); but as we shall have occasion to give an account of these works, as well as of those executed by Pompey and Caesar, in the topographical portion of this article, it will not be necessary to enumerate them here; and we shall proceed to describe the important municipal reforms introduced by Augustus, especially his new division of the city into Vici and Regions.

Regions of Augustus.--Although Rome had long outgrown its limits under Servius Tullius, yet the municipal divisions of that monarch subsisted till the time of Augustus, who made them his model, so far as the altered circumstances of the city would [p. 2.738]permit. Servius had formed the different Vici into religious corporations somewhat analogous with our parishes, with an appointed worship of the Lares, and proper feasts or Compitalia. During the Republic these corporations became a kind of political clubs, and were often made the engines of designing demagogues. (Preller, Regionen, p. 81.) Augustus,; in his new distribution, also adopted the scheme of embodying the Vici as religious corporations, and for this purpose erected chapels in the crossways, and set up images of the gods vicatim, as the Apollo Sandaliarius and the Jupiter Tragoedus. (Suet. Aug. 57.) Many bases of these statues have been discovered. By the term Vicus we are to understand a certain collection of houses insulated by streets running round all its sides ; whence the term came also to be applied to the streets themselves ( “altero vici appellantur, cum id genus aedificiorum definitur, quae continentia suit in oppidis, quaeve itineribus regionibusque distribute inter se distant, nominibusque dissimilibus discriminis causa sunt dispartita,” Fest. p. 371, et ibi Müll). Compitum, which means properly a cross-road, was also, especially in ancient times, only another name for Vicus; and thus We find Pliny describing Rome as divided into Compita Larum instead of Vici (3.9). The Vici and Compita, regarded as streets, were narrower than the Viae and Plateae. (Suet. Aug. 45; Amm. Marc. 28.4.29.) They were named after temples and other objects. The Vici Were composed of two classes of houses called respectively insulae and domus. The former were so called because; by a law of the XII. Tables, it was ordained that they should be separated from one another by an interval of 2 1/2 feet, called ambitus, and by later authors circuits (Varr. L. L. 5.22, Müll.; Paul. Diac. p. 16, 111 Müll.) This law, which seems to have been designed for purposes of health and for security against fire, was disregarded during the Republic, but again enforced by Nero when he rebuilt the city (Tac. Ann. 15.43); and there is an ordinance on the subject by Antoninus and Verus (Dig. 8.2. 14). By insulae, therefore, we are to understand single houses divided by a small space from the neighbouring ones, not a complex of houses divided by streets. The latter division formed a Vicus. Yet some insulae Were so large and disposed in such a manner that they almost resembled Vici (vide Fest. p. 371, et ibi Müll). The insulae were inhabited by the middling and lower classes, and were generally let out in floors ( “coenacula meritoria,” Dip. 19.2. 30). It appears from the same authority that they were farmed by persons Who underlet them; but sometimes the proprietors kept stewards to collect their rents. Insulae were named after their owners, who were called “domini insularum” (Suet. Cases. 41, Tib. 48). Thus we hear of the insula Eucarpiana, Critonia, Arriana, &c. (vide Gruter, 611. 13 ; Murat. 948. 9.) Rent was high (Juv. 3.166), and investments in houses consequently profitable, though hazardous, since the principle of insurance was altogether unknown. (Gel. 15.1, 2.) Crassus was a great speculator in houses, and was said to possess nearly half Rome. (Plut. 100.2.) The domus, on the contrary, were the habitations or palaces of the rich and great, and consequently much fewer in number than the insulae the proportion in each Region being as 1 to 25 or 30. The domus were also commonly insulated, but not by any special law, like the insulae. They Were also composed of floors or stages, but were occupied by a single family (Petron. 77); though parts of them, especially the postica, were sometimes let out (Plant. Trin. 1.2. 157; Suet. Nero 44, Vitell. 7).

The number of insulae and domus in each Vicus Would of course vary. Augustus appointed that each should be under the government of magistrates elected from its plebeian inhabitants ( “magistri e plebe‘ cujusque viciniae lecti,” --where vicinia has its original meaning of the householders composing a Vicus, Suet. Aug. 30). Hence Livy calls them “infimum genus magistratuum” (34.7). They were-called Magistri, Magistri Vicorum, Curatores Vicorum, and Magistri Larum, and their number varied from two to four in each Vicus. In the Basis Capitolina each Vicus has 4 Magistri; but the Notitia and Curiosum mention 48 Vico-magistri in each Region, without reference to the number of Vici. On certain days, probably the Compitalia (Ascon. in Cic. Pis. p. 7), these magistrates were allowed to assume the toga praetexta, and to be attended by two lictors; and the public slaves of each Region were at their command, who were commonly at the disposal of the aediles in case of fire. (D. C. 4.8 ; Liv. l.c.) The principal duties of their office Were to attend to the worship of the Lares, recensions of the people, &c. For Augustus restored the Ludi Compitalicii and the regular worship of the Lares in spring and summer (Suet. Aug. 31), and caused his own Genius to be added to the two Lares which stood in the aedicula or chapel of each compitum. (Ov. Fast. 5.145.) The Vicomagistri likewise superintended the worship of the popular deities Stata Mater and Vulcanus Quietus, to whom, as protectors against fire, chapels were erected, first in the forum, and afterwards in the different streets. (Fest. p. 317, Müll.; cf. Preller, Regionen, p. 84.)

A certain number of Vici, varying according to the Notitia and Cusriosum from 7 to 78 constituted a Regio; and Augustus divided Rome into 14 of these Regions. The 4 Servian Regions were followed in the first 6 of Augustus. In determining the boundaries of the Regions Augustus seems to have caused them to be measured by feet, as we see them enumerated in the Notitia and Curiosum,. The limits appear to have been marked by certain public buildings, not by cippi. We may safely assume that Augustus included the suburbs in his city, but not Within a pomoerium, since the Porticus Octaviae is mentioned, as being outside of the pomoerium, although it lay far within the 9th Region. (D. C. 54.8.) The Regions appear at first to have been distinguished only by numbers; and officially they were perhaps never distinguished otherwise. Some of the names of Regions found in the Notitia and Curiosum are post-Augustan, as those of Isis and Serapis and Forum Pacit. The period when names were first applied to them cannot be determined. They are designated only by numbers in Tacitus and Frontints, and even in the Basis Capitolina which belongs to the time of Hadrian. We find, indeed, in Suetonius “Regio Palatii” (Aug. 5, Ill. Gramm. 2); but so also he says “Regio Martii Campi,” which never was a Region (Caes. 39, Nero, 12) ; and in these instances Regio seems to be used in its general sense.

The boundaries of the Regions cannot be traced With complete accuracy; but, as it is hot our intention to follow those divisions when treating of the topography of the city, We shall here insert such a general description of them as may enable the reader to form some notion of their situation and relative size. Regio I., or Porta Capena, embraced the [p. 2.739]suburb lying outside of that gate, to the E, of the baths of Antoninus. It contained 10 Vici, and among its principal objects were, the temple of Mars, the arch of Drusus, and the sepulchre of the Scipios. Region II., or Caelimontana, lay to the N. of this, and comprehended the whole extent of the Caelian hill. It had 7 Vici, and among its monuments may be mentioned the Arcus Dolabellae and the aqueduct of Nero. Regio III., called Isis and Serapis, lay to the N. of the Caelimontana, and embraced the valley of the Colosseum, and that southern portion of the Esquiline anciently known as Mons Oppius. It comprehended 12 Vici, and its principal objects were the baths of Titus and the Flavian amphitheatre or Colosseum. Regio IV., called Templumn Pacis and Sacra Via, was situated to the W. of that of Isis and Serapis, and comprehended the Velian ridge and the greater part of the valley between the Palatine, Esquiline, Viminal, and Quirinal, to the exclusion, however, of that western portion which lay immediately under the Capitoline. Yet it embraced the buildings on the N. side of the forum, including the temple of Faustina, the Basilica Paulli, and the Area Vulcani. Its eastern boundary ran close to the Colosseum, since it included the Colossus and the Meta Sudans, both which objects stood very near that building. Its principal monuments, besides those already mentioned, were the temple of Venus and Rome, and the basilica of Constantine. It embraced the Subura, the greater portion of the Sacra Via, and the Forum Transitorium, and contained 8 Vici. Regio V., or Esquilina, included the northern portion of the Esquiline (Mons Cispius) and the Viminal, besides a vast tract of suburbs lying to the E. of the Servian walls and agger. Thus it extended so far as to embrace the Amphitheatrum Castrense, which adjoins the modern church of S. Croce in Gerusalemme, and the so-called temple of Minerva Medica, near the Porta Maggiore. It had 15 Vici, and among its remaining principal objects were the gardens of Maecenas, the arch of Gallienus, and the Nymphaeum of Alexander Severus. Region VI., called Alta Semita, embraced the Quirinal, and extended ,to the E. s.o as to include {the Praetorian camp. It had 17 Vici, and its chief objects were the baths of Diocletian, the house and gardens of Sallust, and the ancient Capitol. Regio VII., or Via Lata, was bounded on the E. by the Quirinal, on the N. by the Pincian, on the S. by the Servian wall between the Quirinal and Capitoline, and on the W. by the road called Via Lata till it joined the Via Flaminia--a point which cannot be accurately ascertained. The Via Lata was the southern portion of the modern Corso, and probably extended to the N. nearly as far as the Antonine column. The Region comprehended 15 Vici. Being without the Servian walls, part of this district was anciently a burying place, and the tomb of Bibulus is still extant. Regio VIII., or Forum Romanum Magnum, was one of the most important and populous in Rome. The ancient forum obtained the name of “Magnum” after the building of that of Caesar. (D. C. 43.22.) This Region, which formed the central point of all the rest, embraced not only the ancient forum, except the buildings on its N. side, but also the imperial fora, the Capitoline hill, and the valley between it and the Palatine as far as the Velabrum. It contained 34 Vici, among which were the densely populated ones Jugarius and Tuscus. The monuments in this district are so numerous and well known that it is unnecessary to specify them. Regio IX, called Circus Flaminius, comprehended the district lying between the Via Lata on the E., the Tiber on the W., the Capitoline hill and Servian wall on the S.; whilst on the N. it seems to have extended as far as the present Piazza Navona and Piazza Colonna. It contained 35 Vici, and among its objects of interest may be named the circus from which it derived its name, the three theatres of Balbus, Pompey, and Marcellus, the Pantheon, and many other celebrated monuments. The Campus Martius, or northern part of the area between the hills and the Tiber, was not comprehended in any of the 14 Regions. Regio X., or Palatium, consisted of the Palatine hill and its declivities. It had 20 Vici. Its boundaries are so well marked that we need not mention its numerous and well-known monuments till we come to describe its topography. Regio XI., or Circus Maximus, derived its name from the circus, which occupied the greater part of it. It comprehended the valley between the Palatine and Aventine, and also apparently the northern declivities of the latter hill, as far as the Porta Trigemina. On the N., where it met the Region of the Forum Romanum, it seems to have included the Velabrum. It contained 19 Vici according to the Notitia, 21 according to the Curiosum. Regio XII., called Piscina Publica, was bounded on the W. by the Aventine, on the N. by the Caelian, on the E. by Regio I. or Porta Capena, and on the S. it probably extended to the line of the Aurelian walls. It had 17 Vici, and its most re. markable monument was the baths of Caracalla. Regio XIII., or Aventinus, included that hill and the adjoining banks of the Tiber. It had 17 Vici, according to the Notitia, 18 according to the Curiosum. Regio XIV., Transtiberina, or Transtiberim, comprehended all the suburb on the W., or right bank of the Tiber, including the Vatican, the Janiculum, with the district between them and the river, and the Insula Tiberina. This, therefore, was by far the largest of all :the Regions, and contained 78 Vici.

Municipal Regulations of Augustus.--All these Regions were under the control of magistrates chosen annually by lot. (Suet. Aug. 30.) The government of the Regions was not corporative, like that of the Vici, but administrative:; and one or :more Regions seem to have been intrusted to a single magistrate chosen :among the aediles, tribunes, or praetors. (Preller, Regionen, p. 77.) The supreme administration, however, was vested in the Praefectus Urbi. At a later period other officers were interposed between the praefect and these governors. Thus the Basis Capitolina mentions a Curator and Denunciator in each Region. Subsequently, however, the latter office seems to have been abolished, and the Notitia and Curiosum mention two curators in each Region. There were also subordinate officers, such as praecones or criers, and a number of imperial slaves, or libertini, were appointed to transact any necessary business concerning the Regions. (Preller, p. 79.)

One of the chief objects of Augustus in establishing these Regions seems to have been connected with a reform of the ;city police. For this purpose he established 7 Cohortes Vigilum, whose stations were so disposed that each cohort might be available for two Regions. Each was under the command of a tribune, and the whole was superintended by a Praefectus Vigilum. (Suet. Aug. 30 [p. 2.740]D. C. 4.26; Paulus, de Offic. Praef. Vigil., Dig. 1.15.) As these stations were necessarily near the borders of Regions, we find them frequently mentioned in the Notitia and Curiosum. They seem to have been a sort of barracks. But besides the 7 principal stations, the Breviarium mentions 14 excubitoria, or outposts, which seem to have been placed in the middle of each region. The corps of which they were composed were probably supplied from the main stations. The duties of the vigiles were those of a night-police, namely, to guard against fires, burglaries, highway robberies, &c. The first of these duties had anciently been performed by certain triumviri, called from their functions Nocturni, who were assisted by public slaves stationed at the gates and round the walls. The same office was, however, sometimes assumed by the aediles and tribunes of the people. (Paulus, l.c.) The vigiles were provided with all the arms and tools necessary for their duties ; and from a passage in Petronius (100.79) seem to have possessed the power of breaking into houses when they suspected any danger. The numbers of the vigiles amounted at last to 7000 men, or 1000 in each cohort. Augustus also established the Cohortes Praetoriae, or imperial guard, of which 9 cohorts were disposed in the neighbourhood of Rome, and 3 only, the Cohortes Urbanae, were permitted within the city. (Tac. Ann. 4.5; Suet. Aug. 49.) These cohorts of Augustus were under the command of the Praefectus Urbi. (Tac. Hist. 3.64.) It was his successor, Tiberius, who, by the advice of Sejanus, first established a regular Praetorian camp at Rome, a little to the eastward of the agger of Servius, and placed the bands under the command of a Praefectus Praetorio. (Tac. Ann. 4.2; Suet. Tib. 37.)

Augustus also paid considerable attention to the method of building, and revived the regulations laid down by P. Rutilius Rufus with regard to this subject in the time of the Gracchi (Suet. Aug. 89); but all we know of these regulations is, that Augustus forbade houses to be built higher than 70 feet, if situated in a street. (Strab. v. p.235.) The height was subsequently regulated by Nero and Trajan, the last of whom fixed it at 60 feet. (Aur. Vict. Epit. 100.13.) Yet houses still continued to be inconveniently high, as we see from the complaints of Juvenal, in the time, probably, of Domitian, and dangerous alike in case of fire or falling, especially to a poor poet who lived immediately under the tiles:-- “Nos urbem colimus tenui tibicine fultam
Magna parte sui; nam sic labentibus obstat
Villicus, et veteris rimae quum texit hiatum
Securos pendente jubet dormire ruina.
Vivendum est illic ubi nulla incendia, nulli
Nocte metus. Jam poscit aquam, jam frivola
Ucalegon: tabulata tibi jam tertia fumant:
Tu nescis; nam si gradibus trepidatur ab imis
Ultimus ardebit, quem tegula sola tuetur
A pluvia, molles ubi reddunt ova columbae.


Augustan Rome.--Strabo, who visited Rome in the reign of Augustus, and must have remained there during part of that of Tiberius, has left us the following lively picture of its appearance at that period: “ The city, having thus attained such a size, is able to maintain its greatness by the abundance of provisions and the plentiful supply of wood and stone for building, which the constant fires and continual falling and pulling down of houses render necessary; for even pulling down and rebuilding in order to gratify the taste is but a sort of voluntary ruin. Moreover the abundant mines and forests, and the rivers which serve to convey materials, afford wonderful means for these purposes. Such is the Anio, flowing down from Alba (Fucensis), a Latin city lying towards the territory of the Marsians, and so through the plain till it falls into the Tiber: also the Nar and the Tenea, which likewise join the Tiber after flowing through Umbria; and the Clanis, which waters Etruria and the territory of Clusium. Augustus Caesar took great care to obviate such damages to the city. To guard against fires he appointed a special corps composed of freedmen; and to prevent the falling down of houses he ordained that no new ones should be built, if they adjoined the public streets, of a greater height than 70 feet. Nevertheless the renovation of the city would have been impossible but for the before-mentioned mines and forests, and the facility of transport.

Such, then, were the advantages of the city from the nature of the country; but to these the Romans added those which spring from industry and art. Although the Greeks are supposed to excel in building cities, not only by the attention they pay to the beauty of their architecture and the strength of their situation, but also to the selection of a fertile country and convenient harbours, yet the Romans have surpassed them by attending to what they neglected, such as the making of high-roads and aqueducts, and the constructing of sewers capable of conveying the whole drainage of the city into the Tiber. The high-roads have been constructed through the country in such a manner, by levelling hills and filling--up hollows, that the waggons are enabled to carry freight sufficient for a vessel; whilst the sewers, vaulted with hewn blocks of masonry, are sometimes large enough to admit the passage of a hay-cart. Such is the volume of water conveyed by the aqueducts that whole rivers may be said to flow through the city, which are carried off by the sewers. Thus almost every house is provided with water-pipes, and possesses a never-failing fountain. Marcus Agrippa paid particular attention to this department, besides adorning the city with many beautiful monuments. It may be said that the ancient Romans neglected the beauty of their city, being intent upon greater and more important objects; but later generations, and particularly the Romans of our own day, have attended to this point as well, and filled the city with many beautiful monuments. Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, as well as the children, friends, wife and sister of the last, have bestowed an almost excessive care and expense in providing these objects. The Campus Martius has been their special care, the natural beauties of which have been enhanced by their designs. This plain is of surprising extent, affording unlimited room not only for the chariot races and other equestrian games, but also for the multitudes who exercise themselves with the ball or hoop, or in wrestling. The neighbouring buildings, the perpetual verdure of the grass, the hills which crown the opposite banks of the river and produce a kind of scenic effect, all combine to form a spectacle from which it is difficult to tear oneself. Adjoining this plain is another, and many porticoes and sacred groves, three theatres, an amphitheatre, and temples [p. 2.741]so rich and so close to one another that they might appear to exhibit the rest of the city as a mere supplement. Hence this place is considered the most honourable and sacred of all, and has been appropriated to the monuments of the most distinguished men and women. The most remarkable of these is that called the Mausoleum, a vast mound near the river raised upon a lofty base of white stone, and covered to its summit with evergreen trees. On the top is a bronze statue of Augustus; whilst under the mound are the tombs of himself, his relatives, and friends, and at the back of it a large grove, affording delightful promenades. In the middle of the Campus is an enclosed space where the body of Augustus was burnt, also constructed of white stone, surrounded with an iron rail, and planted in the interior with poplar trees. Then if we proceed to the ancient forum, and survey the numerous basilicae, porticoes, and temples which surround it, and view the Capitol and its works, as well as those on the Palatine and in the portico of Livia, we might easily be led to forget all other cities. Such is Rome

” (v. pp. 235, 236).

In spite, however, of this glowing picture, or rather perhaps from the emphasis which it lays on the description of the Campus Martius, whilst the remainder of the city is struck off with a few light touches, it may be suspected that in the time of Augustus the ancient part of Rome, with the exception of the immediate vicinity of the forum and Capitol, did not present a spectacle of any great magnificence. The narrowness and irregularity of the streets, the consequence of the hasty manner in which the city was rebuilt after its destruction by the Gauls, still continued to disfigure it in the time of Augustus, as is shown by a passage in Livy (5.55), already cited (cf. Tacitus, Tac. Ann. 15.38: “Obnoxia urbe artis itineribus, hucque et illuc flexis, atque enormibus vicis, qualis vetus Roma fuit” --that is, before the fire). This defect was not remedied till the great fire in the reign of Nero, which forms the next remarkable epoch in the history of the city.


Fire under Nero.--There had been a destructive fire in the reign of Tiberius, which burnt down all the buildings on the Caelian hill (Tac. Ann. 4.64); but this was a mere trifle compared with the extensive conflagration under Nero. The latter, the most destructive calamity of the kind that had ever happened at Rome, is unequivocally said by Suetonius (Suet. Nero 38) to have been caused by the wilful act of the emperor, from disgust at the narrow and winding streets. Nero is represented by that historian as contemplating the flames with delight from the tower of Maecenas on the Esquiline, and as converting the awful reality into a sort of dramatic spectacle, by singing as the fire raged, in proper scenic attire, the Sack of Troy ; nor does the more judicious Tacitus altogether reject the imputation (Ann. 15.38, seq.) The fire commenced at the lower part of the Circus Maximus, where it adjoins the Caelian and Palatine, in some shops containing combustible materials. Thence it spread through the whole length of the circus to the Forum Boarium, and northwards over the whole Palatine till it was arrested at the foot of the Esquiline. It lasted six days and seven nights, and its extent may be judged from the fact that out of the fourteen Regions three were completely destroyed, and seven very nearly so, whilst only three escaped altogether untouched. The three Regions utterly destroyed must have been the xith, xth, and ivth, or those called Circus Maximus, Palatium, and Templum Pacis. The forum must have suffered considerably, but the Capitol seems to have escaped, as the Capitoline temple, after its first destruction in the time of Sulla, remained entire till burnt by the Vitellians. The narrow and crooked streets, and the irregular Vici of which ancient Rome was composed, rendered it impossible to arrest the conflagration. Nero was at Antium when it broke out, and did not return to Rome till the flames were threatening his own palace, which he had not the power to save. This was the Domus Transitori, the domain of which he had extended from the Palatine to the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline. What chiefly directed suspicion against Nero, as having wilfully caused the fire, was the circumstance of its breaking out afresh in the Aemilian property of his minion Tigellinus.

Much irreparable loss was occasioned by this fire, such as the destruction of several time-honoured fanes, of many master-pieces of Greek art, besides a vast amount of private property. Among the venerable temples which perished on this occasion, were that of Luna, erected by Servius Tullius, the altar and fane of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, the temple of Jupiter Stator, founded by Romulus, those of Vesta and of the Penates Populi Romani, and the Regia of Numa. Yet, on the other hand, the fire made room for great improvements. Nero caused the town to be rebuilt on a regular plan, with broad streets, open spaces, and less lofty houses. All the buildings were isolated, and a certain portion of each was constructed with Alban or Gabinian stone, so as to be proof against fire; to guard against which a plentiful supply of water was laid on. As a means of escape and assistance in the same calamity, as well as for the sake of ornament, Nero also caused porticoes to be built at his own expense along the fronts of the insulae. He supplied the proprietors with money for building, and specified a certain time by which the houses were to be completed (Tac. Ann. 15.38-43; Suet. Nero 38). Thus Rome sprung a second time from her ashes, in a style of far greater splendour than before. The new palace, or domus aurea, of the emperor himself kept pace with the increased magnificence of the city. Its bounds comprehended large parks and gardens, filled with wild animals, where solitude might be found in the very heart of the city; a vast lake, surrounded with large buildings, filled the valley in which the Flavian amphitheatre was afterwards erected ; the palace was of such extent as to have triple porticoes of a thousand feet ; in the vestibule stood a colossal figure of Nero himself, 120 feet in height; the ceilings were panelled, the chambers gilt, and inlaid with gems and mother-of-pearl; and the baths flowed both with fresh and sea water. When this magnificent abode was completed, Nero vouchsafed to honour it with his qualified approbation, and was heard to observe, “that he was at last beginning to lodge like a man.” (Suet. Nero 31; Mart. de Spect. 2.)

Changes under subsequent Emperors.--The two predecessors of Nero, Caligula and Claudius, did not effect much for the city; and the short and turbulent reigns of his three successors, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, were characterised rather by destruction than improvement. Caligula indeed perfected some of the designs of Tiberius (Suet. Cal. [p. 2.742]21); and the reign of Claudius was distinguished by the completion of two aqueducts and the construction of several beautiful fountains (Id. Claud. 20). The factious struggles between Otho and Vitellius were marked by the ominous burning of the Capitol. At length the happier era of the public-spirited Vespasian was distinguished alike by his regard for the civil liberties of the Romans, and for their material comforts, by the attention which he paid to the improvement of the city, and by his restoring to the public use and enjoyment the vast space appropriated by Nero for his own selfish gratification. The bounds of the imperial palace were again restricted to the limits of the Palatine, and on the site of Nero's lake rose a vast amphitheatre destined for the amusement of so many thousands of the Roman people, whose ruins we still gaze at with wonder and admiration. Vespasian was likewise the founder of the temple of Peace, near the Forum, and of a temple to Claudius on the Caelian hill. Titus pursued the popular designs of his father, and devoted a large portion of the former imperial gardens on the Esquiline to the foundation of public baths. (Suet. Tit. 7; Mart. 3.20. 15.) Under this emperor another destructive fire raged for three days and nights at Rome, and again laid a great part of the city in ashes. (Suet. Tit. 8.) The chief works of Domitian were the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, which had again been burnt, on the mere external gilding of which he is said to have expended 12,000 talents, or nearly three millions sterling; and the foundation of a new forum, which, however, was not finished till the time of Nerva, whose name it bore. (Id. Dom. 5.) Trajan constructed the last of the imperial fora, with which was connected the Basilica Ulpia. (D. C. 69.4.) Rome probably attained its highest pitch of architectural splendour under the reign of his successor Hadrian. That emperor had a passion for building, and frequently furnished his own designs, which, however, were not always in the best taste. His most remarkable works were the Mausoleum on the right bank of the Tiber, now the Castello di S. Angelo, the Temple of Venus and Rome near the Colosseum, and the enormous villa whose ruins may still be seen at the foot of the ascent which leads to Tivoli. (Spart. Hadr. 19; Procop. B. G. 1.22.)

It would be tedious and unprofitable to recount the works of succeeding emperors down to the time of Aurelian; and it may suffice to mention that those who most contributed to renovate or adorn the city were Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus. During this period Rome betrayed unequivocal symptoms of her approaching decline and fall. Large bodies of the barbarians had already penetrated into Italy, and, in the reign of the accomplished but feeble Gallienus, a horde of the Alemanni had menaced and insulted Rome itself. After a lapse of eight centuries its citizens again trembled for the safety of their families and homes; and the active and enterprising Aurelian, whilst waging successful wars in Egypt and the East, found himself compelled to secure his capital by fortifying it with a wall.

This great undertaking, commenced A.D. 271, was completed in the reign of Probus, the successor of Aurelian. (Vopisc. Aur. 21, 39; Aur. Vict. Caes. 35; Eutrop. 9.15; Zosim. 1.49). The accounts of the circumference of this wall are discrepant and improbable. Vopiscus (Aurel. 100.39) mentions the absurd and extravagant measure of nearly 50 miles; which, however, has been adopted by Lipsius and Isaac Vossius, as well as by Nibby (Mura, &c. p. 120, seq.). The walls of Aurelian were repaired by Honorius, and with the exception of that part beyond the Tiber, and some modern additions by the Popes, are substantially the same as those which now exist, as appears from the inscriptions on the gates. Without the additions referred to, their circumference would be between 11 and 12 miles,thus reducing the city to about the same dimensions as those given by Pliny in the time of Vespasian; nor is there any reason to believe that, in the sinking state of the Empire, the city would have received any increase of inhabitants. Another measurement by Ammon, the geometrician, just before the siege of the city by Alaric, gave a circumference of 21 miles (Phot. Bibl. 80, p. 63, ed. Bekk.); but this number, though adopted by Gibbon, and nearer to the truth, cannot be accepted any more than that of Vopiscus. (Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, vol. ii. p. 17, ed. Smith, and notes.) Piale suggested that Vopiscus meant pedes instead of passus, and other emendations of both the passages have been proposed; but without discussing the merit of these, it is sufficient to know that the texts are undoubtedly either corrupt or erroneous. This may be briefly but decisively shown from the following considerations, which will, for the most part, apply to both the statements:--1st, the incredible extent of the work; 2nd, the absence of any traces of such walls; 3rd, or of any buildings within their supposed limits, such as would naturally belong to a city; 4th, the fact that the extant inscriptions ascribe to Honorius the restoration of an old line of walls and towers, not the construction of a new one. (Bunbury, in Class. Mus. iii. p. 368.)


The history of the city from the time of Aurelian presents little more than a prospect of its rapid decline. The walls of that emperor were ominous of its sinking fortunes; but the reign of Diocletian forms the first marked aera of its decay. The triumph of that emperor and of his colleague Maximian, A.D. 303, was the last ever celebrated at Rome, but was distinguished by the trophies of an important Persian victory. (Eutrop. 9.27.) The Roman emperors had long ceased to be of Roman extraction; Diocletian, the descendant of slaves, was born in Dalmatia; Maximian, the son of a peasant, was his fellow countryman; and thus neither was wedded by any ties of birth or patriotism to the ancient glories of the eternal city. These were the first emperors who deserted the capital to fix their residence in the provinces. Maximian established his court at Milan, whilst Diocletian resided at Nicomedia, on the embellishment of which he lavished all the treasures of the East, in endeavouring to render it a rival worthy of Rome. His only visit to the ancient capital seems to have been on the occasion of his triumph; it was not prolonged beyond two months, and was closed with unexpected precipitation and abruptness. (Lact. Mort. Pers. 100.17.) Yet his reign is distinguished as having conferred upon the city one of the latest, but most magnificent of its monuments,--the baths on the Quirinal which bear his name, by far the largest at Rome, whose enormous ruins may still be traced, and afford room enough for various churches, convents, and gardens. (Vopisc. Prob. 2; Orell. Inscr. 1056.) Subsequently, indeed, Maxentius, [p. 2.743]the partner and rival of Constantine, resided at Rome during the six years of his reign, and affected to prize the elegance of the ancient metropolis; whilst his lust and tyranny, supported by squandering its treasures, created more disgust among the Romans than the absence of their former sovereigns. Maxentius, however, adorned the city which he polluted by his vices, and some of his works are among the last monuments worthy to be recorded. He restored the temple of Venus and Rome, which had been damaged by a fire, and erected that magnificent basilica, afterwards dedicated in the name of Constantine, whose three enormous arches may still be viewed with admiration. (Aur. Vict. Caes. 40.26.) The final transfer of the seat of empire to Byzantium by Constantine gave the last fatal blow to the civic greatness of Rome. Yet even that emperor presented the city--we can hardly say adorned it--with a few monuments. One of them, the arch which records his triumph over Maxentius, still subsists, and strikingly illustrates the depth of degradation to which architectural taste had already sunk. Its beauties are derived from the barbarous pillage of former monuments. The superb sculptures which illustrated the acts and victories of Trajan, were ruthlessly and absurdly constrained to typify those of Constantine; whilst the original sculptures that were added, by being placed in juxtaposition with those beautiful works, only serve to show more forcibly the hopeless decline of the plastic arts, which seem to have fallen with paganism.

Rome in the Time of Constantius II.--From this period the care of the Romans was directed rather towards the preservation than the adornment of their city. When visited by the Second Constantius, A.D. 357, an honour which it had not received for two and thirty years, Rome could still display her ancient glories. The lively description of this visit by Ammianus Marcellinus, though written in a somewhat inflated style, forms a sort of pendant to Strabo's picture of Rome in the age of Augustus, and is striking and valuable, both as exhibiting the condition of the eternal city at that period, and as illustrating the fact that the men of that age regarded its monuments as a kind of Titanic relics, which it would be hopeless any longer to think of imitating. “Having entered Rome,” says the historian, “the seat of empire and of every virtue, Constantius was overwhelmed with astonishment when he viewed the forum, that most conspicuous monument of ancient power. On whatever side he cast his eyes, he was struck with the thronging wonders. He addressed the senate in the Curia, the people from the tribunal; and was delighted with the applause which accompanied his progress to the palace. At the Circensian games which he gave, he was pleased with the familiar talk of the people, who, without betraying pride, asserted their hereditary liberty. He himself observed a proper mean, and did not, as in other cities, arbitrarily terminate the contests, but, as is customary at Rome, permitted them to end as chance directed. When he viewed the different parts of the city, situated on the sides of the seven hills and in the valleys between them, he expected that whatever he first saw must be superior to everything else: such as the temple of the Tarpeian Jove, whose excellence is like divine to human; the baths which occupy whole districts; the enormous mass of the amphitheatre, built of solid Tiburtine stone, the height of which almost baffles the eye; the Pantheon, which may be called a circular Region, vaulted with lofty beauty; the high, but accessible mounds, bearing the statues of preceding princes; the temple of Rome, the forum of Peace; the theatre of Pompey, the odeum, the stadium, and other similar ornaments of the eternal city. But when he came to the forum of Trajan, which we take to be a structure unparalleled in the whole world, he was confounded with astonishment as he surveyed those gigantic proportions, which can neither be described nor again imitated by man. Wherefore, laying aside all hope of attempting anything of the kind, he merely expressed the power and the wish to imitate the horse of Trajan, on which that prince is seated, and which, stands in the middle of the Atrium. Hereupon prince Hormisda, who stood near him, exclaimed with national gesticulation: ‘First of all, emperor, order such a stable to be made for it, if you can, that the horse you propose making may lodge as magnificently as the one we behold.’ The same prince being asked his opinion of Rome said that the only thing which displeased him was to perceive that men died there as well as in other places. So great was the emperor's surprise at all these sights that he complained that rumour, which commonly magnifies everything, had here shown itself weak and malignant, and had given but a feeble description of the wonders of Rome. Then, after much deliberation, he resolved that the only way in which he could add to the ornaments of the city would be by erecting an obelisk in the Circus Maximus” (16.10).

The same historian from whom the preceding topographical picture has been transcribed has also left some lively and interesting notices of the manners of the Romans at this period. These have been paraphrased in the eloquent language of Gibbon, to whose work the reader is referred for many interesting particulars concerning the state of Rome at this time (vol. iv. pp. 70--89, ed. Smith). We may here observe with surprise that whilst Alaric, like another Hannibal, was threatening her gates, her nobles were revelling in immoderate wealth, and squandering the revenues of provinces on objects of pomp and luxury, though, as we have seen, the arts had fallen to so low an ebb that there was no longer any hope of rivalling the works of their ancestors. The poorer citizens, few of whom could any longer boast a pure Roman descent, resembled the inmates of a poorhouse, except that their pleasures were provided for as well as their wants. A liberal distribution of corn and bacon, and sometimes even of wine, relieved their necessities, whilst health and recreation were promoted by gratuitous admittance to the baths and public spectacles. Yet Rome was now struggling for her existence. We have already mentioned the restoration of the walls by Honorius. It was under the same emperor that the first example occurs of that desecration by which the Romans stripped and destroyed their own monuments. If we may credit Zosimus (5.88), Stilicho was the first to lay violent hands on the temple of the Capitoline Jove, by stripping off the plates of gold which lined its doors, when the following inscription was found beneath them: “Misero regi servantur.” In after times this example was but too frequently followed; and it may be said with truth that the Romans themselves were the principal destroyers of their own city.

The Barbarians at Rome.--After two sieges, or rather blockades, in 408 and 409, by the Goths [p. 2.744]under Alaric, Rome was captured and sacked on a third occasion in 410 (A. U. C. 1163)--the first time since the Gallic invasion that the city had actually been in the hands of an enemy. But though it was plundered by the Goths, it does not appear to have sustained much damage at their hands. They evacuated it on the sixth day, and all the mischief they seem to have done was the setting fire to some houses near the Salarian gate, by which they had entered, which unfortunately spread to and destroyed the neighbouring palace of Sallust (Procop. B. V. 1.2.) Nearly half a century later, in the reign of Maximus, Rome was again taken, and sacked by the Vandals, under Genseric, A.D. 455. This time the pillage lasted a fortnight; yet the principal damage inflicted on the monuments of the city was the carrying off by Genseric of the curious tiles of gilt bronze which covered the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter (Ib. 5). That edifice, with the exception, perhaps, of the spoliation by Stilicho, appears to have remained in much the same state as after its last rebuilding by Domitian; and though paganism had been abolished in the interval, the venerable fane seems to have been respected by the Roman Christians. Yet, as may be perceived from an edict of the emperor Majorian, A.D. 457, the inhabitants of Rome had already commenced the disgraceful practice of destroying the monuments of their ancestors. The zeal of the Christians led them to deface some of the temples; others, which had not been converted into Christian churches, were suffered to go to ruin, or were converted into quarries, from which building materials were extracted. Petitions for that purpose were readily granted by the magistrates; till Majorian checked the practice by a severe edict, which reserved to the emperor and senate the cognisance of those cases in which the destruction of an ancient building might be allowed, imposed a fine of 50 lbs. of gold (2000l. sterling) on any magistrate who granted a license for such dilapidations, and condemned all subordinate officers engaged in such transactions to be whipped, and to have their hands amputated (Nov. Major. tit. vi. p. 35: “Antiquarum aedium dissipatur speciosa constructio; et ut earum aliquid reparetur magna diruuntur,” &c.)

In the year 472, in the reign of Olybrius, Rome was for the third time taken and sacked by Ricimer; but this calamity, like the two former ones, does not appear to have been productive of much damage to the public monuments. These relics of her former glory were the especial care of Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, when he became king of Italy, who, when he visited the capital in the year 500, had surveyed them with admiration. “The Gothic kings, so injuriously accused. of the ruin of antiquity, were anxious to preserve the monuments of the nation whom they had subdued. The royal edicts were framed to prevent the abuses, the neglect, or the depredations of the citizens themselves; and a professed architect, the annual sum of 200 lbs. of gold, 25,000 tiles, and the receipt of customs' from the Lucrine port, were assigned for the ordinary repairs of the walls and public edifices. A similar care was extended to the statues of metal or marble, of men or animals. The spirit of the horses, which have given a modern name to the Quirinal, was applauded by the barbarians; the brazen elephants of the Via Sacra were diligently restored; the famous heifer of Myron deceived the cattle as they were driven through the forum of Peace; and an officer was created to protect those works of art, which Theodoric considered as the noblest ornament of his kingdom.” (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v. p. 21, ed. Smith; cf. Excerpt. de Odoac. Theod. 67.) The letters of Cassiodorus, the secretary of Theodoric, show that Rome had received little or no injury from its three captures. The Circus Maximus was uninjured, and the Ludi Circenses were still exhibited there ( Variar. 3.51); the thermae and aqueducts were intact (Ib. 7.6); the Claudian aqueduct was still in play, and discharged itself on the top of the Aventine as if it were a valley (Ib.). That the aqueducts were perfect also appears from Procopius (B. G. 1.19), who says that in the subsequent siege under Vitiges, the Goths broke them down, to deprive the inhabitants of their supply of water. The theatres had suffered only from the effects of time, and were repaired by Theodoric (Cassiod. ib. 4.51.)

In the year 536 the Gothic garrison, with the exception of their commander Leuderis, who preferred captivity to flight, evacuated Rome on the approach of Belisarius, the lieutenant of Justinian. Belisarius entered by the Asinarian gate, and, after an alienation of sixty years, Rome was restored to the imperial dominion. But in a few months the city was beleaguered by the numerous host of Vitiges, the newly elected king of the Goths; and its defence demanded all the valour and ability of Belisarius. For this purpose he repaired the walls, which had again fallen into decay. Regular bastions were constructed; a chain was drawn across the Tiber; the arches of the aqueducts were fortified; and the mole of Hadrian was converted into a citadel. That part of the wall between the Flaminian and Pincian gates, called muro torto, was alone neglected (Procop. B. G. 1.14, sqq.), which is said to have been regarded both by Goths and Romans as under the peculiar protection of St. Peter. As we have before said, the Goths invested the city in six divisions, from the Porta Flaminia to the Porta Praenestina; whilst a seventh encampment was formed near the Vatican, for the purpose of commanding the Tiber and the Milvian bridge. In the general assault which followed, a feint was made at the Salarian gate, but the principal attacks were directed against the mole of Hadrian and the Porta Praenestina. It was on this occasion that at the former point the finest statues, the works of Praxiteles and Lysippus, were converted into warlike missiles, and hurled down upon the besiegers. When the ditch of St. Angelo was cleansed in the pontificate of Urban VIII., the Sleeping Faun of the Barberini Palace was discovered, but in a sadly mutilated state. (Winckelmann, Hist. de l'Art, vol. ii. p. 52, seq.) But the assault was not successful, and after a fruitless siege, which lasted a year, the Goths were forced to retire.

After the recall of Belisarius the Goths recovered strength and courage, and, under Totila, once more threatened the walls of Rome. In 544 Belisarius was again despatched into Italy, to retrieve the faults of the generals who had succeeded him; but on this occasion he was deserted by his usual fortune, and, after a fruitless attempt to relieve the city, was compelled to retreat to Ostia. (Procop. B. G. 3.19.) In December, 546, the Goths were admitted into the city by the treachery of some Isaurian sentinels posted at the Asinarian gate. Rome was again subjected to pillage, and appears to have suffered more than on any former occasion. A third part of the walls was destroyed in different places, and a great many houses were burnt. [p. 2.745](Procop. ib. 100.22; Marcell. Chron. p. 54.) Totila threatened to destroy the finest works of antiquity, and even issued a decree that Rome should be turned into a pasture. Yet he was not deficient in magnanimity and clemency, and was diverted from these designs by the remonstrances of Belisarius, who warned him not to sully his fame by such wanton barbarity. Upon Totila's marching into Lucania, Belisarius, at the head of 1000 horse, cut his way through the Goths who had been left to guard the city. He repaired with rude and heterogeneous materials the walls which had been demolished; whilst the gates, which could not be so suddenly restored, were guarded by his bravest soldiers. Totila returned to Rome by forced marches, but was thrice repulsed in three general assaults. Belisarius, however, being commanded by Justinian to proceed into Lucania, left a garrison of 3000 of his best troops at Rome under the command of Diogenes. The city was again betrayed by some Isaurians in 549, who opened the gate of St. Paul to Totila and his Goths. Totila, who seems now to have considered himself as in confirmed possession of Italy, no longer exhibited any desire to destroy the edifices of Rome, which he regarded as the capital of his kingdom, and he even exhibited the equestrian games in the Circus. (Procop. B. G. 4.22.) But in 552 he was defeated and slain by the eunuch Narses in the battle of Tagina. Narses then marched to Rome, and once more sent its keys to Justinian, during whose reign the city had been no fewer than five times taken and recovered. (Ib. 26--35; Theoph. Chron. vol. i. p. 354, ed. Bonn.)

Rome under the Popes.--Towards the close of the sixth century Rome had touched the lowest point of degradation. The Roman citizens lived in continual fear of the attacks of the Lombards ; the inhabitants of the surrounding country, who no longer dared to devote themselves to the pursuits of agriculture, took refuge within the walls; and the Campagna of Rome became a desert, exhaling infectious vapours. The indigence and the celibacy of a great part of the inhabitants produced a rapid decrease of population, though their scanty numbers did not protect them from famine. The edifices of Rome fell into decay; and it is commonly believed that Pope Gregory the Great, who filled the papal chair from 590 to 604, purposely defaced the temples and mutilated the statues,--a charge, however, which rests on doubtful evidence, and which has been strenuously repelled by Gregory's biographer Platina (ap. Bayle, Grégoire Ier.). Bargaeus, in his epistle on the subject (in Graevius, Thesaur. Ant. vol. iv.), says that the Circus Maximus, the baths and theatres, were certainly overthrown designedly, and that this is particularly evident in the: baths of Caracalla and Diocletian (p. 1885). He attributes this, as a merit, to Gregory and one or two subsequent popes, and assigns as a reason that the baths were nothing but schools of licentiousness (p. 1889, seq.). It seems more probable, however, that the destruction of the baths arose from the failure of the aqueducts--a circumstance which would have rendered them useless--and from the expense of keeping them up. Bargaeus himself attributes the ruin of the aqueducts to the latter cause (p. 1891); but they must also have suffered very severely in the Gothic wars. Hence perhaps the huge foundations of the thermae, having become altogether useless, began to be used as stone quarries, a circumstance which would account for the appearance of wilful damage. That ruin had made great progress at Rome before the time of Gregory, is manifest from some passages in his own works in which he deplores it. Thus in one of his homilies he says: “Qualis remanserit Roma, conspicimus. Immensis doloribus multipliciter attrita, desolatione civium, impressione hostium, frequentia ruinarum.” And again: “Quid autem ista de hominibus dicimus, cum ruinis crebrescentibus ipsa quoque destrui aedificia videmus?” (Hom. 18 in Ezech. ap. Donatum, de Urbe Roma, 1.28, sub fin.) He would hardly have written thus had he himself been the cause of these ruins. The charge probably acquired strength from Gregory's avowed antipathy to classical literature.

Whilst the dominion of Italy was divided between the Lombards and the exarchs of Ravenna, Rome was the head of a duchy of almost the same size as her ancient territory, extending from Viterbo to Terracina, and from Narni to the mouth of the Tiber. The fratricide Constans II. is said to have entertained the idea of restoring the seat of empire to Rome (A.D. 662). (Hist. Misc. ap. Muratori, Scrip. R. I. iii. pt. i. p. 137.) But the Lombard power was too strong; and, after a visit of a few days to the ancient capital, he abandoned it for ever, after pillaging the churches and carrying off the bronze roof of the Pantheon. (Schlosser, Gesch. d. bilder-stürmenden Kaiser, p. 80.) In the eighth century the Romans revived the style of the Republic, but the Popes had become their chief magistrates. During this period Rome was constantly harassed and suffered many sieges by the Lombards under Luitprand, Astolphus, and other kings. In 846 the various measure of its calamities was filled up by an attack of the Saracens--as if the former mistress of the world was destined to be the butt of wandering barbarians from all quarters of the globe. The disciples of Mahomet pillaged the church of St. Peter, as well as that of St. Paul outside the Porta Ostiensis, but did not succeed in entering the city itself. They were repulsed by the vigilance and energy of pope Leo IV., who repaired the ancient walls, restored fifteen towers which had been overthrown, and enclosed the quarter of the Vatican; on which in 852 he bestowed his blessing and the title of Città Leonina, or Leonine city (now the Borgo di S. Pietro). (Anastasius, V. Leon. IV.) In the period between 1081 and 1084 Rome was thrice fruitlessly besieged by the emperor Henry IV., who, however, by means of corruption at last succeeded in gaining possession of it; but the ruins of the Septizonium, defended by the nephew of Pope Gregory VII., resisted all the attacks of Henry's forces. Gregory shut himself up in the castle of S. Angelo, and invoked the assistance of his vassal, Robert Guiscard. Henry fled at the approach of the warlike Norman; but Rome suffered more at the hands of its friends than it had ever before done from the assaults of its enemies. A tumult was excited by the imperial adherents, and the Saracens in Robert's army, who despised both parties, seized the opportunity for violence and plunder. The city was fired; a great part of the buildings on the Campus Martius, as well as the spacious district from the Lateran to the Colosseum, was consumed, and the latter portion has never since been restored. (Malaterra, 3.100.37; Donatus, 4.8.)

But Rome has suffered more injury from her own citizens than from the hands of foreigners; and its ruin must be chiefly imputed to the civil dissension [p. 2.746]of the Romans, and to the use which they made of the ancient monuments to serve their own, selfish and mercenary purposes. The factions of the Guelphs and Ghibelines, of the Colonna and Ursini, which began in the tenth century and lasted several hundred years, must have been very destructive to the city. In these sanguinary quarrels the ancient edifices were converted into castles; and the multitude of the latter may be estimated from the fact that the senator Brancaleone during his government (1252--1258) caused 140 towers, or fortresses, the strongholds of the nobility, to be demolished in Rome and its neighbourhood; yet subsequently, under Martin V., we still hear of forty-four existing in one quarter of the city alone. (Matthew Paris, Hist. Maj. p. 741, seq.) Some of these were erected on the most celebrated buildings, as the triumphal monuments of Caesar, Titus, and the Antonines. (Montfaucon, Diar, Ital. p. 186; Anonymus, ib. p. 285.) But still more destructive were the ravages committed on the ancient buildings during times of peace. The beautiful sculptures and architectural members, which could no longer be imitated, were seized upon and appropriated to the adornment of new structures. We have seen that this barbarous kind of spoliation was exercised as early as the reign of Constantine, who applied the sculptures of some monument of Trajan's to adorn his own triumphal arch. In after ages Charlemagne carried off the columns of Rome to decorate his palace at Aix-la-Chapelle (Sigebert, Ckron. in Bouquet, Historiens de France, v. p. 378); and several centuries later Petrarch laments that his friend and patron, Robert, king of Sicily, was following the same pernicious example. ( “Itaque nunc, heu dolor! heu scelus indignum! de vestris marmoreis columnis, de liminibus templorum (ad quae nuper ex orbe toto concursus devotissimus fiebat), de imaginibus sepulcrorum sub quibus patrum vestrorum venerabilis cinis erat, ut reliquas sileam, desidiosa Napolis adornatur,” Petrar. Opp. p. 536, seq.) It would be endless to recount the depredations committed by the popes and nobles in order to build their churches and palaces. The abbé Barthélemi (Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscr. xxviii. p. 585) mentions that he had seen at Rome a manuscript letter relating to a treaty between the chiefs of the factions which desolated Rome in the 14th century, in which, among other articles, it is agreed that the Colosseum shall be common to all parties, who shall be at liberty to take stones from it. (De Sade; Vie de Pétrarque, 1.328, note.) Sixtus V. employed the stones of the Septizonium in building St. Peter's. (Greg. Leti, Vita di Sisto V. iii. p. 50.) The nephews of Paul III. were the principal destroyers of the Colosseum, in order to build the Farnese palace (Muratori, Ann. d'Italia, xiv. p. 371); and a similar reproach was proverbially applied to those of Urban VIII. ( “Quod non fecerunt Barbari, fecere Barberini,” Gibbon, viii. p.284, note.) But even a worse species of desecration than this was the destruction of the most beautiful marble columns, by converting them into lime. Poggio complains (A.D. 1430) that the temple of Concord, which was almost perfect when he first came to Rome, had almost disappeared in this manner. ( “Capitolio contigua forum versus superest porticus aedis Coucordiae, quam cum primum ad urbem accessi, vidi fere integram, opere marmnoreo admodum specioso; Romani postmodum, ad calcem, aedem totam et portiûs partem, disjectis columnis, sunt demoliti,” de Var. Fort. p. 12.) And the same practice is reprobated in the verses of Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope Pius II.:-- “Sed tuus hic populus, muis defossa vetustis,
Calcis in obsequium marmora dura coquit.
Impia tercentum si sic gens egerit annos
Nullom hic indicium nobilitatis erit.

(In Mabillon, Mus. Ital. 1.97.)

The melancholy progress of the desolation of Rome might be roughly traced from some imperfect memorials. The account of the writer called the Anonymus Einsiedlensis, who visited Rome early in the 9th century, which has been published by Mabillon (Anal. iv. p. 502), and by Hänel (Archiv. f. Philol u. pädag. i. p. 115), exhibits a much more copious list of monuments than that of another anonymous writer, who compiled a book De Mirabilibus Romae, in the 12th or 13th century. (Montfaucon, Diar. Ital. p. 283, seq.; Nibby, Effemn. Lett. di Roma, 1820, Fasc. i.--iv.) Several passages in the works of Petrarch exhibit the neglected and desolate state of Rome in the 14th century,--the consequence of the removal of the holy see to Avignon. Thus, in a letter to Urban V., he says: “Jacent domus, labant maenia, temple ruunt, sacra pereunt, calcantur leges.” And a little after: “Lateranum humi jacet et Ecclesiarum mater omnium tecto carens ventis patet ac pluviis,” &c. (Cf. lib. ix. ep. 1.) Yet the remains of ancient Roman splendour were still considerable enough to excite the wonder and admiration of Manuel Chrysoloras at the commencement of the 15th century, as may be seen in his epistle to the emperor John Palaeologus. (subjoined to Codinus, de Antiq. C. P. p. 107, seq.) Much destruction must have been perpetrated from this period to the time, and even during the life, of Poggio. But the progress of desolation seems to have been arrested subsequently to that writer, whose catalogue of the ruin does not exhibit a great many more remains than may yet be seen. Care is now taken to arrest as far as possible even the inevitable influence of time; and the antiquarian has at present nothing to regret except that more active means are not applied to the disinterment of the ancient city. The funds devoted to the reerection of a magnificent basilica far without the walls, and on so unwholesome a site that the very monks are forced to desert it during the heats of summer, might, in the eye at least of transmontane taste, have been more worthily devoted to such an object.


Before we close this part of the subject it will be expected that we should say something respecting the probable amount of the population of Rome. The inquiry is unfortunately involved in much obscurity, and the vagueness of the data upon which any calculation can be founded is such that it is impossible to arrive at any wholly satisfactory conclusion. The latitude hence allowed may be judged from the fact that the estimates of some of the best modern scholars, are about four times as great as those of others; and whilst Dureau de la Malle, in his Economie politique des Romains (i. p. 340, seq.), sets down the population at 562,000 souls, Höcek in his Römische Geschichte (vol. i. pt. ii. p. 383, seq.), estimates it at 2,265,000; nay Lipsius, in his work De Magnitudine Romana (3.3), even carried it up to the astounding number of 8,000,000. But this is an absurd exaggeration; whilst, on the [p. 2.747]other hand, the estimate cf Dureau de la Malle is undoubtedly much too low.

The only secure data which we possess on the subject are the records of the number of citizens who received the congiaria or imperial largesses, for it is only during the imperial times that we can profess to make any calculation. We learn from the Monumentum Ancyranum that Augustus, in his 12th consulate, distributed a pecuniary gift to 320,000 of the plebs urbana. ( “Consul XII. trecentis et viginti millibus plebei urbanae sexagenos denarios viritim dedi,” tab. iii.) The recipients of this bounty were all males, and probably formed the whole free male population of Rome, with the exception of the senators, knights, and aliens. Women and boys of a tender age did not participate in these distributions. It had been customary for the latter to be admitted to participation after the age of ten; but Augustus appears to have extended his liberality to still younger children. ( “Ne minores quidem pueros praeteriit, quamvis nonnisi ab undecimno aetatis anno accipere consuessent,” Suet. Aug. 41.) The distributions of corn seem to have been regulated on stricter principles, as these were regular, not extra-ordinary like the largesses. From these the children were probably excluded, and there was, perhaps, a stricter inquiry made into the titles of the recipients. Thus we learn from the Mon. Aneyranum that those who received corn in the 13th consulate of Augustus amounted to rather more than 200,000. (Cf. D. C. 55.10.) From the same document it appears that three largesses made by Augustus, of 400 sesterces per man, were never distributed to fewer than 250,000 persons. ( “Quae mea congiaria pervenerunt ad hominum millia nunquam minus quinquaginta et ducenta,” Ib., where Höck, Röm. Gesch. i. pt. ii. p. 388, by erroneously reading sestertium instead of hominum, has increased the number of recipients to 625,000.) From a passage in Spartian's life of Septimius Severus (100.23) it would seem that the number entitled to receive the distributions of corn had increased. That author says that Severus left at his death wheat enough to last for seven years, if distributed according to the regular canon or measure of 75,000 modii daily. Now, if we calculate this distribution according to the system of Augustus, of five modii per man monthly, and reckon thirty days to the month, then this would leave the number of recipients at 450,000 (75,000 x 30 == 2,250,000 ÷ 5 == 450,000). According to these statements we can hardly place the average of the male plebeian population of Rome during the first centuries of the Empire at less than 350,000; and at least twice as much again must be added for the females and boys, thus giving a total of 1,050,000. There are no very accurate data for arriving at the numbers of the senators and knights. Bunsen (Beschr. i. p. 184), without stating the grounds of his calculation, sets them down, including their families, at 10,000. But this is evidently much too low an estimate. We learn from Dionysius Halicarnassensis (6.13) that in the annual procession of the knights to the temple of Castor they sometimes mustered to the number of 5000. But this must have been very far from their whole number. A great many must have been absent from sickness, old age, and other causes; and a far greater number must have been in the provinces and in foreign countries, serving with the armies, or employed as publicani, and in other public capacities. Yet their families would probably, for the most part, reside at Rome. We see from the complaints of Horace how the equestrian dignity was prostituted in the imperial times to liberti and aliens, provided they were rich enough for it. (Epod. iv. in Menam; cf. Juv. 1.28.) We should, perhaps, therefore be below the mark in fixing the number of knights and senators at 15,000. If we allow a wife and one child only to each, this would give the number of individuals composing the senatorial and equestrian families at 45,000, which is a small proportion to 1,050,000 freemen of the lower class. It may be objected that marriage was very much out of fashion with the higher classes at Rome during the time of Augustus; but the omission was supplied in another manner, and the number of kept women and illegitimate children, who would count as population just as well as the legitimate ones, must have been considerable. In this calculation it is important not to underrate the numbers of the higher classes, since they are very important factors in estimating the slave population, of which they were the chief maintainers. The preceding sums, then, would give a total of 1,095,000 free inhabitants of Rome, of all classes. To these are to be added the aliens residing at Rome, the soldiers, and the slaves. The first of these classes must have been very numerous. There must have been a great many provincial persons settled at Rome, for purposes of business or pleasure, who did not possess the franchise, a great many Greeks, as tutors, physicians, artists, &c., besides vast numbers of other foreigners from all parts of the world. The Jews alone must have formed a considerable population. So large, indeed, was the number of aliens at Rome, that in times of scarcity we sometimes read of their being banished. Thus Augustus on one occasion expelled all foreigners except tutors and physicians. (Suet. Aug. 42.) According to Seneca, the greater part of the inhabitants were aliens. “Nullum non hominum genus concurrit in urbem et virtutibus et vitiis magna praemia ponentem. Unde domo quisque sit, quaere; videbis majorem partem esse, quae relictis sedibus suis venerit in maximam quidem et pulcherrimam urbem, non tamen suam.” (Cons. ad Helv. 100.6.) In this there is no doubt some exaggeration; yet we find the same complaints reiterated by Juvenal:-- “Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes. ...
Hic alta Sicyone, ast hic Amydone relicta,
Hic Andro, ille Samo, hic Trallibus aut Alabandis,
Esquilias dictumque petunt a Vimine collem,
Viscera magnarum domuum, dominique futuri
” (3.62, seq.).

It would perhaps, then, be but a modest estimate to reckon the aliens and foreigners resident at Rome, together with their wives and families, at 100,000. The soldiers and the vigiles, or police, we can hardly estimate at less than 25,000; and as many of these men must have been married, we may reckon them, with their families, at 50,000. Hence 100,000 aliens and 50,000 military, &c., added to the foregoing sum of 1,095,000, makes 1,245,000 for the total miscellaneous free population of Rome.

There are great difficulties in the way of estimating the slave population, from the total absence of any accurate data. We can only infer generally that it must have been exceedingly numerous--a fact that is evident from many passages of the ancient authors. [p. 2.748]The number of slaves kept as domestic servants must have been exceedingly large. Horace mentions (Sat. 1.3. 12) that the singer Tigellius had sometimes as many as 200 slaves; but when he was taken with a sudden fit of economy, he reduced them to the very modest number of 10. No doubt, however, he was a first-rate vocalist, and, like his brethren in modern times, a man of fortune. Tillius the praetor, who was a stingy churl, when he went to Tibur, had 5 slaves at his heels to carry his cooking utensils and wine. (Ib. 1.6. 107.) Horace himself, who of course was not so rich a man as Tigellius, when he sat down to his frugal supper of cakes and vegetables, was waited upon by 3 slaves; and we may presume that these did not compose his entire household. (Ib. 5.115.) In the reign of Nero, 400 slaves were maintained in the palace of Pedanius Secundus, who were all put to death, women and children included, because one of them had murdered his master. (Tac. Ann. 14.42, seq.) The slaves no longer consisted of those born and bred on the estates of their masters, but were imported in multitudes from all the various nations under the wide-spread dominion of the Romans. ( “Postquam vero nationes in familiis habemus, quibus diversi ritus, externa sacra, aut nulla sunt, colluviem istam non nisi metu coercueris.” (Ib. 100.44.) The case of Pedanius, however, was no doubt an extraordinary one. It cannot be imagined that the plebs urbana, who received the public rations, were capable of maintaining slaves; nor probably are many to be assigned to the aliens. But if we place the patrician and equestrian families at 15,000, and allow the moderate average number of 30 slaves to each family, this would give a total number of 450,000. Some also must be allowed to the richer part of the plebs--to persons who, like Horace, were not patrician nor equestrian, yet could afford to keep a few slaves ; as well as to the aliens resident at Rome, so that we can hardly compute the number of domestic slaves at less than 500,000. To these must be added the public slaves at the disposal of the various municipal officers, also those employed in handicraft trades and manufactures, as journeymen carpenters, builders, masons, bakers, and the like. It would not perhaps be too much to estimate these at 300,000, thus making the total slave population of Rome 800,000. This sum, added to that of the free inhabitants, would give a total of 2,045,000.

The Notitia and Curiosum state the number of insulae at Rome at 46,602, and the number of domus at 1790, besides balnea, lupanaria, military and police stations, &c. If we had any means of ascertaining the average number of inhabitants in each insula, it would afford a valuable method of checking the preceding computation. But here again we are unfortunately reduced to uncertainty and conjecture. We may, however, pretty surely infer that each insula contained a large number of inmates. In the time of Augustus the yearly rent of the coenacula of an insula ordinarily produced 40,000 sesterces, or between 300l. and 400l. sterling. (Dig. 19. tit. 2. s. 30, ap. Gibbon, ch. 31, note 70.) Petronius (100.95, 97), and Juvenal (Sat. iii. passim) describe the crowded state of these lodgings. If we take them at an average of four stories, each accommodating 12 or 13 persons, this would give say 50 persons in each insula; and even then the inmates,men, women and boys, would be paying an average yearly rent of about 7l. per head. The inmates of each domus can hardly be set down at less, since the family, with tutors and other hangers on, may perhaps be fairly estimated at 10, and the slaves in each domus at 40. We learn from Valerius Maximus (4.4.8), that sixteen men of the celebrated Gens Aelia lived in one small house with their families; but this seems to have been an exceptional case even in the early times, and cannot be adopted as a guide under the Empire, Now, taking the insulae actually inhabited at 40,000--since some must have been to let, or under repair--and the inhabited domus at 1500 == 41,500, and the number of inmates in each at 50, we should have a total population of 2,075,000, a sum not greatly at variance with the amount obtained by the previous method. But the reader will have seen on what data the calculation proceeds, and must draw his own conclusions accordingly. (Cf. Bunsen, Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, i. p. 183, seq.; Dureau de la Malle, Economie politique des Romains i. p. 340. seq.; Mommsen,: Die Römischen Tribus, p. 187, seq.; Höck, Römische Geschichte, i. pt. ii. p. 383, seq.; Zumpt, Ueber den Stand der Bevölke-rung im Alterthum, Berlin, 1841; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iv. p. 87, seq., with the note of Smith.)


Having thus given an account of the rise and progress, the decline and fall of the Roman city, we shall now proceed to describe its topography. In treating this part of the subject we shall follow those divisions which are marked out either by their political importance or by their natural features rather than be guided by the arbitrary bounds laid down in the Regions of Augustus. The latter, however convenient for the municipal purposes which they were intended to serve, would be but ill calculated to group the various objects in that order in which they are most calculated to arrest the attention of the modern reader, and to fix them in his memory. We shall therefore, after describing the walls of Servius Tullius and those of Aurelian, proceed to the Capitol, one of the most striking objects of ancient Rome, and then to the Forum and its environs, the remaining hills and their valleys, with the various objects of interest which they present.


At the commencement of the Roman Empire the walls of Servius Tullius could no longer be traced. Instead of dreading the assaults of the surrounding petty nations of Italy, Rome had now extended her frontiers to the Euphrates and the Atlantic; her ancient bulwarks were become entirely useless, and the increase of her population had occasioned the building of houses close to and even over their remains; so that in the time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who came to Rome in the reign of Augustus, it was difficult to discover their course (4.13). To attempt now to trace their exact outline would therefore be a hopeless task. The remains of the agger of Servius are still, however, partly visible, and the situation of a few of the ancient gates is known with certainty, whilst that of others may be fixed with at least some approach to accuracy from notices of them contained in ancient authors. It is from these materials that we must endeavour to reconstruct the line of the Servian walls, by first determining the probable sites of the gates, and by then drawing the [p. 2.749]wall between them, according to indications offered by the nature of the ground.

We learn from Cicero that Servius, like Romulus, was guided in the construction of his wall by the outline of the hills: “Cujus (urbis) is est tractatus ductusque muri quum Romuli tum etiam reliquorum regum sapientia definitus ex omni parte arduis praeruptisque montibus, ut unus aditus, qui esset inter Esquilinum Quirinalemque montem, maximo aggere objecto fossa cingeretur vastissima; atque ut ita munita arx circumjectu arduo et quasi circumciso saxo niteretur, ut etiam in illa tempestate horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intacta permanserit.” (De Rep. 2.6.) Becker (de Muris, p. 64, Handb. p. 129) asserts that Cicero here plainly says that Servius erected walls only where there were no hills, or across the valleys, and concludes that the greater part of the defences of the city consisted of the natural ones offered by the hills alone. Becker, however, appears to have formed no very clear ideas upon the subject; for notwithstanding what is here said, we find him a few pages further on, conducting the line of wall not only along the height of the Quirinal, but even over the summit of the Capitoline hill itself! (Handb. pp. 131, 136, de Muris, pp. 65, 70.) Neither his first, or theoretical, nor his second, or practical, view, is correct. The former is in direct contradiction to his authority; for Cicero says that the other kings did like Romulus; and he, as we have seen, and as Becker himself has shown, walled in his city all round. Cicero says, as plainly as he can speak, that there was a wall, and that it was defined along its whole extent ( “definitus ex omni parte” ) by the line of the hills. If it did not run along their summit, we cannot explain Pliny's assertion (3.9) that the agger equalled the height of the walls ( “Namque eum (aggerem) muris aequavit qua maxime patebat (urbs) aditu piano : caetero munita erat praecelsis muris, aut abruptis montibus,” &c.), since it would be a no great extolling of its height to say that it was raised to the level of a wall in the valley. Cicero, however, notices two exceptions to the continuous line, and the fact of his pointing these out proves the continuity of the wall in the remainder of the circuit. The first exception is the agger just mentioned, upon the top of which, however, according to Dionysius (9.68), there seems also to have been a sort of wall, though probably not of so great a height as the rest, at least he uses the comparative when speaking of it: τεῖχος ἀνεγείρας ὑψηλότερον (4.54). The second exception was the Arx, or Capitoline hill, which, being on its western side much more abrupt and precipitous than the other hills, was considered as sufficiently defended by nature, with a little assistance from art in escarping its sides. That there was no wall at this spot is also proved, as Niebuhr remarks (Hist. vol. i. p. 396) by the account of the Gauls scaling the height. (Liv. 5.47; comp. Bunbury, Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 347.) The Capitoline, therefore, must have been the spot to which Dionysius alluded, when he said that Rome was partly defended by its hills, and partly by the Tiber (9.68); as well as Pliny in the passage just cited, where we must not infer from the plural (montibus) that he meant more than one hill. This is merely, as in Dionysius also, a general mode of expression; and we have before observed that Pliny's own account shows that the wall crowned the hills. Lastly, had there been no wall upon them, it is difficult to see how there could have been gates; yet we find Becker himself placing gates at spots where, according to his theoretical view, there could have been no wall. Niebuhr (l.c.), who, like Becker, does not confine the escarpment to the Capitol, but thinks that the greater part of the city was fortified solely by the steepness of its hills, places towers, walls, and gates just at the different ascents; but this view, improbable in itself, and unsupported by any authority, cannot be maintained against the express testimony of Cicero. There seems, however, to have been an interior fortification on the E. side of the Capitoline, protecting the ascent by the clivus, as we shall see in the sequel. It was probably intended to secure the citadel, in case an enemy succeeded in forcing the external walls. We have seen before that the hill was fortified by Romulus; but whether these ancient fortifications, as well as those on the Palatine, were retained by Servius, it is impossible to say.

We may assume then that the wall of Servius, or his predecessor,--which seems to have been built of stone ( “muro lapideo,” Liv. 1.15),--surrounded the whole city, with the exception of the Capitoline hill and a small part defended by the Tiber,--thus justifying the noble lines of Virgil (Georg. 2.533.) :-- “rerum facta est pulcerrima Roma
Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces.

Our next task will be to determine the outline of this wall by means of the site of the different gates ; though, of course, where the outline of the hills is well defined this alone will be a guide. The situation of two of the gates maybe considered certain,--that of the PORTA COLLINA, (Collina) at the N. extremity of the agger, and that of the Esquiline at its southern end. Taking, therefore, the former as a starting-point, and proceeding continually to the left, we shall make the circuit of the whole city, till we again arrive at the Porta Collina.

This, the most northerly of all the gates, lay near the point where the Via Salaria branches off from the Via Nomentana. From this spot the first gate to the W. was probably the Porta Salutaris, so named, apparently, from its being on that division of the Quirinal which in the time of Numa and in the sacred books of the Argives was called Collis Salutaris, from an ancient sacellum of Salus which stood upon it (Varr. L. L. 5.51). When Paulus Diaconus tells us (p. 327, Müll.) that it was named after the temple of Salus, he seems to be alluding to the later and more famous temple dedicated by C. Junius Bubulcus in B.C. 303, which we shall have occasion to describe in the sequel: but it is probable that it obtained its name, as we have said, at a much earlier period. As the new temple probably stood at or near the site of the ancient one, and as the Notitia in describing the 6th Regio, or Alta Semita, takes this temple for a starting point, and, proceeding always in a circuit to the left, arrives at last at the baths of Diocletian, it may be assumed that this gate was the first important object westward of the baths. It seems to have spanned a Clivus Salutis, which Canina (Roma Antica, p. 187) places, with much probability in the Via delle Quattro Fontane, where it ascends from the Piazza Barberina. (Cf. Preller, Regionen, p. 134.)

The next gate to the left seems to have been the PORTA SANQUALIS, so named from the temple of Sancus. (Paul. Diac. p. 345, Müll.) This was the same [p. 2.750]divinity as Deus Fidius (Fest. p. 241, Müll.), whose sacellum is mentioned by Livy (8.20) as situated near the temple of Quirinus. It is also recorded in the fragments of the Argive books as seated on the Collis Mucialis (Varr. L.L. 5.62, Müll.),which hill comes next in order after the Collis Salutaris. We have already mentioned the temple of Quirinus as having been situated near the present church of S. Andrea and it may therefore be assumed that the Porta Sanqualis spanned the ascent to it at or near the modern Via della Dataria.

Between the Porta Sanqualis and the Capitolinehill there were probably two gates ; at all events there must undoubtedly have been one in the very narrow ravine which in early times separated the Capitoline from the Quirinal, and which afforded the only outlet from the neighbourhood of the forum. This was, perhaps, the PORTA RATUMENA, which we learn from Pliny (8.65: “unde postea nomen est” ) and Plutarch (Popl. 13: παρὰ τὴν πύλην, ἣν νῦν Ῥατουμέναν καλοῦσιν) was still existing in their time. Becker, indeed, disputes the inference of its existence from Pliny's words, and disbelieves the assertion of Plutarch. But there is nothing at all incredible in the fact, and therefore no reason why we should disbelieve it. We know, from the example of London and other cities, that a gate, and especially the name of a gate marking its former site, may remain for ages after the wall in which it stood has been removed. Even the local tradition of its name would have sufficed to mark its site; but it seems highly probable, from the nature of the ground where it stood, that the gate itself had been preserved. The road through so narrow a gorge could never have been disturbed for building or other purposes; and it is probable that the gate remained standing till the ravine was enlarged by cutting away the Quirinal in order to make room for Trajan's forum. We learn from the passages just cited, as well as from Festus (p. 274), that the gate derived its name from a charioteer, who, returning victorions from the Circensian games at Veii, was thrown out of his chariot and killed at this spot, whilst the affrighted horses, thus freed from all control, dashed up the Capitoline hill, and, as the legend runs, did not finish their mad career till they had thrice made the circuit of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. (Plin. Nat. 8.65.) So remarkable an omen would have been quite a sufficient ground in those days for changing the name of the gate. But it matters little what faith we may be disposed to place in the legend; for


even if it was an invention, it must have been framed with that regard to local circumstances which would have lent it probability, and no other gate can be pointed dut which would have so well suited the tenor of the story. Its existence at this spot is further confirmed by the tomb of Bibulus, one of the few remaining monuments of the Republic, which stands in the Macel dei Corvi, and by the discovery of the remains of another sepulchral monument a little farther on, in the Via della Pedacchia. It is well known that, with a few rare exceptions, no interments were allowed within the walls of Rome ; the tomb of Bibulus must therefore have been a little without the gate, and its front corresponds to the direction of a road that would have led from the forum into the Campus Martius (Canina, Roma Antica, p. 218). Bunsen, however, is of opinion (Beschr. vol. iii. p. 35) that it lay within the walls,and infers from the inscription, which states that the ground was presented as a burial-place to Bibulus and his descendants by the Senate and people “honoris virtutisque caussa,” that he was one of those rare exceptions mentioned by Cicero (Leg. 2.23) of persons who obtained the privilege of being buried within the city. A more unfortunate conjecture was hardly ever hazarded. Becker has justly pointed out that the words of the inscription merely mean that the ground was presented to Bibulus, without at all implying that it was within the walls ; and an attentive consideration of the passage in Cicero will show that it could not possibly have been so. Ever since the passing of the law of the XII. Tables against interment within the walls, Cicero could find only one example in which it had been set aside, namely, in honour of C. Fabricius. Now if Bibulus had lived in the period between the composition of the De Legibus and the final abolishment of the Republic, we could not have failed to hear of an individual who had achieved so extraordinary a mark of distinction; and if, on the other hand, he lived before that work was written,--of which there can scarcely be a doubt,--then Cicero would certainly have mentioned him.

Besides the gates already enumerated between the spot from which we started and the Capitoline hill, there seems also to have been another for which we can find no more convenient site than the SW. side of the Quirinal, between the Porta Ratumena and Porta Sanqualis, unless indeed we adopt the net improbable conjecture of Preller (Schneidewin‘s Philologus, p. 84), that the Ratumena was one of the gates of the fortification on the Clivus Capitolinus, and that the PORTA FONTINALIS was the gate in the gorge between the Quirinal and the Capitoline. This latter gate is mentioned by Paulus Diaconus (p. 85, Müll.), in connection with a festival called Fontinalia. It is also mentioned by Varro (LL. 6.22, Müll.) and other writers; and we learn from Livy (35.10) that a portico was constructed from it to the altar of Mars, forming a thoroughfare into the Campus Martins. The same historian again mentions the Ara Martis as being in the Campus (40.45), but there is nothing to indicate its precise situation. Numa instituted a festival to Mars, as a pledge of union between the Romans and Sabines (Fest. p. 372, Müll.), and it was probably on this occasion that the altar was erected. It is impossible to place any gate and portico leading from it in the short strip of wall on the S. side of the Capitoline, and therefore its site was perhaps that already indicated. The altar must have stood at no great distance from the gate, and could hardly have been so far to the W. as the [p. 2.751]Piazza di Venezia, as Urlichs assumes (Beschr. vol. v. p. 17), since in that case the portico must have crossed the road leading out of the Porta Ratumena.

A little beyond the last named gate the wall must have joined the Capitoline hill, along which, as we have said, there was no other fortification but the precipitous nature of the ground, rendered here and there still more abrupt by escarpment. At the SW. extremity of the hill the wall must have been resumed, and must undoubtedly have run in a direct line across the short space between the Capitoline hill and the Tiber. Between this spot and the Aventine the wall was discontinued; and this is the part alluded to by Dionysius (l.c.) as sufficiently defended by the river. The piece of wall just mentioned must have shut out the Forum Olitorium and Circus Flaminius, since Asconius (ad Cic. Tog. Cand. p. 90, Orell.) mentions a temple of Apollo, which was situated between those places, as being outside the PORTA CARMENTALIS, This gate lay just at the foot of the Capitol, and is one of the most certain entrances to the Servian city. It was named after a fane or altar of Carmenta, the mother of Evander, which stood near it. This altar is mentioned by Dionysius (1.32), and appears to have existed long after his time, since it was seen by A. Gellius (18.7) and by Servius (ad Virg. Aen. viii 337.) The street called Vicus Jugarius ran from the Porta Carmentalis round the base of the Capitoline to the Forum, as we learn from Livy's description (27.37) of the procession of the virgins to the temple of Juno Regina on the Aventine, when two white heifers were led from the temple of Apollo before mentioned through the Porta Carmentalis and Vicus Jugarius to the forum. The exact site of the gate was probably a little to the NW. of the church of S. Omobono.

The principal gates of Rome had commonly more than one thoroughfare. These archways, or passages, were called Fornices and Jani. Cicero's etymology of the latter word shows the meaning attached to it, though the etymology itself is absurd ( “Ab eundo nomen est ductum: ex quo transitiones perviae Jani, foresque in liminibus profanarum aedium januae nominantur,” Nat. Deor. 2.27). We have already said that the right Janus of the Porta Carmentalis, on going out of the town, was regarded as ill-omened, and branded with the name of Porta Scelerata, from its having been, that through which the Fabii passed on their fatal expedition to the Cremera. (Liv. 2.49.) So Ovid (Fast 1.201):-- “Carmentis portae dextro via proxima Jano est:
Ire per hanc noll, quisquis es, omen habet.

Festus (p. 285, Müll.), Servius (Aen. 8.337), and Orosius (2.5) have completely misunderstood these passages in applying the epithet scelerata to the whole gate, as we have before remarked.

In the short piece of wall between the Capitoline hill and the Tiber there must have been at least another gate besides the Carmentalis, namely the PORTA FLUMENTANA. It is mentioned by Cicero (Cic. Att. 7.3), and its situation near the river may be inferred not only from its name, but also from passages in Livy, which mention it in connection with inundations (35.9, 21). Plutarch also (Otho, 4) records a great inundation which had caused much damage in the corn-market, at that time held in the Porticus Minucia Frumentaria, near the Forum Olitorium (Not. Reg. ix.); but the words of Paulus Diaconus are incomprehensible, who says that a part of the Tiber once actually flowed through this gate ( “Flumentana Porta Romae appellate, quod Tiberis partem ea fluxisse affirmant,” p. 89, Müll.) The site is further confirmed by a passage in Varro alluding to the populousness of the suburb just outside the gate: “Nam quod extra urbem est aedificium, nihilo magis ideo est villa, quum eorum aedificia qui habitant extra portam Flumetstanam, aut its Aemilianis” (R. R. 3.2). This neighbourhood had early become very thickly inhabited, as is evident from the many porticoes, theatres, temples and other buildings, which are mentioned there (see Preller, Regionen, p. 156, seq.) But Livy's narrative of the trial of Manlius (6.20) is one of the most striking proofs of the situation of the P. Flumentana, though it is a stumbling-block to those who hold that the temple of Jupiter was on the SW. summit of the Capitoline hill. A spot clear the place where the Circus Flaminius afterwards stood was at that time used for the assemblies of the Comitia Centuriata, by which Manlius was tried. From this place both the Capitol and the Arx were visible; and Manlius had produced a great effect upon his judges by calling upon them to pronounce their verdict in the sight of those very gods whose temple he had preserved : “Ut Capitolium atque arcem intuentes, ut ad deos immortales versi, de se judicarent.” In order to deprive him of this appeal the tribunes adjourned the assembly to a spot just outside the Porta Flumentana, called “lucus Poetelinus,” whence the Capitol could not be seen ( “under conspectus in Capitolium non esset” ). A glance at any map of Rome will show that this was the only spot in the Campus Martius where the temple, from its being hidden by the SW. summit, which we assume to have been the Arx, was concealed from view. The tribunes would doubtless have been glad to conceal the Arx also, had it been in their power; but an appeal to the Arx alone would have lacked the effect of the religio which swayed so much with the superstitious Romans. They were no longer in the presence of those rescued deities in whose sight Manlius had invoked their judgment. There is no occasion therefore to try, with Becker, to alter Livy's text, by reading Frumentaria for Flumentana, or seek to place the scene of the trial at another spot, since the Comitia Centuriata were usually assembled in the Campus.

The ancient topographers, as well as the modern Italians (Nibby, Mura, &c. p. 132; Canine, Indicazione Topografica, pp. 34, 632, ed. 1850), place another gate, the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, between the Carmentalis and the Flumentana, That there was such a gate is certain, since it is frequently mentioned in classical authors, but unfortunately in such a manner that no decided inference can be drawn respecting its situation. Hence various theories have been advanced on the subject, which have led to warm controversies. The German school of topographers, though not united among themselves, have agreed in departing from the Italian view, chiefly because it appears to them absurd to imagine that there could have been three gates in so short a piece of wall. If, however, as it will be shown to be probable, the Porta Triumphalis was opened only on occasions of state, there really seems to be very little force in this objection. Bunsen and his followers allow that it formed a real entrance into the city, but strangely enough make it lead into the Circus Maximus; whilst Becker, on the other hand, holds that it was no gate at all properly [p. 2.752]so called, but a mere triumphal arch situated in the Campus Martius. The theory of Bunsen necessarily rests on the assumption of a different line of wall from that laid down in the preceding account; and as another line is also adopted by Niebuhr (Hist. i. p. 397, Ethnogr. ii. p. 49), it will be necessary to examine this point before proceeding to the question of the gate. Niebuhr and Bunsen are, however, far from coinciding. The line drawn by the former proceeds along the banks of the river; that drawn by the latter runs from the Porta Carmentalis to the N. angle of the Circus Maximus, and, adopting the NW. front of the circus, or what was called the Oppidum, as part of the line, proceeds onwards to the Aventine, thus shutting the greater part of the Forum Boarium out of the city. Both these theories, however, agree in so far as they assume an enceinte continue, or continued line of wall; and therefore, if this notion can be shown to be false, both fall to the ground. Now it can be proved on the very best evidence that there was no wall in this part of the city, which was defended solely by the Tiber. We have already adduced a passage from Dionysius in confirmation of this statement; and the same author in another passage repeats the same thing in so plain a manner that there can be no reasonable doubt of the fact: ἐδέησεν πόλις ἁλῶναι καρὰ κράτος ἀτείχιστος οὖσα ἐκ τῶν παρὰ τὸν ποταμὸν μερῶν (5.23). But Dionysius does not stand alone. We have Livy also as a voucher for the same fact, who, in narrating the enterprise of Porsena against Rome, observes that the citizens regarded some parts of their city as secured by the wall, and other parts by the Tiber: “Alia muris, alia Tiberi objecto videbantur tuta” (2.10). The same fact appears, though not in so direct a manner, from the same author's account of the procession of the virgins from the temple of Apollo, outside the Carmental gate, to that of Juno Regina on the Aventine, to which we have before briefly alluded. The route is described as follows: “A porta (Carmentali) Jugario vico in forum venere. Inde vico Tusco Velabroque per Boarium forum in clivum Publicium atque aedem Junonis Reginae perrectum” (27.37). Now the small space allotted by Bunsen to the Forum Boarium must have been inside of the wall, since the temples of Fortune and Mater Matuta, which stood upon it (Liv. 33.27), were within the Porta Carmentalis (Id. 25.7). The procession, then, after passing through that forum, must have gone out of the city at another gate,--Bunsen's Flumentana,--and have entered it again by the Trigemina, before it could reach the Clivus Publicius,--facts which are not mentioned by Livy in his very precise description of the route.

Having thus shown on the best evidence that no wall existed at this point, it would be a mere waste of time to refute arguments intended to show that it possibly might have existed,--such as whether a wall with a gate would keep out an inundation, whether the Fabii went over the Sublician bridge, and others of the like sort, which would have puzzled an ancient haruspex. We will therefore proceed to examine Becker's hypothesis, that the Porta Triumphalis was, in fact, no gate at all, but merely an arch in the Campus Martius, a theory which is also adopted, though with some little variation, by Preller (Regionen, p. 162, and Anhang, p. 239).

Becker places this arch at the spot where the Campus Martius joins the Regio called Circus Flaminius, and takes it to be the same that was rebuilt by Domitian (of course he must mean rebuilt, though it is not very clearly expressed. De Muris, p. 92, Handb. p. 153). His conjecture is founded on the following lines in a poem of Martial's (8.65) in which he describes the erection of this arch and of some other buildings near it:-- “Haec est digna tuis, Germanice, porta triumphis, Hos aditus urbem Martis habere decet.

Becker, however, is totally unable to prove that this arch and the temple of Fortuna Redux near it were even in the Campus Martius at all. Thus he says (Handb. p. 642): “It is not indeed expressly said that the Ara of Fortuna Redux was in the Campus Martius; but it becomes probable from the circumstance that Domitian built here, and, as we have conjectured at p. 153, close to the Porta Triumphalis, a temple to the same goddess.” The argument then proceeds as follows: “We know from Martial that Domitian built a temple to Fortuna Redux where her altar formerly stood, and also a triumphal arch near it. We do not know that this altar was in the Campus Martius; but it is probable that it was, because Domitian built this temple close to it, and also close to the arch, which, as I conjectured, was the Porta Triumphalis!”

There is, however, another passage of Martial, either overlooked or ignored by Becker, which tends very strongly to show that this arch of Domitian's really was in the Campus Martius, but at quite a different spot from that so conveniently fixed upon by him. It is the following (10.6):-- “Felices quibus urna dedit spectare coruscum
Solibus Arctois sideribusque ducem.
Quando erit ille dies quo Campus et arbor et omnis
Lucebit Latia culta fenestra nuru?
Quando more dulces, longusque a Caesare pulvis,
Totaque Flaminia Roma videnda via?

There can be no doubt that these lines refer to the same triumphal entry of Domitian's as those quoted by Becker; and they pretty plainly show, as Canina, without any view to the present question, justly observes (Indicazione, &c. p. 437), that the arch and other monuments stood on the Via Flaminia, and therefore at a very considerable distance from the spot assigned to them by Becker.

This arch having broken down, Preller comes to the rescue, and places the Porta Triumphalis near the Villa Publica and temple of Bellona, close to the Via Lata. For this site he adduces several plausible arguments: near the temple of Bellona was the piece of ager hostilis, where the Fetiales went through the formalities of declaring war; as well as the Columna Bellica, whence a lance was thrown when the army was going to take the field; also a Senaculum “citra aedem Bellonae,” in which audience was given to foreign ambassadors whom the senate did not choose to admit into the city. The Villa Publica also served for the reception of the latter, and probably also of Roman generals before their triumph, and of all who, being cum imperio, could not cross the pomoerium, and therefore in the ordinary course took up their abode there. After this ceased to exist, the Diribitorium was used in its stead, in which Claudius passed some nights, and in which probably Vespasian and Titus slept before their triumph. This [p. 2.753]spot therefore had the significance of a kind of out-post of the city.

As this theory is evidently framed with a view to the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, and as the account of that triumph is also one of the main arguments adduced by Becker for his Porta Triumphalis, it will be necessary to examine it. The narrative of Josephus runs as follows (Bell. Jud. 7.5.4, p. 1305, Huds.): “The emperor and his son Titus spent the night preceding their triumph in a public building in the Campus Martius, near the temple of Isis, where the army was assembled and marshalled. At break of day the emperors came forth and proceeded to the Porticus Octaviae (near the theatre of Marcellus), where, according to ancient custom, the senate were assembled to meet them. Vespasian, after offering the usual prayer, and delivering a short address, dismissed the troops to their breakfast, whilst he himself returned to the gate named after the triumphal processions that used to pass through it. Here the emperor break-fasted, and, having put on the triumphal dress, and sacrificed to the gods whose shrines were at the gate, caused the pageant to proceed through the circi.” Becker concludes from this narrative that the Porta Triumphalis must have been outside the town, in the Campus Martins, and near the public building where the emperor had slept. A further proof is, he contends, that the procession went through the circi, which must mean the Circus Flaminius and Circus Maximus; and that this was so may be shown from Plutarch (Aem. Paull. 32), who says that Paullus went through the Circi, and in another passage expressly relates (Lucull. 37) that Lucullus adorned the Circus Flaminius with the arms, &c. which he had taken, which it would be absurd to suppose he would have done unless the procession passed through that circus. Then comes the supposition we have already noticed, that the procession of Vespasian passed through the arch re-crected by his younger son Domitian some years after his father's death. After passing through the Circus Flaminius, Becker thinks that the procession went through the P. Carmentalis, and by the Vicus Jugarius to the forum, along the latter sub Veteribus, and finally through the Vicus Tuscus, the Velabrum, and Forum Boarium, into the Circus Maximus. Having conducted the emperors thus far, Becker takes leave of them, and we remain completely in the dark as to the manner in which they got out of the circus and found their way back again to the forum and Capitol, the usual destination of triumphant generals.

Admitting that Becker has here given a true interpretation of the text of Josephus as it stands, we shall proceed to examine the conclusions that have been drawn from it, beginning with those of Preller. That writer has very properly assumed (Regionen, p. 240) that if the triumphal arch did not actually cross the pomoerium it led at all events into a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the city, into which it was unlawful for a general cum imperio to pass without the permission of the senate. Had not this been so the whole business would have been a mere vain and idle ceremony. The account of Vespasian's triumph seems indeed a little repugnant to this view, since he met the senate in the Porticus Octaviae, which on this supposition was considerably beyond the boundary, and which he had therefore crossed before he had obtained authority to do so. Still more repugnant is Dion's account of the triumph of Tiberius, who, we are told, assembled the senate at the same place precisely on the ground that it was outside of the pomoerium, and that consequently he did not violate their privileges by assembling them there (ἔς τε τὸ Ὀκταούειον τὴν Βουλὴν ἤθροισε διὰ τὸ ἔξω τοῦ πωμηρίον αὐτὸ εἶναι, 55.8). But as these instances occurred in the imperial times, when it may be said with Becker (Handb. p. 151, note) that the ceremony no longer had any meaning, we will go back for an example to the early ages of the Republic. First, however, we must demand the acknowledgment that the triumphal gate passed by Vespasian was the same, or at least stood on the same spot, as that which had been in use from time immemorial. We cannot allow it to be shifted about like a castle on a chessboard, to suit the convenience of commentators; and we make this demand on the authority of Josephus himself in the very passage under discussion, who tells us that it took its name from the circumstance that the triumphal processions had always passed through it (ἀπὸ τοῦ πέμπεσθαι δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἀεὶ τοὺς θριάμβους τῆς προσηγορίας ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τετυχυῖαν). Now Livy, in his account of the triumph of the consuls Valerius and Horatius, relates that they assembled the senate in the Campus Martius to solicit that honour; but when the senators complained that they were overawed by the presence of the military, the consuls called the senate away into the Prata Flaminia, to the spot occupied in the time of the historian by the temple of Apollo. ( “Consules ex composite eodem biduo ad urbem accessere, senatumque in Martium Campum evocavere. Ubi quum de rebus a se gestis agerent, questi primores Patrum, senatum inter milites dedita opera terroris causa haberi. Itaque inde Consules, ne criminationi esset locum, in prata Flaminia, ubi nunc aedes Apollinis (jam tum Apollinare appellabant) avocavere senatum,” 3.63.) This temple was situated close to the Porticus Octaviae (Becker, Handb. p. 605), and therefore considerably nearer the city than the spot indicated either by Becker or Preller. The consuls therefore must have already passed beyond the Porta Triumphalis before they began to solicit the senate for leave to do so!

Becker, however, has been more careful, and has not extended the jurisdiction of the city beyond the walls of Servius, at this part of the Campus, before the time of the emperor Claudius. But what results from his view? That the whole affair of the Porta Triumphalis was mere farce,--that it led nowhere,--that the triumphant general, when he had passed through it by permission of the senate, was as much outside the city boundary as he was before. But that it afforded a real entrance into the town clearly appears from the passage in Cicero's oration against Piso (100.23): “Cum ego Caelimontana porta introisse dixissem, sponsione me, ni Esquilina introisset, homo promtissimus lacessivit. Quasi vero id aut ego scire debuerim, aut vestrum quispiam audierit, aut ad rem pertineat qua tu porta introieris, modo ne triumphali; quae porta Macedonicis semper proconsulibus ante te patuit.” The Porta Triumphalis being here put on a level with the Caelimontana and Esquilina, the natural conclusion is that, like them, it afforded an actual, though not customary, entrance within the walls. We further learn from the preceding passage that this same Porta Triumphalis had been open to every proconsul of Macedonia before Piso, including of course L. Aemilius Paullus, who triumphed over Perseus B.C. 167 [p. 2.754]Liv. 45.39), thus establishing the identity of the gate to at least that period.

But to return to Becker's explanation of the passage of Josephus. Admitting Plutarch's account of the triumphs of Paullus and Lucullus, namely, that they passed through the Circus Flaminius, yet what does this prove? how is it connected with the Porta Triumphalis? Those generals may have marshalled their processions in the Campus and passed through the Circus Flaminius in their way to the Porta Triumphalis. The procession would have been equally visible in the Circus as in the streets of Rome, just as the Lord Mayor's show may, or might, be seen at Westminster as well as in the city. It is possible indeed that in the case of Vespasian there was no procession till he arrived at the gate; but it does not necessarily follow that the same line was always precisely observed. In truth we may perceive a difference between the expressions of Josephus and those of Plutarch. The former says that Vespasian went διὰ τῶν θεάτρων; whilst Plutarch says, of Paullus, that the people assembled ἐν τοῖς ἱππικοῖς θεάτροις, Κίρκους καλοῦσιν; of Lucullus, that he adorned τὸν Φλαμίνειον ἱππόδρομον. Here the circi are precisely designated as hippodromes; but Josephus uses the general term θεάτρων, which may include theatres of all kinds. Now we will suggest a more probable route than that given by Becker, according to which the pageant must have crossed the forum twice. After coming out at the further end of the circus, Vespasian turned down to the left, between the Palatine and Caelian, the modern Via di S. Gregorio. This would bring him out opposite his own magnificent amphitheatre, the Colosseum, then in course of construction. Even if it had not risen much above its foundations, still its ample area by means of scaffoldings, would have accommodated a vast number of spectators; and as to Vespasian personally, it would have imparted no small relish to his triumph to pass through so magnificent a work of his own creation. Hence his road lay plain and direct over the Summa Sacra Via to the forum and Capitol.

Now, taking all these things into consideration, we will venture to suggest a very slight change in the text of Josephus, a change not so great as some of those often proposed by Becker upon much smaller occasions, and which will release us from a great deal of perplexity. The alteration is that of an Ν into a Π, a very slight one in the uncial character; and, by reading ἀπεχώρει for ἀνεχώρει, we would make Vespasian depart from the Porticus Octaviae towards the gate which had always been used for triumphs, instead of retracing his steps towards one of which nobody can give any account. But whatever may be thought of the individual case of Vespasian, still we hold it to be incontestable that the ancient Porta Triumphalis, against which the sole objection seems to be that it was near two other gates, is to be sought in that part of the Servian wall between the P. Carmentalis and the P. Flumentana. The objection just alluded to would indeed have some force, if we could assume, with Becker (Handb. p. 154), that the Porta Triumphalis, just like an ordinary one, lay always open for common traffic. But it is surprising how anybody could come to that conclusion after reading the passages which Becker has himself cited from Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius, or that in Cicero's oration against Piso before quoted. The first of these authors relates that after the death of Augustus the senate voted, or proposed to vote, that, as an extraordinary mark of honour, his funeral should pass through the triumphal gate, preceded by the statue of Victory which stood in the curia: “Ut censuerint quidam funus triumphali porta ducendum, praecedente Victoria, quae est in Curia” (Aug. 100; cf. Tac. Ann. 1.8); and Dion says (56.42) that this was actually done, and the body burned in the Campus Martius. Now if the Porta Triumphalis had been an ordinary gate and common thoroughfare, what honour would there have been in passing through it? or how should the spectator have discovered that any distinction had been conferred? Wherefore Preller (Regionen, p. 240) has rightly come to the conclusion that it was usually kept shut.

Between the Capitoline and the Aventine, along the banks of the river, the wall, as we have shown, was discontinued, but it was recommenced at the spot where the latter hill approaches the Tiber. This may be shown from the well-ascertained position of the PORTA TRIGEMINA, which, as we learn from a passage in Frontinus, lay just under the Clivus Publicius, at the northernmost point of the hill ( “incipit distribui Appia (aqua) imo Publicio Clivo ad Portam Trigeminam,” Aq. 3); and the Clivus Publicius, as we know from a passage in Livy respecting the procession of the virgins before alluded to, formed the ascent to the Aventine from the Forum Boarium ( “inde vico Tusco Velabroque per Boarium forum in clivum Publicium atque aedem Junonis Reginae perrectum,” 27.37). There are some difficulties connected with the question of this gate, from its being mentioned in conjunction with the Pons Sublicius ; but there will be occasion to discuss the situation of that bridge in a separate section ; and we shall only remark here that the narratives alluded to seem to show that it was at no great distance from the gate. It is probable that the latter derived its name from its having three Jani or archways.

A little beyond the Porta Trigemina most topographers have placed a PORTA NAVALIS, which is mentioned only once, namely, by P. Diaconus in the following passage : “Navalis Porta a vicinia Navalium dicta” (p. 179, Müll.), where we are told that it derived its name from the vicinity of the government dockyards. It has been assumed that these docks lay to the S. of the Aventine, in the plain where Monte Testaccio stands; but Becker has the merit of having shown, as will appear in its proper place, that they were in the Campus Martins. There was, however, a kind of emporium or merchant dock, between the Aventine and Tiber, and, as this must have occasioned considerable traffic, it is probable that there was a gate leading to it some--where on the W. side of the hill, perhaps near the Priorato, where there seems to have been an ascent, but whether it was called Porta Navalis it is impossible to say. The writer of this article is informed by a gentleman well acquainted with the subject, that traces of the Servian wall have very recently been discovered at the NW. side of the Aventine, below S. Sabina and S. Alessio.

The line of wall from this point to the Caelian hill cannot be determined with any certainty. Round the Aventine itself it doubtless followed the configuration of the hill; but its course from the S. point of the Aventine has been variously laid down. Hence the question arises whether it included the nameless height on which the churches of S. Sabina [p. 2.755]and S. Saba now stand. It seems probable that it must, at all events, have included a considerable portion of it, since, had it proceeded along the valley, it would have been commanded by the hill; and indeed the most natural supposition is that it enclosed the whole, since the more extended line it would thus have described affords room for the several gates which we find mentioned between the Porta Trigemina and the Porta Capena near the foot of the Caelian.

Among these we must, perhaps, assume a PORTA MINUCIA or MINUTIA, which is twice mentioned by Paulus (pp. 122, 147), and whose name, he says, was derived from an ara or sacellum of Minucius, whom the Romans held to be a god. We hear nowhere else of such a Roman deity; but we learn from Pliny (18.4) that a certain tribune of the people, named Minutius Augurinus, had a statue erected to him, by public subscription, beyond the Porta Trigemina, for having reduced the price of corn. This occurred at an early period, since the same story is narrated by Livy (4.13-16) B.C. 436, with the additional information that it was Minutius who procured the condemnation of the great corn monopoliser, Maelius, and that the statue alluded to was a gilt bull. It is possible therefore that the gate may have been named after him; and that from the extraordinary honours paid to him, he may have come in process of time to be vulgarly mistaken for a deity. If there is any truth in this view, the gate may be placed somewhere on the S. side of the Aventine.

In the mutilated fragment which we possess of Varro's description of the Roman gates (L.L. 5.163, Müll.) he closes it by mentioning three, which it is impossible to place anywhere except in the line of wall between the Aventine and Caelian. He had been speaking of a place inhabited by Ennius, who lived on the Aventine (Hieron. Chron. 134, vol. i. p. 369, Ronc.), and then mentions consecutively a PORTA NAEVIA, PORTA RAUDUSCULA, and PORTA LAVERNALIS. He must therefore be enumerating the gates in the order from W. to E., since it would be impossible to find room for three more gates, besides those already mentioned, on the Aventine. The P. Naevia, therefore, probably lay in the valley between that hill and the adjoining height to the E. It could not have been situated on the Aventine itself, since the Basis Capitolina, mentions in the 12th Regio, or Piscina Publica, a vicus Porta Naevia, as well as another of Porta Raudusculana. But the exact position of the latter gate, as well as of the Porta Lavernalis, it is impossible to determine further than that they lay in the line of wall between the Aventine and Caelian.

After so much uncertainty it is refreshing to arrive at last at a gate whose site may be accurately fixed. The PORTA CAPENA lay at the foot of the Caelian hill, at a short distance W. of the spot where the Via Latina diverged from the Via Appia. The latter road issued from the P. Capena, and the discovery of the first milestone upon it, in a vineyard a short distance outside of the modern Porta di S. Sebastiano, has enabled the topographer accurately to determine its site to be at a spot now marked by a post with the letters P. C., 300 yards beyond the Via S. Gregorio, and 1480 within the modern gate. That it was seated in the valley, appears from the fact that the Rivus Herculaneus, probably a branch of the Aqua Marcia, passed over it; which, we are expressly told, lay too low to supply the Caelian hill. (Front. Aq. 18.) Hence Juvenal (3.11):--“Substitit ad veteres arcus madidamque Capenam,”

where we learn from the Scholia that the gate, which in later times must have lain a good way within the town, was called “Arcus Stillans.” So Martial (iii, 47).:--“Capena grandi porta qua pluit gutta.”

A little way beyond this gate, on the Via Appia, between its point of separation from the Via Latina and the P. S. Sebastiano, there still exists one of the most interesting of the Roman monuments--the tomb of the Scipios, the site of which is marked by a solitary cypress.

From the Porta Capena the wall must have ascended the Caelian hill, and skirted its southern side; but the exact line which it described in its progress towards the agger can only be conjectured. Becker (Handb. p. 167), following Piale and Bunsen, draws the line near the Ospedale di S. Giovanni, thus excluding that part of the hill on which the Lateran is situated, although, as Canina observes (Indicazione, p. 36), this is the highest part of the hill. There was perhaps a gate at the bottom of the present Piazza di Navicella, but we do not know its name; and the next gate respecting which there is any certainty is the PORTA CAELIMONTANA. Bunsen (Beschr. i. p. 638) and Becker, in conformity with their line of wall, place it by the hospital of S. Giovanni, now approached by the Via S. S. Quattro Coronati, the ancient street called Caput Africae. The PORTA QUERQUETULANA, if it was really a distinct gate and not another name for the Caelimontana, must have stood a little to the N. of the latter, near the church of S. S. Pietro e Marcellino, in the valley which separates the Caelian from the Esquiline. This gate, which was also called Querquetularia, is several times mentioned, but without any more exact definition. (Plin. Nat. 16.15; Festus, p. 261.) The Caelian hill itself, as we have before remarked, was anciently called Querquetulanus. From this point the wall must have run northwards in a tolerably direct line till it joined the southern extremity of the agger, where the PORTA ESQUILINA was situated, between which and the Querquetulana there does not appear to have been any other gate. The Esquilina, like the others on the agger, is among the most certain of the Roman gates. We learn from Strabo (v. p.237) that the Via Labicana proceeded from it; whilst at a little distance the Praenestina branched off from the Labicana. It must therefore have lain near the church of S. Vito and the still existing arch of Gallienus; but its exact site is connected with the question respecting the gates in the Aurelian wall which corresponded with it, and cannot therefore at present be determined. The site of the PORTA COLLINA, the point from which we started, is determined by the fact mentioned by Strabo (lb. p. 228) that both the Via Salaria and Via Nomentana started from it; and it must consequently have stood near the northern corner of the baths of Diocletian at the commencement of the present Via del Macao. We learn from Paulus Diaconus (p. 10) that this gate was also called Agonensis and Quirinalis. Agonus, as we have said, was the ancient name of the Quirinal hill.

The Porta Collins, then, and the Porta Esquilina were seated at the northern and southern extremities [p. 2.756]of the agger. But besides these, Strabo (Ib. p. 234) mentions another lying between them, the PORTA VIMINALIS; which is also recorded by Festus (p. 376) and by Frontinus (Aq. 19). It must have lain behind the SE. angle of the baths of Diocletian, where an ancient road leads to the rampart, which, if prolonged, would run to the PORTA CLAUSA of the walls of Aurelian, just under the southern side of the Castra Praetoria. It is clear from the words of Strabo, in the passage just cited (ὑπὸ μέσῳ δὲ τῷ χώματι τρίτη ἐστὶ πύλη ὁμώνυμος τῷ Οὐϊμιναλίῳ λόφῳ), that there were only three gates in the agger, though some topographers have contrived to find room for two or three more in this short space, the whole length of the agger being but 6 or 7 stadia (Strab. l.c.; Dionys. A. R. 9.68), or about 3/4 of a mile. Its breadth was 50 feet, and below it lay a ditch 100 feet broad and 30 feet deep. Remains of this immense work are still visible near the baths of Diocletian and in the grounds of the Villa Negroni, especially at the spot where the statue of Roma now stands.

Survey under Vespasian and Circumference of the City.--In the preceding account of the gates in the Servian wall we have enumerated twenty, including the Porta Triumphalis. Some topographers have adopted a still greater number. When we consider that there were only nine or ten main roads leading out of ancient Rome, and that seven of these issued from the three gates Capena, Esquilina, and Collina alone, it follows that five or six gates would have sufficed for the main entrances, and that the remainder must have been unimportant ones, destined only to afford the means of convenient communication with the surrounding country. Of those enumerated only the Collina, Viminalis, Esquilina, Caelimontana, Capena, Trigemina, Carmentalis, and Ratumena seem to have been of any great importance. Nevertheless it appears from a passage in Pliny (3.9) that in his time there must have been a great number of smaller ones, the origin and use of which we shall endeavour to account for presently. As the passage, though unfortunately somewhat obscure, is of considerable importance in Roman topography, we shall here quote it at length: “Urbem tres portas habentem Romulus reliquit, aut (ut plurimas tradentibus credamus) quatuor. Moenia ejus collegere ambitu Imperatoribus Censoribusque Vespasianis anno conditae DCCCXXVII. pass. XIIIM.CC. Complexa montes septem, ipsa dividitur in regiones quatuordecim, compita Larium CCLXV. Ejusdem spatium, mensura currente a milliario in capite Romani fori statuto, ad singulas portas, quae sunt hodie numero triginta septem, ita ut duodecim semel numerentur, praetereanturque ex veteribus septem, quae esse desierunt, efficit passuum per directum XXXM.DCCLXV. Ad extrema vero tectorum cum castris Praetoriis ab eodem milliario per vicos omnium viarum mensura colligit paulo amplius septuaginta millia passuum.” Now there seems to be no reason for doubting the correctness of this account. Pliny could have had no reason for exaggeration, against which, in the account of the Romulean gates, he carefully guards himself. Again, he seems to have taken the substance of it from the official report of a regular survey made in his own time and in the reign of Vespasian. The only room for suspicion therefore seems to be that his text may have been corrupted, and that instead of thirty-seven as the number of the gates we should insert some smaller one. But an examination of his figures does not tend to show that they are incorrect. The survey seems to have been made with a view to the three following objects: 1. To ascertain the actual circumference of the city, including all the suburbs which had spread beyond the walls of Servius. It is well known that moenia signifies the buildings of a city as well as the walls ( “muro moenia amplexus est,” Flor. 1.4, &c.), and therefore this phrase, which has sometimes caused embarrassment, need not detain us. Now the result of this first measurement gave 13,200 passus, or 13 1/5 Roman miles--a number to which there is nothing to object, as it very well agrees with the circumference of the subsequent Aurelian walls. 2. The second object seems to have been to ascertain the actual measure of the line of street within the old Servian walls. The utility of this proceeding we do not immediately recognise. It may have been adopted out of mere curiosity; or more probably it may have been connected with questions respecting certain privileges, or certain taxes, which varied according as a house was situated within or without the walls. Now the sum of the measurements of all these streets, when put together as if they had formed a straight line ( “per directum” ), amounted to 30,765 passus, or 30 Roman miles and about 3/4. Such we take to be the meaning of “per directum;” though some critics hold it to mean that the distance from the milliarium, to these gates was measured in a straight line, as the crow flies, without taking into the calculation the windings of the streets. But in that case it would surely have been put earlier in the sentence--“mensura currente per directum ad singulas portas.” This, however, would have been of little consequence except for the distinction drawn by Becker (Handb. p. 185, note 279), who thinks that the measurement proceeds on two different principles, namely per directum, or as the crow flies, from the milliarium to the Servian gates, and, on the contrary, by all the windings of the streets from the same spot to the furthest buildings outside the walls. Such a method, as he observes, would afford no true ground of comparison, and therefore we can hardly think that it was adopted, or that such was Pliny's meaning. Becker was led to this conclusion because he thought that “per vicos omnium viarum” stands contrasted with “per directum;” but this contrast does not seem necessarily to follow. By viae here Pliny seems to mean all the roads leading out of the thirty-seven gates; and by “ad extrema tectorum per vicos omnium viarum” is signified merely that the measure was further extended to the end of the streets which lined the commencements of these roads. Such appears to us to be the meaning of this certainly somewhat obscure passage. Pliny's account may be checked, roughly indeed, but still with a sufficient approach to accuracy to guarantee the correctness of his text. If a circumference of 13 1/5 miles yielded 70 miles of street, and if there were 30 miles of street within the Servian walls, then the circumference of the latter would be to the former as 3 to 7, and would measure rather more than 5 3/4 miles. Now this agrees pretty well with the accounts which we have of the size of the Servian city. Becker, following the account of Thucydides (2.13), but. without allowing for that part of the walls of Athens described as unguarded, with the whole circuit of which walls Dionysius (4.13, and 9.68) compares those of ancient Rome, sets the latlatter down at 43 stadia, or 5 3/8 miles. On Nolli's great plan of Rome they are given at a measurement [p. 2.757]equal to 10,230 English yards (Burgess, Topography aud Antiquities of Rome, vol. i. p. 458), which agrees as nearly as possible with the number above given of 5 3/4 miles. Nibby, who made a laborious but perhaps not very accurate attempt to ascertain the point by walking round the presumed line of the ancient walls, arrived at a considerably larger result, or nearly 8 miles. (Mura, &c. p. 90.)

False and doubtful Gates.--But our present business is with the gates of the Servian town; and it would really appear that in the time of Vespasian there were no fewer than thirty-seven outlets from the ancient walls. The seven old gates to which Pliny alludes as having ceased to exist, may possibly have included those of the old Romulean city and also some in the Servian walls, which had been closed. In order to account for the large number recorded by Pliny, we must figure to ourselves what would be the natural progress of a city surrounded with a strong wall like that of Servius, whose population was beginning to outgrow the accommodation afforded within it. At first perhaps houses would be built at the sides of the roads issuing from, the main gates; but, as at Rome these sites were often appropriated for sepulchres, the accommodation thus afforded would be limited. In process of time, the use of the wall becoming every day more obsolete, fresh gates would be pierced, corresponding with the line of streets inside, which would be continued by a line of road outside, on which houses would be erected. Gradually the walls themselves began to disappear; but the openings that had been pierced were still recorded, as marking, for fiscal or other purposes, the boundary of the city wards. Hence, though Augustus had divided the city and suburbs into fourteen new Regions, we find the ancient boundary marked by these gates still recorded and measured in the time of Vespasian; and indeed it seems to have been kept up for a long while afterwards, since we find the same number of thirty-seven gates recorded both in the Notitia and Curiosum.

Hence we would not tamper with the text of Pliny, as Nibby has done with very unfortunate success (Mura, &c. p. 213, seq.)--a remedy that should never be resorted to except in cases of the last necessity. Pliny's statement may be regarded as wholly without influence with respect to the original Servian gates, the number of which we should rather be inclined to reduce than to increase. We find, indeed, more names mentioned than those enumerated, but some of them were ancient or obsolete names; and, again, we must remember that “porta” does not always signify a city gate. Of the former kind was the PORTA AGONENSIS, which, as we learn from Paulus Diaconus (p. 10), was another appellation for the Porta Collina. The same author (p. 255) also mentions a PORTA QUIRINALIS as a substantive gate; though possibly, like Agonensis, it was only a duplicate name for one of the gates on the Quirinal. The term “porta” was applied to any arched thoroughfare, and sometimes perhaps to the arch of an aqueduct when it spanned a street in the line of wall; in which case it was built in a superior manner, and had usually an inscription. Among internal thoroughfares called “portae” were the STERCORARIA on the Clivus Capitolinus, the LIBITINENSIS in the amphitheatre, the FENESTELLA, mentioned by Ovid (Ov. Fast. 6.569) as that by which Fortuna visited Numa, &c. The last of these formed the entrance to Numa's regia, as we learn from Plutarch (de Fort. Rom. 10). Among the arches of aqueducts to which the name of gate was applied, may perhaps be ranked that alluded to by Martial 4.18):--

Qua vicina pluit Vipsanis porta columnis, &c.
Respecting the gates called FERENTINA and PIACULARIS we have before offered a conjecture. [See p. 728.] The PORTA METIA rests solely on a false reading of Plautus. (Cas. 2.6. 2, Pseud. 1.3. 97.) On the other hand, a PORTA CATULARIA seems to have really existed, which is mentioned by Paulus Diaconus (p. 45; cf. Festus, p. 285) in connection with certain sacrifices of red-coloured dogs. This must be the sacrifice alluded to by Ovid (Ov. Fast. 4.905), in which the entrails of a dog were offered by the flamen in the Lucus Robiginis. It is also mentioned in the Fasti Praenestini, vii. Kal. Mai, which date agrees with Ovid's: “Feriae Robigo Via Claudia, ad miliarium v., ne robigo frumentis noceat.” But this is at variance first, with Ovid, who was returning to Rome by the Via Nomentana, not the Via Claudia, and, secondly, with itself, since the Via Claudia did not branch off from the Via Flaminia till the 10th milestone, and, consequently, no sacrifice could be performed on it at a distance of 5 miles from Rome. However this discrepancy is to be reconciled, it can hardly be supposed that one of the Roman gates derived its name from a trifling rustic sacrifice; unless, indeed, it was a duplicate one, used chiefly with reference to sacerdotal customs, as seems to have been sometimes the case, and in the present instance to denote the gate leading to the spot where the annual rite was performed. Paulus Diaconus also mentions (p. 37) a PORTA COLLATINA, which he affirms to have been so called after the city of Collatia, near Rome. But when we reflect that both the Via Tiburtina and the Via Praenestina issued from the Porta Esquilina, and that a road to Collatia must have run between them, the impossibility of a substantive Porta Collatina is at once apparent. The DUODECIM PORTAE are placed by Bunsen (Beschr. i. p. 633) in the wall of the Circus Maximus; but as it appears from Pliny (l.c.) that they stood on the ancient line of wall, and as we have shown that this did not make part of the wall of the circus, this could not have been their situation. We do not see the force of Piale's celebrated discovery that the Duodecim Portae must have been a place at Rome, because Julius Obsequens says that a mule brought forth there; which it might very well have done at one of the gates. Becker's opinion (Handb. p. 180) that it was an arch, or arches, of the Aqua Appia seems as unfounded as that of Bunsen (vide Preller, Regionen, p, 193). It is mentioned by the Notitia in the 11th Regio, and therefore probably stood somewhere near the Aventine ; but its exact site cannot be determined. It seems probable, as Preller remarks, that it may have derived its name from being a complex of twelve arched thoroughfares like the Ἐννεάπυλον of the Pelasgicon at Athens.

Transtiberine Wall.--Ancus Marcius, as we have related, fortified the JANICULUM, or hill on the right bank of the Tiber commanding the city. Some have concluded from Livy (1.33: “Janiculum quoque adjectum, non inopia locorum, sed ne quando ea arx hostium esset. Id non muro solum, sed etiam ob commoditatem itineris ponte Sublicio tum primum in Tiberi facto conjungi urbi [p. 2.758]placuit” ), that a wall was built from the fortress on the top of the hill down to the river, but the construction of conjungi in this passage may be a zeugma. It seems strange that Ancus should have built a wall on the right bank of the Tiber when there was yet none on the left bank; and it is remarkable that Dionysius (3.45), in describing the fortification of the Janiculum, makes no mention of a wall, nor do we hear of any gates on this side except that of the fortress itself. The existence of a wall, moreover, seems hardly consistent with the accounts which we have already given from the same author of the defenceless state of the city on that side. Niebuhr (Hist. i. p. 396) rejected the notion of a wall, as utterly erroneous, but unfortunately neglected to give the proofs by which he had arrived at this conclusion. The passage from Appian (Κλαύδιον δ᾽Ἄππιον χιλίαρχον τειχοφυλακοῦντα τῆς Ῥώμης τὸν λόφον τὸν καλούμενον Ἰάνουκλον εὖ ποτε παθόντα ὑφ᾽ ἑαντοῦ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀναμνήσας Μάριος, ἐς τὴν πόλιν ἐσῆλθεν, ὑπανοιχθείσης αὐτῷ πύλης, B.C. 1.68) which Becker (p. 182, note) seems to regard as decisive proves little or nothing for the earlier periods of the city ; and, even had there been a wall, the passing it would not have afforded an entrance into the city, properly so called.


In the repairs of the wall by Honorius all the gates of Aurelian vanished; hence it is impossible to say with confidence that any part of Aurelian's wall remains; and we must consider it as represented by that of Honorius. Procopius (B. G. 3.24) asserts that Totila destroyed all the gates; but this is disproved by the inscriptions still existing over the Porta S. Lorenzo, as well as over the closed arch of the Porta Maggiore; and till the time of Pope Urban VIII. the same inscription might be read over the Ostiensis (P. S. Paolo) and the ancient Portuensis. It can hardly be imagined that these inscriptions should have been preserved over restored gates. The only notice respecting any of the gates of Aurelian on which we can confidently rely is the account given by Ammianus Marcellinus (17.4.14) of the carrying of the Egyptian obelisk, which Constantius II. erected in the Circus Maximus, through the PORTA OSTIENSIS. It may be assumed, however, that their situation was not altered in the new works of Honorius. By far the greater part of these gates exist at the present day, though some of them are now walled up, and in most cases the ancient name has been changed for a modern one. Hence the problem is not so much to discover the sites of the ancient gates as the ancient names of those still existing; and these do not admit of much doubt, with the exception of the gates on the eastern side of the city.

Procopius, the principal authority respecting the gates in the Aurelian (or Honorian) wall, enumerates 14 principal ones, or πύλαι, and mentions some smaller ones by the name of πυλίδες (B. G. 1.19). The distinction, however, between these two appellations is not very clear. To judge from their present appearance, it was not determined by the size of the gates; and we find the Pinciana indifferently called πυλίς and πύλη. (Urlichs, Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 196.) The conjecture of Nibby (Mura, &c. p. 317) may perhaps be correct, that the πύλαι were probably those which led to the great high-ways. The unknown writer called the Anonymus Einsiedlensis, who flourished about the beginning of the ninth century, also mentions 14 gates, and includes the Pinciana among them; but his account is not clear.

Unlike Servius, Aurelian did not consider the Tiber a sufficient protection; and his walls were extended along its banks from places opposite to the spots where the walls which he built from the Janiculum began on the further shore. The wall which skirted the Campus Martius is considered to have commenced not far from the Palazzo Farnese, from remains of walls on the right bank, supposed to have belonged to those of the Janiculum; but all traces of walls on the left bank have vanished beneath the buildings of the new town. It would appear that the wails on the right and left banks were connected by means of a bridge on the site of the present Ponte Sisto--which thus contributed to form part of the defences; since the arches being secured by means of chains drawn before them, or by other contrivances, would prevent an enemy from passing through them in boats into the interior of the city: and it is in this manner that Procopius describes Belisarius as warding off the attacks of the Gothls (B. G. 1.19).

From this point, along the whole extent of the Campus Martius, and as far as the Porta Flaminia, the walls appear, with the exception of some small posterns mentioned by the Anonymous of Einsiedlen to have had only one gate, which is repeatedly mentioned by Procopius under the name of PORTA AURELIA (B. G. 1.100.19, 22, 28); though he seems to have been acquainted with its later name of PORTA STI PETRI, by which it is called by the Anonymous (Ib. 3.36). It stood on the left bank, opposite to the entrance of the Pons Aelius (Ponte di S. Angelo), leading to the mausoleum of Hadrian. The name of Aurelia is found only in Procopius, and is somewhat puzzling, since there was another gate of the same name in the Janiculum, spanning the Via Aurelia, which, however, is called by Procopius (Ib. 1.18) by its modern name of Pancratiana; whilst on the other hand the Anonymous appears strangely enough to know it only by its ancient appellation of Aurelia. The gate by the bridge, of which no trace now remains, may possibly have derived its name from a Nova Via Aurelia (Gruter, Inscr. cccclvii. 6), which passed through it; but there is a sort of mystery hanging over it which it is not easy to clear up. (Becker, Handb. p. 196, and note.)

The next gate, proceeding northwards, was the PORTA FLAMINIA, which stood a little to the east of the present Porta del Popolo, erected by Pope Pius IV. in 1561. The ancient gate probably stood on the declivity of the Pincian (ἐν χώρῳ κρημνώδει, Procop. B. G. 1.23), as the Goths did not attack it from its being difficult of access. Yet Anastasius (Vit. Gregor. II.) describes it as exposed to inundations of the Tiber; whence Nibby (Mura, &c. p. 304) conjectures that its site was altered between the time of Procopius and Anastasius, that is, between the sixth and ninth centuries. Nay, in a great inundation which happened towards the end of the eighth century, in the pontificate of Adrian I., the gate was carried away by the flood, which bore it as far as the arch of M. Aurelius, then called Tres Faccicellae, and situated in the Via Flaminia, where the street called della Vite now runs into the Corso. (Ib). The gate appears to have retained its ancient name of Flaminia as late as the 15th century, as appears from a life of Martin V. in Muratori (Script. Rer. Ital. t. iii. pt. ii. col. [p. 2.759]864). When it obtained its present name cannot be determined; its ancient one was undoubtedly derived from the Via Flaminia, which it spanned. In the time of Procopius, and indeed long before, the wall to the east had bent outwards from the effects of the pressure of the Pincian hill, whence it was called murus fractus or inclinatus, just as it is now called muro torto. (Procop. B. G. 1.23.)

The next gate, proceeding always to the right, was the PORTA PINCIANA, before mentioned, which was already walled up in the time of the Anonymous of Einsiedlen. It of course derived its name from the hill on which it stood. Belisarius had a house near this gate (Anastas. Silverio, pp. 104, 106); and either from this circumstance, or from the exploits performed before it by Belisarius, it is supposed to have been also called Belisaria, a name which actually occurs in one or two passages of Procopius (B. G. 1.18, 22; cf. Nibby, Mura, &c. p. 248). But the Salaria seems to have a better claim to this second appellation as the gate which Belisarius himself defended; though it is more probable that there was no such name at all, and that Βελισαρία in the passages cited is only a corruption of Σαλαρία. (Becker, de MuIis, p. 115; Urlichs in Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 196.)

Respecting the two gates lying between the Porta Pinciana and the Praetorian camp there can be no doubt, as they stood over, and derived their names from, the Via Salaria and Via Nomentana. In earlier times both these roads issued from the Porta Collina of the Servian wall; but their divergence of course rendered two gates necessary in a wall drawn with a longer radius. The PORTA SALARIA still subsists with the same name, although it has undergone a restoration. Pius IV. destroyed the PORTA NOMENTANA, and built in its stead the present Porta Pia. The inscription on the latter testifies the destruction of the ancient gate, the place of which is marked with a tablet bearing the date of 1564. A little to the SE. of this gate are the walls of the Castra Praetoria, projecting considerably beyond the rest of the line, as Aurelian included the camp in his fortification. The PORTA DECUMANA, though walled up, is still visible, as well as the PRINCIPALES on the sides.

The gates on the eastern tract of the Aurelian walls have occasioned considerable perplexity. On this side of the city four roads are mentioned, the Tiburtina, Collatina, Praenestina, and Labicana, and two gates, the PORTA TIBURTINA and PRAENESTINA. But besides these gates, which are commonly thought to correspond with the modern ones of S. Lorenzo and Porta Maggiore, there is a gate close to the Praetorian camp, about the size of the Pinciana, and resembling the Honorian gates in its architecture, which has been walled up from time immemorial, and is hence called PORTA CLAUSA, or Porta Chiusa. The difficulty lies in determining which were the ancient Tiburtina and Praenestina. The whole question has been so lucidly stated by Mr. Bunbury that we cannot do better than borrow his words: “It has been generally assumed that the two gates known in modern times as the Porta S. Lorenzo and the Porta Maggiore are the same as were originally called respectively the Porta Tiburtina and Praenestina, and that the roads bearing the same appellations led from them directly to the important towns from which they derived their name. It is admitted on all hands that they appear under these names in the Anonymus; and a comparison of two passages of Procopius (B. G. 1.19, lb. p. 96) would appear to lead us to the same result. In the former of these Procopius speaks of the part of the city attacked by the Goths as comprising five gates (πύλαι), and extending from the Flaminian to the Praenestine. That he did not reckon the Pinciana as one of these seems probable, from the care with which, in the second passage referred to, he distinguishes it as a πυλίς, or minor gate. Supposing the closed gate near the Praetorian camp to have been omitted for the same reason, we have just the five required, viz., Flaminia, Salaria, Nomentana, Tiburtina (Porta S. Lorenzo), and Praenestina (Maggiore). On this supposition both these ancient ways (the Tiburtina and Praenestina) must have issued originally from the Esquiline gate of the Servian walls. Now we know positively from Strabo that the Via Praenestina did so, as did also a third road, the Via Labicana, which led to the town of that name, and afterwards rejoined the Via Latina at the station called Ad Pictas (v. p. 237). Strabo, on the other hand, does not mention from what gate the road to Tibur issued in his time. Niebuhr has therefore followed Fabretti and Piale in assuming that the latter originally proceeded from the Porta Viminalis, which, as we have seen, stood in the middle of the agger of Servius, and that it passed through the walls of Aurelian by means of a gate now blocked up, but still extant, just at the angle where those walls join on to the Castra Praetoria. . . . . . . Assuming this to have been the original Tiburtina, Niebuhr (followed by MM. Bunsen and Urlichs) considers the Porta S. Lorenzo to have been the Praenestina, and the Porta Maggiore to have been the Labicana; but that when the gate adjoining the Praetorian camp was blocked up, the road to Tivoli was transferred to the Porta S. Lorenzo, and that to Praeneste to the gate next in order, which thus acquired the name of Praenestina instead of its former one of Labicana (Beschreibung, i. p. 657, seq). To this suggestion there appear to be two principal objections brought forward by M. Becker, neither of which M. Urlichs has answered: the first, that, supposing the Via Tiburtina to have been so transferred, which taken alone might be probable enough, there is no apparent reason why the Via Praenestina should have been also shifted, instead of the two thenceforth issuing together from the same gate, and diverging immediately afterwards; and secondly, that there is no authority for the existence of such a gate called the Labicana at all. The passage of Strabo, already cited, concerning the Via Labicana, certainly seems to imply that that road in his time separated from the Praenestina immediately after leaving the Esquiline gate; but there is no improbability in the suggestion of M. Becker, that its course was altered at the time of the construction of the new walls, whether under Aurelian or Honorius, in order to avoid an unnecessary increase of the number of gates. Many such changes in the direction of the principal roads may have taken place at that time, of which we have no account, and on which it is impossible to speculate. Westphal, in his Römische Campagne (p. 78), has adopted nearly the same view of the case: but he considers the Via Labicana to have originally had a gate assigned to it, which was afterwards walled up, and the road carried out of the same gate with the Via Praenestina. The only real difficulty in the ordinary view of the subject, supported by M. Becker, appears to [p. 2.760]be that, if the Via Tiburtina always issued from the Porta S. Lorenzo, we have no road to assign to the now closed gate adjoining the Praetorian camp, nor yet to the Porta Viminalis of the Servian walls, a circumstance certainly remarkable, as it seems unlikely that such an opening should have been made in the agger without absolute necessity. On the other hand, the absence of all mention of that gate prior to the time of Strabo would lead one to suspect that it was not one of the principal outlets of the city; and a passage from Ovid, quoted by M. Becker, certainly affords some presumption that the road from Tibur, in ancient times, actually entered the city by the Porta Esquilina (Fast. 5.684). This is, in fact, the most important, perhaps the only important, point of the question; for if the change in the names had already taken place as early as the time of Procopius, which Niebuhr himself seems disposed to acknowledge, it is hardly worth while to inquire whether the gates had borne the same appellations during the short interval from Honorius to Justinian” (Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 369, seq.).

The Porta Tiburtina (S. Lorenzo) is built near an arch of the Aquae Marcia, Tepula, and Julia, which here flow over one another in three different canals. The arch of the gate corresponds with that of the aqueduct, but the latter is encumbered with rubbish, and therefore appears very low, whilst the gate is built on the rubbish itself. As the inscription on it appeared on several of the other gates, we shall here insert it: S.P.Q.R. Impp. DD. NN. invictissimis principibus Arcadio et Honorio victoribus et triumphatoribus semper Augg. ob instauratos urbis aeternae muros portas ac turres egestis immensis ruderibus ex suggestione V.C. et inlustris comitis et magistri utriusque militiae Fl. Stilichonis ad perpetuitatem nominis eorum simulacra constituit curante Fl. Macrobio Longiniano V.C. Praef. Urbi D. N. M. Q. eorum. In like manner the magnificent double arch of the Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus, which flow over it, was converted into the Porta Praenestina (Maggiore). The right arch, from the city side, is walled up, and concealed on the outside by the Honorian wall. Just beyond the gate is the curious tomb of Eurysaces, the baker, sculptured with the instruments


of his trade, which was brought to light in 1838, by the pulling down of a tower which had been built over it in the middle ages. Over the closed Honorian arch was the same inscription as over the Porta Tiburtina. On the aqueduct are three inscriptions, which name Claudius as its builder, and Vespasian and Titus as its restorers. The gate had several names in the middle ages.

Hence the wall follows for some distance the line of the Aqua Claudia, till it reaches its easternmost point; when, turning to the S. and W., and embracing the curve of what is commonly called the Amphitheatrum Castrense, it reaches the ancient PORTA ASINARIA, now replaced by the Porta di S. Giovanni, built a little to the E. of it in 1574, by Pope Gregory XIII. It derived its name from spanning the Via Asinaria (Festus, p. 282, Müll.), and is frequently mentioned by Procopius. (B. G. 1.14, 3.20, &c.) In the middle ages it was called Lateranensis from the neighbouring palace of the Lateran.

After this gate we find another mentioned, which has entirely vanished. The earliest notice of it appears in an epistle of Gregory the Great (9.69), by whom it is called PORTA METRONIS; whilst by Martinus Polonus it is styled Porta Metroni or Metronii, and by the Anonymous, Metrovia. (Nibby, Mura, &c. p. 365.) It was probably at or near the point where the Marrana (Aqua Crabra) now flows into the town. (Nibby, l.c.; Piale, Porte Merid. p. 11.)

The two next gates were the PORTA LATINA and PORTA APPIA, standing over the roads of those names, which, as we have before said, diverged from one another at a little distance outside the Porta Capena, for which, therefore, these gates were substitutes. The Porta Latina is now walled up, and the road to Tusculum (Frascati) leads out of the Porta S. Giovanni The Porta Appia, which still retained its name during the middle ages, but is now called Porta di S. Sebastiano, from the church situated outside of it, is one of the most considerable of the gates, from the height of its towers, though the arch is not of fine proportions. Nibby considers it to be posterior to the Gothic War, and of Byzantine architecture, from the Greek inscriptions and the Greek cross on the key-stone of the arch. (Mura, &c. p. 370.) A little within it stands the so-called arch of Drusus.

A little farther in the line of wall to the W. stands an arched gate of brick, ornamented with half columns, and having a heavy architrave. The Via Ardeatina (Fest. p. 282, Müll.) proceeded through it, which issued from the Porta Raudusculana of the Servian walls. (Nibby, p. 201, seq.) We do not find this gate named in any author, and it was probably walled up at a very early period. The last gate on this side is the PORTA OSTIENSIS, now called Porta di S. Paolo, from the celebrated basilica about a mile outside of it, now in course of reconstruction in the most splendid manner. The ancient name is mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (17.4), but that of S. Pauli appears as early as the sixth century. (Procop. B. G. 3.36.) It had two arches, of which the second, though walled up, is still visible from the side of the town, though hidden from without by a tower built before it. Close to it is the pyramid, or tomb, of Cestius, one of the few monuments of the Republic. It is built into the wall. From this point the walls ran to the river, inclosing Monte Testaccio, and then northwards along its [p. 2.761]banks, till they reached the point opposite to the walls of the Janiculum. Of this last portion only a few fragments are now visible.<

On the other side of the Tiber only a few traces of the ancient wall remain, which extended lower down the stream than the modern one. Not far from the river lay the PORTA PORTUENSIS, which Urban VIII. destroyed in order to build the present Porta Portese. This gate, like the Ostiensis and Praenestina, had two arches, and the same inscription as that over the Tiburtina. From this point the wall proceeded to the height of the Janiculum, where stood the PORTA AURELIA, so named after the Via Aurelia (vetus) which issued from it. We have already mentioned that its modern name (Porta di S. Pancrazio) was in use as early as the time of Procopius; yet the ancient one is found in the Anonymous of Einsiedlen, and even in the Liber de Mirabilibus. The walls then again descended in a NE. direction to the river, to the point opposite to that whence we commenced this description, or between the Farnese Palace and Ponte Sisto. It is singular that we do not find any gate mentioned in this portion of wall, and we can hardly conceive that there should have been no exit towards the Vatican. Yet neither Procopius (B. G. 1.19, 23) nor the writers of the middle ages recognise any. We find, indeed, a Transtiberine gate mentioned by Spartianus (Sever. 19) as built by Septimius Severus, and named after him (Septimiana); but it is plain that this could not have been, originally at least, a city gate, as there were no walls at this part in the time of Severus. Becker conjectures (de Muris, p. 129, Handb. p. 214) that it was an archway belonging to some building erected by Severus, and that it was subsequently built into the wall by Aurelius or Honorius; of the probability of which conjecture, seeing that it is never once mentioned by any author, the reader must judge.


In attempting to describe this prominent feature in the topography of Rome, we are arrested on the threshold by a dispute respecting it which has long prevailed and still continues to prevail, and upon which, before proceeding any further, it will be necessary to declare our opinion. We have before described the Capitoline hill as presenting three natural divisions, namely, two summits, one at its NE. and the other at its SW. extremity, with a depression between them, thus forming what is commonly called a saddle-back hill. Now the point in dispute is, which of these summits was the Capitol, and which the Arx? The unfortunate ambiguity with which these terms are used by the ancient writers, will, it is to be feared, prevent the possibility of ever arriving at any complete and satisfactory solution of the question. Hence the conflicting opinions which have prevailed upon the subject, and which have given rise to two different schools of topographers, generally characterised at present as the German and the Italian school. There is, indeed, a third class of writers, who hold that both the Capitol and Arx occupied the same, or SW. summit; but this evidently absurd theory has now so few adherents that it will not be necessary to examine it. The most conspicuous scholars of the German school are Niebuhr, and his followers Bunsen, Becker, Preller, and others; and these hold that the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was seated on the SW. summit of the hill. The Italian view, which is directly contrary to this, was first brought into vogue by Nardini in the last century, and has since been held by most Italian scholars and topographers. It is not, however, so exclusively Italian but that it has been adopted by some distinguished German scholars, among whom may be named Göttling, and Braun, the present accomplished Secretary of the Archaeological Institute at Rome.

Every attempt to determine this question must now rest almost exclusively on the interpretation of passages in ancient authors relating to the Capitoline hill, and the inferences to be drawn from them; and the decision must depend on the preponderance of probability on a comparison of these inferences. Hence the great importance of attending to a strict interpretation of the expressions used by the classical writers will be at once apparent; and we shall therefore preface the following inquiry by laying down a few general rules to guide our researches.

Preller, who, in an able paper published in Schneidewin‘s Philologus, vol. i., has taken a very moderate and candid view of the question, consoles himself and those who with him hold the German side, by remarking that no passage can be produced from an ancient and trustworthy writer in which Capitolium is used as the name of the whole hill. But if the question turns on this point--and to a great extent it certainly does--such passages may be readily produced. To begin with Varro, who was both an ancient and a trustworthy writer. In a passage where he is expressly describing the hills of Rome, and which will therefore admit neither of misapprehension nor dispute, Varro says: “Septimontium nominatum ab tot montibus, quos postea urbs muris comprehendit. E quis Capitolium dictum, quod hie, quom fundamenta foderentur aedis Jovis, caput humanum dicitur inventum. Hic mons ante Tarpeius dictus,” &c. (L.L. v. § 41, Müll.) Here Capitolium can signify nothing but the Capitoline hill, just as Palatium in § 53 signifies the Palatine. In like manner Tacitus, in his description of the Romulean pomoerium before cited: “Forumque Romanum et Capitolium non a Romulo sed a Tito Tatio additum urbi credidere” (Ann. 12.24), where it would be absurd to restrict the meaning of Capitolium to the Capitol properly so called, for Tatius dwelt on the Arx. So Livy in his narrative of the exploit of Horatius Cocles: “Si transitum a tergo reliquissent, jam plus hostium in Palatio Capitolioque, quam in Janiculo, fore” (2.10), where its union with Palatium shows that the hill is meant; and the same historian, in describing Romulus consecrating the spolia opima to Jupiter Feretrius a couple of centuries before the Capitoline temple was founded, says, “in Capitolium escendit” (1.10). The Greek writers use τὸ Καπιτώλιον in the same manner: Ῥώμυλος μὲν τὸ Παλάτιον κατέχωνΤάτιος δέ τὸ Καπιτώλιον. (Dionys. A. R. 2.50.) Hence we deduce as a first general rule that the term Capitolium is sometimes used of the whole hill.

Secondly, it may be shown that the whole hill, when characterised generally as the Roman citadel, was also called Arx: “Atque ut ita munita arx cumjectu arduo et quasi circumcise saxo niteretur, ut etiam in illa tempestate horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intacta permanserit.” (Cic. Rep. 2.6) “Sp. Tarpeius Romanae praeerat arci.” (Liv. 1.11.) But there is no need to multiply examples on this head, which is plain enough.

But, thirdly, we must observe that though the terms Capitolium and Arx are thus used generally [p. 2.762]

  • A. Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
  • B. Temple of Juno Moneta.
  • 1. Forum Trajani.
  • 2. Sepulcrum Bibuli.
  • 3. Capitoline Museum.
  • 4. S. Pietro in Carcere.
  • 5. Palazzo Senatorio
  • 6. Palazzo de' Conservatori.
  • 7. Arcus Severi.
  • 8. S. Nicola de' Funari.
  • 9. Tor de' Specchi.
  • 10. S. Andrea in Vincis.
  • 11. Palazzo Cafarelli.
  • 12. Monte Caprino.
  • 13. S. Maria della Consolazione.
  • 14. Piazza Montanara.
  • 15. Theatrum Marcelli.
  • 16. S. Omnobuono.
  • 17. S. Maria in Porticu.
  • 18. S. Salvatore in Statera.
    • a a. Via di Macel de' Corvi.
    • b b. Salita di Marforio.
    • c c. Via della Pedacchia.
    • d d. Via della Bufola.
    • e e. Via di Monte Tarpeo.

to signify the whole hill, they are nevertheless frequently employed in a stricter sense to denote respectively one of its summits, or rather, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and the opposite summit; and in this manner they are often found mentioned as two separate localities opposed to one another: “De arce capta Capitolioque occupato--nuntii veniunt.” (Liv. 3.18.) “Est autem etiam aedes Vejovis Romae inter arcem et Capitolium.” (Gell. N. A. 5.12.) On this point also it would be easy to multiply examples, if it were necessary.

The preceding passages, which have been purposely selected from prose writers, suffice to show how loosely the terms Arx and Capitolium were employed; and if we were to investigate the language of the poets, we should find the question still further embarrassed by the introduction of the ancient names of the hill, such as Mons Tarpeius, Rupes Tarpeia, [p. 2.763]&c., which are often used without any precise signification.

With these preliminary remarks we shall proceed to examine the question as to which summit was occupied by the Capitoline temple. And as several arguments have been adduced by Becker (Handb. pp. 387--395) in favour of the SW. summit, which he deems to be of such force and cogency as “completely to decide” the question, it will be necessary to examine them seriatim, before we proceed to state our own opinion. They are chiefly drawn from narratives of attempts to surprise or storm the Capitol, and the first on the list is the well-known story of Herdonius, as related by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (10.14): “Herdonius,” says Becker, “lands by night at the spot where the Capitol lies, and where the hill is not the distance of a stadium from the river, and therefore manifestly opposite to its western point. He forces a passage through the Carmental gate, which lay on this side, ascends the height, and seizes the fortress (φρούριον). Hence he presses forwards still farther to the neighbouring citadel, of which he also gains possession. This narrative alone suffices to decide the question, since the Capitol is expressly mentioned as being next to the river, and the Carmental gate near it: and since the band of Herdonius, after taking possession of the western height, proceeds to the adjoining citadel” (p. 388).

In this interpretation of the narrative some things are omitted which are necessary to the proper understanding of it, and others are inserted which are by no means to be found there. Dionysius does not say that Herdonius landed at the spot where the Capitol lies, and where the hill is only a stade from the river, but that he landed at that part of Rome where the Capitoline hill is, at the distance of not quite a stade from the river. Secondly, Becker assumes that φρούριον is the Capitol, or, as he calls it, by begging the whole question, “the western height.” But his greatest misrepresentation arises from omitting to state that Dionysius, as his text stands, describes the Carmental gate as left open in pursuance of some divine or oracular command (κατά τι θέσφατον); whereas Becker's words ( “er dringt durch das Carmentalische Thor” ) would lead the reader to believe that the passage was forced by Herdonius. Now it has been shown that the Porta Carmentalis was one of the city gates; and it is impossible to believe that the Romans were so besotted, or rather in such a state of idiotcy, that, after building a huge stone wall round their city at great expense and trouble, they should leave one of their gates open, and that too without a guard upon it thus rendering all their elaborate defences useless and abortive. We have said without a guard, because it appears from the narrative that the first obstacle encountered by Herdonius was the φρούριον, which according to Becker was the Capitol; so that he must have passed through the Vicus Jugarius, over the forum, and ascended the Clivus Capitolinus without interruption. It is evident, however, that Dionysius could not have intended the Carmental gate, since he makes it an entrance not to the city but to the Capitol (ἱεραὶ πύλαι τοῦ Καπιτωλίου); and that he regarded it as seated upon an eminence, is plain from the expression that Herdonius made his men ascend through it (ἀναβιβάσας τὴν δύναμιν). The text of Dionysius is manifestly corrupt or interpolated; which further appears from the fact that when he was describing the real Carmental gate (1.32), he used the adjective form Καρμεντίς (παρὰ ταῖς Καρμεντίσι πύλαις), whilst in the present instance he is made to use the form Καρμέντινος. Herdonius must have landed below the line of wall running from the Capitoline to the river, where, as the wall was not continued along its banks, he would have met with no obstruction. And this was evidently the reason why he brought down his men in boats; for if the Carmental gate had been always left open it would have been better for him to have marched overland, and thus to have avoided the protracted and hazardous operation of landing his men. It is clear, as Preller has pointed out (Schneidewin‘s Philologus i. p. 85, note), that Dionysius, or rather perhaps his transcribers or editors, has here confounded the Porta Carmentalis with the Porta Pandana, which, as we have before seen, was seated on the Capitoline hill, and always left open, for there could hardly have been two gates of this description. The Porta Pandana, as we have already said, was still in existence in the time of Varro (L. L. 5.42, Müll.), and was in fact the entrance to the ancient fort or castellum--the φρούριον of Dionysius--which guarded the approach to the Capitoline hill, of course on its E. side, or towards the forum, where alone it was accessible. Thus Solinus: “lidem (Herculis comites) et montem Capitolinum Saturnium nominarunt, Castelli quoque, quod excitaverunt, portam Saturniam appellaverunt, quae postmodum Pandana vocitata est” (1.13). We also learn from Festus, who mentions the same castrum, or fort, that it was situated in the lower part of the Clivus Capitolinus. “Saturnii quoque dicebantur, qui castrum in imo clivo Capitolino incolebant” (p. 322, Müll.). This, then, was the φρούριον first captured by Herdonius, and not, as Becker supposes, the Capitol: and hence, as that writer says, he pressed on to the western height, which, however, was not the Capitol but the Arx. When Dionysius says of the latter that it adjoined, or was connected with, the Capitolium, this was intended for his Greek readers, who would otherwise have supposed, from the fashion of their own cities, that the Arx or Acropolis formed quite a separate hill.

The story of Herdonius, then, instead of being “alone decisive,” and which Becker (Warnung, pp. 43,44) called upon Braun and Preller to explain, before they ventured to say a word more on the subject, proves absolutely nothing at all; and we pass on to the next, that of Pontius Cominius and the Gauls. “The messenger climbs the rock at the spot nearest the river, by the Porta Carmentalis, where the Gauls, who had observed his footsteps, afterwards make the same attempt. It is from this spot that Manlius casts them down” (p. 389). This is a fair representation of the matter; but the question remains, when the messenger had clomb the rock was he in the Capitol or in the Arx? The passages quoted as decisive in favour of the former are the following: “Inde (Cominius) qua proximum fuit a ripa, per praeruptum eoque neglectum hostium custodiae saxum in Capitolium evadit.” (Liv. 5.46.) “Galli, seu vestigio notato human, seu sua sponte animadverso ad Carmentis saxorum adscensu aequo--in summum evasere” (Ib. 47). Now, it is plain, that in the former of these passages Livy means the Capitoline hill, and not the Capitol strictly so called; since, in regard to a small space, like the Capitol Proper, it would be a useless and absurd distinction, if it lay, and was known to lie, next the river, to say that Cominius mounted it where it [p. 2.764]was nearest to the river. “Cominius in Capitolium evadit” is here equivalent to “Romulus in Capitoliumn escendit,” in a passage before cited. (Liv. 1.10.) Hence, to mark the spot more precisely, the historian inserts “ad Carmentis” in the following chapter. There is nothing in the other authorities cited in Becker's note (no. 750) which yields a conclusion either one way or the other. We might, with far superior justice, quote the following passage of Cicero, which we have adduced on another occasion, to prove that the attempt of the Gauls was on the Arx or citadel: “Atque ut ita munita Arx circumjectu arduo et quasi circumciso saxo niteretur, ut etiam in illa tempestate horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intacta permanserit” (De Rep. 2.6). But, though we hold that the attempt was really on the Arx, we are nevertheless of opinion that Cicero here uses the word only in its general sense, and thus as applicable to the whole hill, just as Livy uses Capitolium in the preceding passage. Hence, Mr. Bunbury (Class. Mus. vol. iv. p. 430) and M. Preller (l.c.) have justly regarded this narrative as affording no evidence at all, although they are adherents of the German theory. We may further observe, that the house of Manlius was on the Arx; and though this circumstance, taken by itself, presents nothing decisive, yet, in the case of so sudden a surprise, it adds probability to the view that the Arx was on the southern summit.

We now proceed to the next illustration, which is drawn from the account given by Tacitus of the attack of the Vitellians on the Capitol. Becker's interpretation of this passage is so full of errors, that we must follow him sentence by sentence, giving, first of all, the original description of Tacitus. It runs as follows: “Cito agmine forum et imminentia foro templa praetervecti erigunt aciem per adversum collem usque ad primas Capitolinae arcis fores. Erant antiquitus porticus in latere clivi, dextrae subeuntibus; in quarum tectum egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruebant. Neque illis manus nisi gladiis armatae; et arcessere tormenta aut missilia tela longum videbatur. Faces in prominentem porticum jecere et sequebantur ignem; ambustasque Capitolii fores penetrassent, ni Sabinus revulsas undique statuas, decora. majorum in ipso aditu vice muri objecisset. Turn diversos Capitolii aditus invadunt, juxta lucum asyli, et qua Tarpeia rupes centum gradibus aditur. Improvisa utraque vis: propior atque acrior per asylum ingruebat. Nee sisti poterant scandentes per conjuncta aedificia, quae, ut in multa pace, in altum edita solum Capitolii aequabant. Hic ambigitur, ignem tectis oppugnatores injecerint, an obsessi, quae crebrior fama est, quo nitentes ac progresses depellerent. Inde lapsus ignis in porticus appositas aedibus: mox sustinentes fastigium aquilae vetere ligno traxerunt flammam alueruntque. Sic Capitolium clausis foribus indefensum et indireptum conflagravit.” (Hist. 3.71.)

“The attack,” says Becker, “is directed solely against the Capitol; that is, the height containing the temple, which latter is burnt on the occasion” (p. 390). This is so far from being the case, that the words of Tacitus would rather show that the attack was directed against the Arx. The temple is represented as having been shut up, and neither attacked nor defended: “clausis foribus, indefensum et indireptum conflagravit.” Such a state of things is inconceivable, if, as Becker says, the attack was directed solely against the Capitol. That part of the hill was evidently deserted, and left to its fate; the besieged had concentrated themselves upon the Arx, which thus became the point of attack. By that unfortunate ambiguity in the use of the word Capitolium, which we have before pointed out, we find Tacitus representing the gates of the Capitolium as having been burnt ( “ambustas que Capitolii fores” ) which, if Capitolium meant the same thing in the last sentence, would be a direct contradiction, as the gates are there represented as shut. But in the first passage he means the gates of the fortification which enclosed the whole summit of the hill; and in the second passage he means the gates of the temple. The meaning of Tacitus is also evident in another manner; for if the Vitellians were attacking the temple itself, and burning its gates, they must lave already gained a footing on the height, and would consequently have had no occasion to seek access by other routes--by the steps of the Rupes Tarpeia, and by the Lucus Asyli. Becker proceeds: “Tacitus calls this (i. e. the height with the temple), indifferently Capitolina Arx and Capitolium.” This is quite a mistake. The Arx Capitolina may possibly mean the whole summit of the hill; but if it is to be restricted to one of the two eminences, it means the Arx proper rather than the Capitol. “The attacking party, it appears, first made a lodgment on the Clivus Capitolinus. Here the portico on the right points distinctly to the SW. height. Had the portico been to the right of a person ascending in the contrary direction, it would have been separated from the besieged by the street, who could not therefore have defended themselves from its roof.” If we thought that this argument had any value we might adopt it as our own: for we also believe that the attack was directed against the SW. height, but with this difference, that the Arx was on this height, and not the Capitol. But, in fact, there was only one principal ascent or clivus,--that leading towards the western height; and the only thing worth remarking in Becker's observations is that he should have thought there might be another Clivus Capitolinus leading in the opposite direction. We may remark, by the way, that the portico here mentioned was probably that erected by the greatgrandson of Cn. Scipio. (Vell. 2.3.) “As the attack is here fruitless, the Vitellians abandon it, and make another attempt at two different approaches (” diversos aditus “); at the Lucus Asyli, that is, on the side where at present the broad steps lead from the Palazzo de' Conservatori to Monte Caprino, and again where the Centum Gradus led to the Rupes Tarpeia. Whether these Centum Gradus are to be placed by the church of Sta Maria della Consolazione, or more westward, it is not necessary to determine here, since that they led to the Caffarelli height is undisputed. On the side of the asylum (Palazzo de' Conservatori) the danger was more pressing. Where the steps now lead to Monte Caprino, and on the whole side of the hill, were houses which reached to its summit. These were set on fire, and the flames then caught the adjoining portico, and lastly the temple.”

Our chief objection to this account is, its impossibility. If the Lucus Asyli corresponded to the steps of the present Palazzo de Conservatori, which is seated in the depression between the two summits, or present Piazza del Campidoglio, then the besiegers must have forced the passage of the Clivus Capitolinus, whereas Tacitus expressly says that they were repulsed. Being repulsed they must have retreated [p. 2.765]downwards, and renewed the attempt at lower points; at the foot of the Hundred Steps, for instance, on one side, and at the bottom of the Lucus Asyli on another; on both which sides they again attempted to mount. The Palazzo de' Conservatori, though not the highest point of the hill, is above the clivus. Becker, as we have shown, has adopted the strangely erroneous opinion that the “Capitolinae arcis fores” belonged to the Capitol itself (note 752), and that consequently the Vitellians were storming it from the Piazza del Campidoglio (note 754). But the portico from which they were driven back was on the clivus, and consequently they could not have reached the top of the hill, or piazza. The argument that the temple must have been on the SW. height, because the Vitellians attempted to storm it by mounting the Centum Gradus (Becker, Warnung, p. 43), may be retorted by those who hold that the attack was directed against the Arx. The precise spot of the Lucus Asyli cannot be indicated; but from Livy's description of it, it was evidently somewhere on the descent of the hill ( “locum qui nunc septus descendentibus inter duos lucos est, asylum aperit,” 1.8). It is probable, as Preller supposes (Philol. p. 99), that the “aditus juxta lucum Asyli” was on the NE. side of the hill near the present arch of Severus. The Clivus Asyli is a fiction; there was only one clivus on the Capitoline.

We have only one more remark to make on this narrative. It is plain that the fire broke out near the Lucus Asyli, and then spreading from house to house, caught at last the front of the temple. This follows from Tacitus' account of the portico and the eagles which supported the fastigium or pediment, first catching fire. The back-front of the Capitoline temple was plain, apparently a mere wall; since Dionysius (4.61) does not say a single word about it, though he particularly describes the front as having a triple row of columns and the sides double rows. But as we know that the temple faced the south, such an accident could not have happened except it stood on the NE. height, or that of Araceli.

We might, therefore, by substituting Caffarelli for Araceli, retort the triumphant remark with which Becker closes his explanation of this passage: “To him, therefore, who would seek the temple of Jupiter on the height of Caffarelli, the description of Tacitus is in every respect inexplicable.”

Becker's next argument in favour of the W. summit involves an equivocation. It is, “that the temple was built on that summit of the hill which bore the name of Mons Tarpeius.” Now it is notorious--and as we have already established it, we need not repeat it here--that before the building of the Capitol the whole hill was called Mons Tarpeius. The passages cited by Becker in note 755 (Liv. 1.55; Dionys. A. R. 3.69) mean nothing more than this; indeed, the latter expressly states it (ὅς [λόφος] τότε μὲν ἐκαλεῖτο Ταρπήϊος, νῦν δὲ Καπιτωλῖνος). Capitolium gradually became the name for the whole hill; but who can believe that the name of Tarpeia continued to be retained at that very portion of it where the Capitoline temple was built? The process was evidently as follows: the northern height, on which the temple was built, was at first alone called Capitolium. Gradually its superior importance gave name to the whole hill; yet a particular portion, the most remote from the temple, retained the primitive name of Rupes Tarpeia. And thus Festus in a mutilated fragment,--not however so mutilated but that the sense is plain--“Noluerunt funestum locum [cum altera parte] Capitoli conjungi” (p. 343), where Miller remarks, “non multum ab Ursini supplement discedere licebit.”

Becker then proceeds to argue that the temple of Juno Moneta was built on the site of the house of M. Manlius Capitolinus, which was on the Arx (Liv. 5.47; Plut. Cam. 36; Dio Cass. Fr. 31, &c.); and we learn from Ovid (Ov. Fast. 1.637) that there were steps leading from the temple of Concord, to that of Juno Moneta. Now as the former temple was situated under the height of Araceli, near the arch of Severus, this determines the question of the site of Juno Moneta and the Arx. Ovid's words are as follows:--

Candida, te niveo posuit lux proxiam templo
Qua fert sublime alta Moneta grades;
Nunc bene prospicies Latiam, Concordia, turbam, &c.

This is very obscure; but we do not see how it can be inferred from this passage that there were steps from one temple to the other. We should rather take it to mean that the temple of Concord was placed close to that of Moneta, which latter was approached by a flight of lofty steps. Nor do we think it very difficult to point out what these steps were. The temple of Juno was on the Arx; that is, according to our view, on the SW. summit; and the lofty steps were no other than the Centum Gradus for ascending the Rupes Tarpeia, as described by Tacitus in the passage we have just been discussing. Had there been another flight of steps leading up to the top of the Capitoline hill, the Vitellians would certainly have preferred them to clambering over the tops of houses. But it will be objected that according to this view the temple of Concord is placed upon the Arx, for which there is no authority, instead of on the forum or clivus, for which there is authority. Now this is exactly the point at which we wish to arrive. There were several temples of Concord, but only two of any renown, namely, that dedicated by Furius Camillus, B.C. 367, and rededicated by Tiberius after his German triumph, which is the one of which Ovid speaks; and another dedicated by the consul Opimius after the sedition and death of Gracchus. Appian says that the latter temple was in the forum: δὲ βουλὴ καὶ νεὼν Ὁμονοὶας αὐτὸν ἐν ἀγορᾷ προσέταξεν ἐγεῖραι (B.C. 1.26). But in ordinary language the clivus formed part of the forum; and it would be impossible to point out any place in the forum, strictly so called, which it could have occupied. It is undoubtedly the same temple alluded to by Varro in the following passage: “Senaculum supra Graecostasim ubi aedis Concordiae et basilica Opimia” (L.L. v. p. 156, Müll.); from which we may infer that Opimius built at the same time a basilica, which adjoined the temple. Becker (Handb.p. 309) denied the existence of this basilica; but by the time be published his Warnung he had grown wiser, and quoted in the Appendix (p. 58) the following passage from Cicero (p. Sest. 67): “L. Opimius cujus monumentum celeberrimum in foro, sepulcrum desertissimum in littore Dyrrachino est relictum;” maintaining, however, that this passage related to Opimius' temple of Concord. But Urlichs (Röm. Top. p. 26), after pointing out that the epithet celeberrimum, “very much frequented,” suited better with a basilica, than with a temple, produced [p. 2.766]two ancient inscriptions from Marini's Atti de' Fratelli Arvali (p. 212); in which a basilica Opimia is recorded; and Becker, in his Antwort (p. 33), confessing that he had overlooked these inscriptions, retracted his doubts, and acknowledged the existence of a basilica. According to Varro, then, the Aedis Concordiae and baslica of Opimius were close to the senaculum; and the situation of the senaculum is pointed out by Festus between the Capitol and forum: “Unum (Senaculum) ubi nunc est aedis Concordiae, inter Capitolium et Forum” (p. 347, Müll.). This description corresponds exactly with the site where the present remains of a temple of Concord are unanimously agreed to exist: remains, however, which are supposed to be those, of the temple founded by Camillus, and not of that founded by Opimius. According to this supposition there must have been two temples of Concord on the forum. But if these remains belong to that of Camillus, who shall point out those of the temple erected by Opimius? Where was its site? What its history? When was it demolished, and its place either left vacant or occupied by another building? Appian, as we have seen, expressly says that the temple built by Opimius was in the forum; where is the evidence that the temple of Camillus was also in the forum? There is positively none. Plutarch, the only direct evidence as to its site, says no such thing, but only that it looked down upon the forum: ἐψηφίσαντο τῆς μὲν Ὁμονίας ἱερὸν, ὥσπερ ηὔξατο Κάμιλλος, εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἄποπτον ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἱδρύσασθαι (Camill. 42). Now ἀφοράω means to view from a distance, and especially from a height. It is equivalent to the Latin prospicere, the very term used by Ovid in describing the same temple:--

Nunc bene prospicies Latiam, Concordia, turbam.
These expressions, then, like Ovid's allusion to the “sublimes gradus” of Moneta, point to the Arx as the site of the temple. It is remarkable that Lucan (Phars. 1.195) employs the same word when describing the temple of Jupiter Tonans, erected by Augustus, also situated upon the Arx, or Rupes Tarpeia:--

O magnae qui moenia prospicis urbis
Tarpeia de rupe Tonans.
This temple, indeed, has also been placed on the clivus, on the authority of the pseudo-Victor, and against the express evidence of the best authorities. Thus an inscription in Gruter (lxxii. No. 5), consisting of some lines addressed to Fortuna, likewise places the Jupiter Tonans on the Tarpeian rock:--

Tu quae Tarpeio coleris vicina Tonanti
Votorum vindex semper Fortuna meorum, &c.

Suetonius (Suet. Aug. 100.29 and 91), Pliny (36.6) and the Mon. Ancyranum, place it “in Capitolio,” meaning the Capitoline hill. It has been absurdly inferred that it was on the clivus, because Dion says that those who were going up to the great temple of Jupiter met with it first,--ὅτι πρώτῳ οἱ ἀνιόντες ἐς τὸ Καπιτώλιον ἐνετύγχανον (54.4), which they no doubt would do, since the clivus led first to the western height.

On these grounds, then, we are inclined to believe that the temple of Concord erected by Camillus stood on the Arx, and could not, therefore, have had any steps leading to the temple of Juno Moneta. The latter was likewise founded by Camillus, as we learn from Livy and Ovid:-- “Arce quoque in summa Junoni templa Monetae
Ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo;
Ante domus Manli fuerant
” (Fast. 6.183);

and thus these two great works of the dictator stood, as was natural, close together, just as the temple of Concord and the basilica subsequently erected by Opimius also adjoined one another on or near the clivus. It is no objection to this view that there was another small temple of Concord on the Arx, which had been vowed by the praetor Manlius in Gaul during a sedition of the soldiers. The vow had been almost overlooked, but after a lapse of two years it was recollected, and the temple erected in discharge of it. (Liv. 22.33.) It seems, therefore, to have been a small affair, and might very well have coexisted on the Arx with another and more splendid temple.

But to return to Becker's arguments. The next proof adduced is Caligula's bridge. “Caligula,” he says, as Bunsen has remarked, “caused a bridge to be thrown from the Palatine hill over the temple of Augustus (and probably the Basilica Julia) to the Capitoline temple, which is altogether inconceivable if the latter was on the height of Araceli, as in that case the bridge must have been conducted over the forum” (p. 393). But here Becker goes further than his author, who merely says that Caligula threw a bridge from the Palatine hill to the Capitoline: “Super templum Divi Augusti ponte transmisso, Palatium Capitoliumque conjunxit.” (Suet. Cal. 22.) Becker correctly renders Palatium by the “Palatine hill,” but when he comes to the other hill he converts it into a temple. Suetonius offers a parallel case of the use of these words in a passage to which we had occasion to allude just now, respecting the temple of Jupiter Tonans: “Templum Apollinis in Palatio (extruxit), aedem Tonantis Jovis in Capitolio” (Aug. 29); where, if Becker's view was right, we might by analogy translate,--“he erected a temple of Apollo in the palace.”

The next proof is that a large piece of rock fell down from the Capitol ( “ex Capitolio” ) into the Vicus Jugarius (Liv. 35.21); and as theVicus Jugarius ran under the S. summit, this shows that the Capitoline temple was upon it. But pieces of rock fall down from hills, not from buildings, and, therefore, Capitolium here only means the hill. In like manner when Livy says (38.28), “substructionem super Aequimelium in Capitolio (censores locaverunt),” it is plain that he must mean the hill; and consequently this passage is another proof of this use of the word. The Aequimelium was in or by the Vicus Jugarius, and could not, therefore, have been on the Capitol properly so called, even if the latter had been on the SW. height. Becker wrongly translates this passage,--“a substruction of the Calpitol over the Aequimelium” (p. 393.) Then comes the passage respecting the statue of Jupiter being turned towards the east, that it might behold the forum and curia; which Becker maintains to be impossible of a statue erected on the height of Araceli. Those who have seen the ground will not be inclined to coincide in this opinion. The statue stood on a column (D. C. 37.9; Cic. Div. 1.1. 2; cf. Id. Cat. 3.8), and most probably in front of the temple--it could hardly have been placed behind it; and, therefore, if the temple was on the S. height, the statue must have been at the extremity of it; a site which certainly would not afford a very good view of the forum. Next the direction [p. 2.767]of the Clivus Capitolinus is adduced, which ran to the Western height, and must have led directly to the temple, whence it derived its name. But this is a complete begging of the question, and the clivus more probably derived its name from the hill. If the direction of the clivus, however, proves anything at all--and we are not disposed to lay much stress upon it--it rather proves the reverse of Becker's case. The clivus was a continuation of the Sacra Via, by which, as we shall have occasion to show when treating of that road, the augurs descended from the Arx after taking the auguries, and by which they carried up their new year's offerings to king Tatius, who lived upon the Arx: and hence in sacerdotal language the clivus itself was called Sacra Via. (Varro, L.L. 5.47, Müll.; Festus, p. 290, id.). Lastly, “the confined height of Araceli would not have afforded sufficient room for the spacious temple of Jupiter, the Area Capitolina, where meetings of the people were held, and at the same time be able to display so many other temples and monuments.” There is some degree of truth in this observation, so far at least as the Area Capitolina is concerned. But when we come to describe the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, an acquaintance with which is necessary to the complete understanding of the present question, though Becker has chosen to omit it, “as lying out of the plan of his book” (p 396), we shall endeavour to show how this objection may be obviated. Meanwhile, having now discussed all Becker's arguments in favour of the SW. summit as the site of the Capitoline temple, it will be more convenient shortly to review the whole question, and to adduce some reasons which have led us to a directly contrary conclusion. In doing this we do not presume to think, with Becker, that we have “completely decided” the question. It is one, indeed, that will not admit of complete demonstration; but we venture to hope that the balance of probability may be shown to predominate very considerably in favour of the NE. height.

The greater part of Becker's arguments, as we trust that we have shown, prove nothing at all, while the remainder, or those which prove something, may be turned against him. We must claim as our own the proof drawn from the storm of the Capitol by the Vitellians, as described by Tacitus, as well as that derived from Mons Tarpeius being the name of the SW. height, and that from the westerly direction of the Clivus Capitolinus. Another argument in favour of the NE. height may be drawn from Livy's account of the trial of Manlius Capitolinus, to which we have already adverted when treating of the Porta Flumentana [supra, p. 751], and need not here repeat. To these we shall add a few more drawn from probability.

Tatius dwelt on the Arx, where the temple of Juno Moneta afterwards stood. (Plut. Rom. 20; Solinus, 1.21.) “This,” says Becker (p. 388), “is the height of Araceli, and always retained its name of Arx after the Capitol was built, since certain sacred customs were attached to the place and appellation.” He is here alluding to the Arx being the auguraculum of which Festus says: “Auguraculum appellabant antiqui quam nos arcem dicimus, quod ibi augures publice auspicarentur” (p. 18, where Müller observes: “non tam arcem quam in arce fuisse arbitror auguraculum” ). The templum, then, marked out from the Arx, from which the city auspices were taken, was defined by a peculiar and appropriate form of words, which, is given by Varro, (L.L. 7.8, Müll.) It was bounded on the left hand and on the right by a distant tree; the tract between was the templum or tescum (country region) in which the omens were observed. The augur who inaugurated Numa led him to the Arx, seated him on a stone, with his face turned towards the South, and sat down on his left hand, capite velato, and with his lituus. Then, looking forwards over the city and country--“prospectu in urbem agrumque capto” --he marked out the temple from east to west, and determined in his mind the sign (signum) to be observed as far as ever his eyes could reach: “quo longissime conspectum oculi ferebant.” (Liv. 1.18; cf. Cic. de Off. 3.1. 6) The great extent of the prospect required may be inferred from an anecdote related by Valerius Maximus (8.2.1), where the augurs are represented as ordering Claudius Centumalus to lower his lofty dwelling on the Caelian, because it interfered with their view from the Arx,--a passage, by the way, which shows that the auguries were taken from the Arx till at all events a late period of the Republic. Now, supposing with Becker, that the Arx was on the NE. summit, what sort of prospect would the augurs have had? It is evident that a large portion of their view would have been intercepted by the huge temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The SW. summit is the only portion of the hill which, in the words of Livy, would afford a noble prospect, “in urbem agrumque.” It was doubtless this point to which the augur conducted Numa, and which remained ever afterwards the place appointed for taking the auguries. Preller is of opinion that Augustus removed them to a place called the Auguratorium on the Palatine. (Philologus, i. p. 92.) But the situation laid down for that building scarcely answers to our ideas of a place adapted for taking the auguries, and it seems more probable that it was merely a place of assembly for the college of augurs.

Another argument that has been adduced in favour of the SW. summit being the Arx, is drawn from its proximity to the river, and from its rocky and precipitous nature, which made it proper for a citadel. But on this we are not inclined to lay any great stress.

Other arguments in favour of the Italian view may be drawn from the nature of the temple itself; but in order to understand them it will first be necessary to give a description of the building. The most complete account of the TEMPLUM JOVIS CAPITOLINI is that given by Dionysius (4.61), from which we learn that it stood upon a high basis or platform, 8 plethra, or 800 Greek feet square, which is nearly the same in English measure. This would give about 200 feet for each side of the temple, for the length exceeded the breadth only by about 15 feet. These are the dimensions of the original construction; and when it was burnt down a generation before the time of Dionysius,--that is, as we learn from Tacitus (Tac. Hist. 3.72), in the consulship of L. Scipio and Norbanus (B.C. 83),--it was rebuilt upon the same foundation. The materials employed in the second construction were, however, of a much richer description than those of the first. The front of the temple, which faced the south, had a portico consisting of three rows of columns, whilst on the flanks it had only two rows: and as the back front is not said to have had any portico, we may conclude that there was nothing on this side but a plain wall. The interior contained three cells [p. 2.768]parallel to one another with common walls, the centre one being that of Jove, on each side those of Juno and Minerva. In Livy, however (6.4), Juno is represented as being in the same cella with Jupiter. But though the temple had three cells, it had but one fastigium, or pediment, and a single roof.

TEMPLE OF JUPITER CAPITOLINUS. (From a Coin of Vespasian.)

Now the first thing that strikes us on reading this description is, that the front being so ornamented, and the back so very plain, the temple must have stood in a situation where the former was very conspicuous, whilst the latter was but little seen. Such a situation is afforded only by the NE. summit of the Capitoline. On this site the front of the temple, being turned to the south, would not only be visible from the forum, but would also present its best aspect to those who had ascended the Capitoline hill; whilst on the other hand, had it stood on the SW. summit, the front would not have been visible from the forum, and what is still worse, the temple would have presented only its nude and unadorned back to those who approached it by the usual and most important ascent, the Clivus Capitolinus. Such a state of things, in violation of all the rules which commonly regulate the disposition of public buildings, is scarcely to be imagined.

We will now revert to Becker's objection respecting the AREA CAPITOLINA. It must be admitted that the dimensions of the temple would have allowed but little room for this area on the height of Araceli, especially as this must have contained other small temples and monuments, such as that of Jupiter Feretrius, &c. Yet the Area Capitolina,we know, was often the scene not only of public meetings but even of combats. There are very striking indications that this area was not confined to the height on which the temple stood, but that it occupied part at least of the extensive surface of lower ground lying between the two summits. One indication of this is the great height of the steps leading up to the vestibule of the temple, as shown by the story related by Livy of Annius, the ambassador of the Latins; who being rebuked by Manlius and the fathers for his insolence, rushed frantically from the vestibule, and falling down the steps, was either killed or rendered insensible (8.6). That there was a difference in the level of the Capitol may be seen from the account given by Paterculus of Scipio Nasica's address to the people in the sedition of the Gracchi. Standing apparently on the same lofty steps,--“ex superior parte Capitolii summis gradibus insistens” (2.3),--Nasica incited by his eloquence the senators and knights to attack Gracchus, who was standing in the area below, with a large crowd of his adherents, and who was killed in attempting to escape down the Clivus Capitolinus. The area must have been of considerable size to hold the catervae of Gracchus; and the same fact is shown by several other passages in the classics (Liv. 25.3, 45.36, &c.). Now all these circumstances suit much better with a temple on the NE. summit than with one on the opposite height. An area in front of the latter, besides being out of the way for public meetings, would not have afforded sufficient space for them; nor would it have presented the lofty steps before described, nor the ready means of escape down the clivus. These, then, are the reasons why we deem the NE. summit the more probable site of the Capitoline temple.

We have already mentioned that this famous temple was at least planned by the elder Tarquin; and according to some authors the foundation was completely laid by him (Dionys. A. R. 4.59), and the building continued under Servius (Tac. Hist. 3.72). However this may be, it is certain that it was not finished till the time of Tarquinius Superbus, who tasked the people to work at it (Liv. 1.56): but the tyrant was expelled before it could be dedicated, which honour was reserved for M. Horatius Pulvillus, one of the first two consuls of the Republic (Plb. 3.22; Liv. 2.8; Plut. Popl. 14). When the foundations were first laid it was necessary to exaugurate the temples of other deities which stood upon the site destined for it; on which occasion Terminus and Juventas, who had altars there, alone refused to move, and it became necessary to enclose their shrines within the temple; a happy omen for the future greatness of the city! (Liv. 5.54; Dionys. A. R. 3.69.) It is a well-known legend that its name of Capitolium was derived from the finding of a human head in digging the foundation (Varr. L. L. 5.41, Müll.; Plin. Nat. 28.4, &c.) The image of the god, originally of clay, was made by Turanius of Fregellae, and represented him in a sitting posture. The face was painted with vermilion, and the statue was probably clothed in a tunica palmata. and toga picta, as the costume was borrowed by triumphant generals. On the acroterlum of the pediment stood a quadriga of earthenware, whose portentous swelling in the furnace was also regarded as an omen of Rome's future greatness (Plin. Nat. 28.4; Plut. Popl. 13). The brothers C. & Q. Ogulnius subsequently placed a bronze quadriga with a statue of Jupiter on the roof; but this probably did not supersede that of clay, to which so much ominous importance was attached. The same aediles also presented a bronze threshold, and consecrated some silver plate in Jupiter's cella (Liv. 10.23; cf. Plaut. Trin. 1.2. 46.) By degrees the temple grew exceedingly rich. Camillus dedicated three golden paterae out of the spoils taken from the Etruscans (Liv. 6.4), and the dictator Cincinnatus placed in the temple a statue of Jupiter Imperator, which he had carried off from Praeneste (Id. 6.29). At length the pediment and columns became so encumbered with shields, ensigns, and other offerings that the censors M. Fulvius Nobilior and M. Aemilius Lepidus were compelled to rid the temple of these superfluous ornaments (Id. 40.51).

As we have before related, the original building lasted till the year 1.100.83, when it was burnt down in the civil wars of Sulla, according to Tacitus by design ( “privata fraude,” Hist. 3.72). Its restoration was undertaken by Sulla, and subsequently confided to Q. Lutatius Catulus, not without the opposition of Caesar, who wished to obliterate the name of Catulus from the temple, and to substitute [p. 2.769]his own. (Plut. Popl. 15; Suet. Jul. 15; D. C. 37.44; Cic. Ver. 4.31, &c.) On this occasion Sulla followed the Roman fashion of despoiling Greece of her works of art, and adorned the temple with columns taken from that of the Zeus at Athens. (Plin. Nat. 36.5.) After its destruction by the Vitellians, Vespasian restored soon as possible, but still on the original plan, the haruspices allowing no alteration except a slight increase of its height. (Tac. Hist. 4.53; Suet. v esp. 8; D. C. 66.10, &c.) The new building, however, stood but for a very short period. It was again destroyed soon after Vespasian's death in a great fire which particularly desolated the Olympian 9th Region, and was rebuilt by Domitian with a splendour hitherto unequalled. (Suet. Dom. 15; it as D. C. 66.24.) Nothing further is accurately known of its history; but Domitian's structure seems to have lasted till a very late period of the Empire.


The Area Capitolina, as we have already seen, was frequently used for meetings or contiones; but besides these, regular comitia were frequently holden upon it. (Liv. 25.3, 34.53, 43.16, 45.36; Plut. Paul. Aem. 30; App. BC 1.15, &c.) Here stood the CURIA CALABRA, in which on the Calends the pontifices declared whether the Nones would fall on the fifth or the seventh day of the month. (Varr. L. L. 6.27, Müll.; Macr. 1.15.) Here also was a CASA ROMULI, of which there were two, the other being in the 10th Region on the Palatine; though Becker (Handb. p. 401 and note) denies the existence of the former in face of the express testimony of Macrobius (1. c.) Seneca (Controv. 9); Vitruvius (2.1); Martial (8.80); Conon (Narrat. 48), &c. (v. Preller in Schneidewin‘s Philologus, i. p. 83). It seems to have been a little hut or cottage, thatched with straw, commemorative of the lowly and pastoral life of the founder of Rome. The area had also rostra, which are mentioned by Cicero (Cic. ad Brut. 3).

Besides these, there were several temples and sacella on the NE. summit. Among them was the small temple of JUPITER FERETRIUS, one of the most ancient in Rome, in which spolia opima were dedicated first by Romulus, then by Cossus, and lastly by Marcellus (Liv. 1.10; Plut. Marc. 8; Dionys. A. R. 2.34, &c.) The last writer, in whose time only the foundations remained, gives its dimensions at 10 feet by 5. It appears, however, to have been subsequently restored by Augustus. (Liv. 4.20; Mon. Ancyr.) The temple of FIDES, which stood close to the great temple, was also very ancient, having been built by Numa, and afterwards restored by M. Aemilius Scaurus. (Liv. 1.21; Cic. N. D. 2.2. 3, Off. 3.29, &c.) It was roomy enough for assemblies of the senate. (V. Max. 3.2.17; App. BC 1.16.) The two small temples of MENS and of VENUS ERYCINA stood close together, separated only by a trench. They had both been vowed after the battle at the Trasimene lake and were consecrated two years afterwards by Q. Fabius Maximus and T. Otacilius Crassus. (Liv. 22.10, 23.51; Cic. N. D. 2.2. 3) A temple of VENUS CAPITOLINA and VENUS VICTRIX are also mentioned, but it is not clear whether they were separate edifices. (Suet. Cal. 7, Galb. 18; Fast. Amit. VIII. Id. Oct.) We also hear of two temples of JUPITER (Liv. 35.41), and a temple of OPS (39.22). It by no means follows, however, that all these temples were on the Capitol, properly so called, and some of them might have been on the other summit, Capitolium being used generally as the name of the hill. This seems to have been the case with the temple of FORTUNE, respecting which we have already cited an ancient inscription when discussing the site of the temples of Concord and Jupiter Tonans. It is perhaps the temple of Fortuna Primigenia mentioned by Plutarch (Fort. Rom. 10) as having been built by Servius on the Capitoline, and alluded to apparently by Clemens. (Protrept. 4.51. p. 15. Sylb.) The temple of HONOS AND VIRTUS, built by C. Marius, certainly could not have been on the northern eminence, since we learn from Festus (p. 34, Müll.) that he was compelled to build it low lest it should interfere with the prospect of the augurs, and he should thus be ordered to demolish it. Indeed Propertius (4.11. 45) mentions it as being on the Tarpeian rock, or southern summit:-- “Foedaque Tarpeio conopia tendere saxo
Jura dare et statuas inter et arma Mari.

Whence we discover another indication that the auguraculum could not possibly have been on the NE. height; for in that case, with the huge temple of Jupiter before it, there would have been little cause to quarrel with this bagatelle erected by Marius. It must have stood on a lower point of the [p. 2.770]hill than the auguraculum, and probably near its declivity. The building of it by Marius is testified by Vitruvius (3.2, 5), and from an inscription (Orelli, 543) it appears to have been erected out of the spoils of the Cimbric and Teutonic war. We learn from Cicero that this was the temple in which the first senatus consultum was made decreeing his recall. (Sest. 54, Planc. 32, de Div. 1.28.)

We have already had occasion to allude to the temple erected by Augustus to JUPITER TONANS. Like that of Fortune it must have stood on the SW. height and near the top of the ascent by the Clivus, as appears from the following story. Augustus dreamt that the Capitoline Jove appeared to him and complained that the new temple seduced away his worshippers; to which having answered that the Jupiter Tonans had been merely placed there as his janitor or porter, he caused some bells to be hung on the pediment of the latter temple in token of its janitorial character. (Suet. Aug. 91.) That the same emperor also erected a temple to MARS ULTOR on the Capitoline, besides that in his forum, seems very doubtful, and is testified only by Dio Cassius (4.10). Domitian, to commemorate his preservation during the contest with the Vitellians, dedicated a sacellum to JUPITER CONSERVATOR, or the Preserver, in the Velabrum, on the site of the house of the aedituus, or sacristan, in which he had taken refuge; and afterwards, when he had obtained the purple, a large temple to JUPITER CUSTOS on the Capitoline, in which he was represented in the bosom of the god. (Tac. H. 3.74; Suet. Dom. 5.) We also hear of a temple of BENEFICENCE (Εὐεργεσία erected by M. Aurelius. (Dion, 71.34.)

But one of the most important temples on the SW. summit or Arx was that of JUNO MONETA, erected, as we have said, in pursuance of a vow made by Camillus on the spot where the house of M. Manlius Capitolinus had stood. (Liv. 7.28.) The name of Moneta, however, seems to have been conferred upon the goddess some time after the dedication of the temple, since it was occasioned by a voice heard from it after an earthquake, advising (monens) that expiation should be made with a pregnant sow. (Cic. de Div. 1.4. 5) The temple was erected in B.C. 345. The Roman mint was subsequently established in it. (Liv. 6.20; cf. Suidas, Μονῆτα.) It was rebuilt B.C. 173. (Liv. 42.7.) Near it, as we have before endeavoured to establish, must be placed the temple of Concord erected by Camillus and restored by Tiberius; as well as the other smaller temple to the same deity, of no great renown, dedicated during the Second Punic War, B.C. 217. (Liv. 22.33.)

Such were the principal temples which occupied the summit of the Capitoline hill. But there were also other smaller temples, besides a multitude of statues, sacella, monuments, and offerings. Among these was the temple of VEJOVIS, which stood in the place called “inter duos lucos” between the Capitol and the Tarpeian height. An ara JOVIS PISTORIS and aedes VENERIS CALVAE must also be reckoned among them. (Ovid. F. 6.387; Lactant. 1.20.) Among the statues may be mentioned those of the ROMAN KINGS in the temple of Fides (App. BC 1.16; Dion, 43.45), and on the hill the two colossal statues of APOLLO and JUPITER. The former of these, which was 30 cubits high, was brought by M. Lucullus from Apollonia in Pontus. The Jupiter was made by Sp. Carvilius out of the armour and helmets of the conquered Samnites, and was of such a size that it could be seen from the temple of Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban Mount. (Plin. Nat. 34.18.) It would be useless to run through the whole list of objects that might be made out. It will suffice to say that the area Capitolina was so crowded with the statues of illustrious men that Augustus was compelled to remove many of them into the Campus Martins. (Suet. Cal. 34.)

We know only of one profane building on the summit of the Capitoline hill--the TABULARIUM, or record office. We cannot tell the exact site of the original one; but it could not have stood far from the Capitoline temple, since it appears to have been burnt down together with the latter during the civil wars of Sulla. Polybius (3.26) mentions the earlier one, and its burning, alluded to by Cicero (N. D. 3.30, pro Rabir. Perd. 3), seems to have been effected by a private hand, like that of the Capitol itself. (Tac. Hist. 3.72.) When rebuilt by Q. Lutatius Catulus it occupied a large part of the eastern side of the depression between the two summits of the Capitoline, behind the temple of Concord, and much of it still exists under the Palazzo Senatorio. In the time of Poggio it was converted into a salt warehouse, but the inscription recording that it was built by Catulus, at his own expense (de suo) was still legible, though nearly eaten away by the saline moisture. (De Variet. Fort. lib. i. p. 8.) This inscription, which was extant in the time of Nardini, is also given by him (Rom. Ant. ii. p. 300) and by Gruter (170.6; cf. Orell. 31), with slight variations, and shows that the edifice, as rebuilt by Catulus, must have lasted till the latest period of the Empire. It is often called aerarium in Latin authors. Liv. 3.69 &c.)


We shall now proceed to consider some of the most remarkable spots on the hill and its declivities. And first of the ASYLUM. Becker (Handb. p. 387) assumes that it occupied the whole depression between the two summits, and that this space, which by modern topographers has been called by the unclassical name of Intermontium, was called “inter duos lucos.” But here his authorities do not bear him out. Whether the whole of this space formed the original asylum of Romulus, it is impossible to say; but it is quite certain that this was not the asylum of later times. It would appear from the description of Dionysius (2.15) that in its original state (ἦν τότε, κ. τ. λ.) the grove may have extended from one summit to the other; but it does not appear that it occupied the whole space. It was convenient for Becker to assume this, on account of his interpretation of the passage in Tacitus respecting the [p. 2.771]assault of the Vitellians, where he makes them storm the SW. height from the grove of the asylum, which lie places where the steps now lead up to the Palazzo de' Conservatori. But, first, it is impossible to suppose that in the time of Vitellius the whole of this large area was a grove. Such an account is inconsistent with the buildings which we know to have been erected on it, as the Tabularium, and also with the probable assumption which we have ventured to propose, that a considerable part of it was occupied by the Area Capitolina. But, secondly, the account of Tacitus, as we have already pointed out, is quite incompatible with Becker's view. The Vitellians, being repulsed near the summit of the Clivus, retreat downwards, and attempt two other ascents, one of which was by the Lucus Asyli. And this agrees with what we gather from Livy's description of the place: “Locum, qui nunc septus descendentibus inter duos lucos est, asylum aperit” (1.8.) Whence we learn that the place called “inter duos lucos” contained the ancient asylum, the enclosure of which asylum was seen by those who descended the “inter duos lucos.” Thirdly, the asylum must have been near the approach to it; and this, on Becker's own showing (Handb. p. 415), was under the NE. summit, namely, between the career and temple of Concord and behind the arch of Severus. This ascent has been erroneously called Clivus Asyli, as there was only one clivus on the Capitoline hill. But it is quite impossible that an ascent on this side of the hill could have led to a Lucus Asyli where the Palazzo de' Conservatorsi now stands. It was near the asylum, as we have seen, that the fire broke out which destroyed the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; and the latter, consequently, must have been on the NE. summit. With respect to the asylum, we need only further remark, that it contained a small temple, but to what deity it was dedicated nobody could tell (ναὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ κατασκευασάμενος: ὅτῳ δὲ ἄρα θεῶν δαιμόνων οὐκ ἔχω σαφὲς εἰπεῖν, Dionys. A. R. 2.15); and he was therefore merely called the divinity of the asylum (θεὸς ἀσύλαιος, Plut. Rom. 9).

Another disputed point is the precise situation of the RUPES TARPEIA, or that part of the summit whence criminals were hurled. The prevalent opinion among the older topographers was that it was either at that part of the hill which overhangs the Piazza Montanara, that is, at the extreme SW. point, or farther to the W., in a court in the Via di Tor de' Specchi, where a precipitous cliff, sufficiently high to cause death by a fall from it, bears at present the name of Rupe, Tarpea. That this was the true Tarpeian rock is still the prevalent opinion, and has been adopted by Becker. But Dureau de la Malle (Mémoire sur la Roche Tarpéienne, in the Mém. de l'Acad., 1819) has pointed out two passages in Dionysius which are totally incompatible with this site. In describing the execution of Cassius, that historian says that lie was led to the precipice which overhangs the forum, and cast down from it in the view of all the people (τοῦτο τὸ τέλος τῆς δίκης λαβούσης, ἀγαγόντες οἱ ταμίαι τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπὶ τὸν ὑπερκείμενον τῆς ἀγορᾶς κρημνὸν, ἁπάντων ὁρώντων, ἔρριψαν κατὰ τῆς πέτρας, 8.78, cf. 7.35, seq.). Now this could not have taken place on the side of the Tor de' Specchi, which cannot be seen from the forum; and it is therefore assumed that the true Rupes Tarpeia must have been on the E. side, above S. Maria della Consolazione. The arguments adduced by Becker to controvert this assumption are not very convincing. He objects that the hill is much less precipitous here than on the other side. But this


proves nothing with regard to its earlier state. Livy, as we have seen, records the fall of a vast mass of rock into the Vicus Jugarius. Such landslips must have been frequent in later times, and it is precisely where the rock was most precipitous that they would occur. Thus, Flavius Blondus (Inst. Rom. 2.58) mentions the fall in his own time of a piece as large as a house. Another objection advanced by Becker is that the criminal would have fallen into the Vicus Jugarius. This, however, is absurd; he would only have fallen at the back of the houses. Nothing can be inferred from modern names, as that of a church now non-extant, designated as sub Tarpeio, as we have already shown that the whole S. summit was Mons Tarpeius. Becker's attempt to explain away the words ἁπάντων ὁοώντων is utterly futile. On the whole, it seems most probable that the rock was on the SE. side, not only from the express testimony of Dionysius, which it is difficult or impossible to set aside, but also from the inherent probability [p. 2.772]that among a people like the Romans a public execution would take place at a public and conspicuous spot. The CENTUM GRADUS, or Hundred Steps, were probably near it; but their exact situation it is impossible to point out. The other objects on the Clivus and slopes of the hill will be described in the next section.

  • 1. Basilica Opimia.
  • 2. Aedes Concordiae.
  • 3. Senaculum.
  • 4. Vulcanal.
  • 5. Graecostasis.
  • 6. Curia.
  • 7. Basilica Porcia.
  • 8. Basilica Aemilia.
  • 9. Porta Stercoraria.
  • 10. Schola Xantha.
  • 11. Templum Saturni.
  • 12. Basilica Sempronia.
  • 13. Aedes Castoris.
  • 14. Regia.
  • 15. Fons Juturnae.
  • 16. Aedes Vestae.
  • 17. Puteal Libonis.
  • 18. Lacus Curtius.
  • 19. Rostra.
  • 20. Signum Vertumni.
  • 21. Fornix Fabianus.
    • a a. Sacra Via.
    • b b b. Clivus Capitolinus.
    • c c. Vicus Jugarius.
    • d d. Vicus Tuscus.


The forum, the great centre of Roman life and business, is so intimately connected with the Capitol that we are naturally led to treat of it next. Its original site was a deep hollow, extending from the eastern foot of the Capitoline hill to the spot where the Velia begins to ascend, by the remains of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina. At the time of the battle between the Romans and Sabines this ground was in its rude and natural state, partly swampy and partly overgrown with wood. (Dionys. A. R. 2.50.) It could, however, have been neither a thick wood nor an absolute swamp, or the battle could not have taken place. After the alliance between the Sabines and Romans this spot formed a sort of neutral ground or common meeting-place, and was improved by cutting down the wood and filling up the swampy parts with earth. We must not, indeed, look for anything like a regular forum before the reign of Tarquinius Priscus; yet some of the principal lines which marked its subsequent extent had been traced before that period. On the E. and W. these are marked by the nature of the ground; on the former by the ascent of the Velia, on the latter by the Capitoline hill. Its northern boundary was traced by the road called Sacra Via. It is only of late years, however, that these boundaries have been recognised. Among the earlier topographers views equally erroneous and discordant prevailed upon the subject; some of them extending the forum lengthways from the Capitoline hill to the summit of the Velia, where the arch of Titus now stands; whilst others, taking the space between the Capitoline and temple of Faustina to have been its breadth, drew its length in a southerly direction, so as to encroach upon the Velabrum. The latter theory was adopted by Nardini, and prevailed till very recently. Piale (Del Foro Romano, Roma, 1818, 1832) has the merit of having restored the correct general view of the forum, though his work is not always accurate in details. The proper limits of the forum were established by excavations made between the Capitol and Colosseum in 1827, and following years, when M. Fea saw opposite to the temple of Antoninus and Faustina, a piece of the pavement of the Sacra Via, similar to that which runs under the arch of Severus. (Bunsen, Le For. Rom. expliqué, p. 7.) A similar piece had been previously discovered during excavations made in the year 1742, before the church of S. Adriano, at the eastern corner of the Via Bonella, which Ficoroni (Vestigie di Roma antica, p. 7.5) rightly considered to belong to the Sacra Via. A line prolonged through these two pieces towards the arch of Severus will therefore give the direction of the street, and the boundary of the forum on that side. The southern side was no less satisfactorily determined by the excavations made in 1835, when the Basilica Julia was discovered; and in front of its [p. 2.773]steps another paved street, enclosing the area of the forum, which was distinguishable by its being paved with slabs of the ordinary silex. This street continned eastwards, past the ruin of the three columns or temple of Castor, as was shown by a similar piece of street pavement having been discovered in front of them From this spot it must have proceeded eastwards, past the church of Sta. Maria Liberatrice, till it met that portion of the Sacra Via which ran in a southerly direction opposite the temple of Faustina (S. Loernzo in Miranda), and formed the eastern boundary of the forum. Hence. according to the opinion now generally received, the forum presented an oblong or rather trapezoidal figure, 671 English feet in length, by 202 at its greatest breadth under the Capitol, and 117 at its eastern extremity. (Bunsen, Les Forum de Rome, p. 15.)


Sacra Via.--The SACRA VIA was thus intimately connected with the forum; and as it was both one of the most ancient and one of the most important streets of Rome. it will demand a particular description. Its origin is lost in obscurity. According to some accounts it must have been already in existence when the battle before alluded to was fought, since it is said to have derived its name of the “Sacred Way” were from the treaty concluded upon it between Romulus and Tatius. (Dionys. A. R. 2.46; Festus, p. 290, Müll.) This, however, seems highly improbable; not only because the road could hardly have existed at so early a period, when the site of the forum itself was in so rude a state, but also because a public highway is not altogether the place in which we should expect a treaty of peace to be concluded. The name of the comitium has also been derived, perhaps with no greater probability, from the same event. It is more likely that the road took its origin at a rather later period, when the Sabine and Roman cities had become consolidated. Its name of Sacra Via seems to have been derived from the sacred purposes for which it was used. Thus we learn from Varro (L. L. § 47, Müll.) that it began at the sacellum of the goddess Strenia, in the Carinae; that it proceeded thence as far as the arx, or citadel on the Capitoline hill; and that certain sacred offerings, namely, the white sheep or lamb (ovis idulis), which was sacrificed every ides to Jove (Ovid, F. 1.56; Macrob. S. 1.15; Paul. Diac. p. 104, Müll.), borne along it monthly to the arx. It was also the road by which the augurs descended from the arx when, after taking the auguries, they proceeded to inaugurate anything in the city below. It likewise appears that Titus Tatius instituted the custom that on every new year's day the augurs should bring him presents of verbenae from the grove of Strenia, or Strenua, to his dwelling on the arx ( “ab exortu poene urbis Martiae Streniarum usus adolevit, auctoritate regis Tatii, qui verbenas felicis arboris ex luco Strenuae anni novi auspicia primus accepit,” Symm. Epist. 10.35). This custom seems to have been retained in later times in that known as the augurium salutis. (Cic. Leg. 2.8; Tac. Ann. 12.23; Lucian, Pseudol. 8.) Hence perhaps the appellation of “sacra;” though the [p. 2.774]whole extent of road was called Sacra Via only in sacerdotal language, between which and the common usage we have already had occasion to note a diversity when giving an account of the Servian gates. In common parlance only that portion of the road was called Sacra Via which formed the ascent of the Velia, from the forum to its summit ( “Hujus Sacrae Viae pars haec sola vulgo nota quae est a foro eunti primore clivo,” Varr, l.c.). Hence by the poets it is sometimes called “Sacer Clivus:” “Inde sacro veneranda petes Palatia clivo.” (Mart. 1.70. 5); and-- “----quandoque trahet feroces
Per sacrum clivum, imerita decorus
Fronde, Sicambros.
” (Hor. Od. 4.2. 34.)

compared with-- “Intactus aut Britannus ut descenderet
Sacra catenatus via.
” (Id. Epod. 7.7.)

(Comp. Ambrosch, Studien und Andeut. p. 78, seq.) The origin of the vulgar opinion is explained by Festus in the following passage: “Itaque ne eatenus quidem, ut vulgus opinatur, sacra appellanda est, a regia ad domum regis sacrificuli; sed etiam a regis domo ad sacellum Streniae, et rursus a regia usque in arcem” (p. 290, Mill.). Whence it appears that only the part which lay between the Regia, or house of the pontifex maximus, and that of the rex sacrificulus, was commonly regarded, and probably for that very reason, as “sacra.” This passage, however, though it shows plainly enough that there must have been a space between these two residences, has caused some embarrassment on account of a passage in Dio Cassius (54.27), in, which he says that Augustus presented the house of the rex sacrificulus (πο̂υ βασιλέως τῶν ἱερῶν) to the Vestals because it adjoined their residence (ὁμότοιχος ἦν); and as we know from Pliny (Plin. Ep. 7.19) that the vestals dwelt close to the temple, it seems impossible, if Dion is right, that there should have been a street lying between the two places mentioned. But the matter is plain enough; though Becker (de Mauris, pp. 30--35, Handb. pp. 226--237) wastes several pages in most far-fetched reasonings in order to arrive at a conclusion which already lies before us in a reading of the text of Dion for which there is actually MS. authority. Augustus was chosen pontifex maximus (ἀρχιερεύς), not rex sacrificulus, as Dion himself says in this passage. But the two offices were perfectly distinct ( “Regem sacrificulum creant. Id sacerdotium pontifici subjecere,” Liv. 2.2). Augustus would hardly make a present of a house which did not belong to him; and therefore in Dion we must read, with some MSS., το̂υ βασιλέως τῶν ἱερέων, for ἱερῶν: Dion thus, in order perhaps to convey a lively notion of the office to his Greek readers, designating the Roman pontifex maximus as “king, of the priests,” instead of using the ordinary Greek term ἀρχιερεύς. The matter therefore lies thus. Varro says that in ordinary life only the clivus, or ascent from the forum to the Summa Sacra Via, obtained the name of Sacra Via. Festus repeats the same thing in a different manner; designating the space so called as lying between the Regia, or house of the pontifex maximus, and that of the rex sacrificulus. Whence it follows that the latter must have been on the Summa Sacra Via. It can scarcely be doubted that before the time of Augustus the Regia was the residence of the pontifex maximus. The building appears to have existed till a late period of the Empire. It is mentioned by the younger Pliny (Plin. Ep. 4.11) and by Plutarch (Q. R. 97, Rom. 18) as extant in their time, and also probably by Herodian (1.14) in his description of the burning of the temple of Peace under Commodus. After the expulsion of the kings, the rex sacrificulus, who succeeded to their sacerdotal prerogatives, was probably presented with one of the royal residences, of which there were several in the neighbourhood of the Summa Sacra Via; that being the spot where Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Priscus, and Tarquinius Superbus had dwelt. (Liv. 1.41; Solin. 1.23, 24; Plin. Nat. 34.13.) We cannot tell the exact direction in which the Sacra Via traversed the valley of the Colosseum and ascended to the arch of Titus, nor by what name this part of the road was commonly called in the language of the people; but it probably kept along the base of the Velia. At its highest point, or Summa Sacra Via, and perhaps on the site afterwards occupied by the temple of Venus and Rome, there seems to have been anciently a market for the sale of fruit, and also probably of nick-nacks and toys. “Summa Sacra Via, ubi poma veneunt.” (Varr. R. R. 1.2.) Hence Ovid (A. A. 2.265.):-- “Rure suburbano poteris tibi dicere missa
Illa, vel in Sacra sint licet emta Via.

Whilst the nick-nacks are thus mentioned by Propertius (3.17. 11.):-- “Et modo pavonis caudae flabella superbae
Et manibus dura frigus habere pila,
Et cupit iratum talos me poscere eburnos
Quaeque nitent Sacra vilia dona Via.

The direction of the Sacra Via is indicated by Horace's description of his stroll: “Ibam forte Via Sacra,” &c. (S. 1.9.) He is going down it towards the forum, having probably come from the villa of Maecenas, on the Esquiline, when he is interrupted by the eternal bore whom he has pilloried. The direction of his walk is indicated by his unavailing excuse that he is going to visit a sick friend over the Tiber (5.17) and by the arrival at the temple of Vesta (5.35); the Sacra Via having been thus quitted and the forum left on the right. The two extremities of the street, as commonly known, are indicated in the following passage of Cicero: “Hoc tamen miror, cur tu huic potissinum irascere, qui longissime a te abfuit. Equidem, si quando ut fit, jactor in turba, non illum accuse, qui est in Summa Sacra Via, cum ego ad Fabium Fornicem impeller, sed eum qui in me ipsum incurrit atque incidit” (p. Plane. 7). The Fornix Fabius, as it will be seen hereafter, stood at the eastern extremity of the forum; and Cicero has made the most of his illustration by taking the whole length of the street. Beyond this point, where it traversed the N. side of the forum, we are at a loss to tell what its vulgar appellation may have been; and if we venture to suggest that it may have been called “Janus,” this is merely a conjecture from Horace (Hor. Ep. 1.1. 54), where “haec Janus summus ab imo” seems to suit better with a street--just as we should say, “all Lombard street” --than with two Jani, as is commonly interpreted, or than with a building containing several floors let out in counting houses. (Cf. Sat. 2.3. 18.) This view is supported by the Scholia on the first of these passages, where it is said: [p. 2.775] “Janus autem hie plateau dicitur, ubi mercatores et foeneratores sortis causa convenire solebant.” In fact it was the Roman Change. The ascent from the forum to the summit of the Capitoline hill, where the Sacra Via terminated, was, we know, called Clivus Capitolinus.

It only remains to notice Becker's dictum (de, Muris, p. 23) that the name of this street should always be written Sacra Via, and not in reversed order Via Sacra. To the exceptions which he noted there himself, he adds some more in the Handbuch (p. 219, note), and another from Seneca (Controv. xxvii. p. 299, Bip.) in his Addenda; and Urlichs (Röm. Topogr. p. 8) increases the list. On the whole, it would seem that though Sacra Via is the more usual expression, the other cannot be regarded as unclassical.

Vicus Jugarius.--Of the name of the street which ran along the south side of the forum we are utterly ignorant; but from it issued two streets, which were among the most busy, and best known, in Rome. These were the Vicus Jugarius and Vicus Tuscus. We have before had occasion to mention that the former ran close under the Capitoline hill, from the forum to the Porta Carmentalis. It was thought to derive its name from an altar which stood in it to Juno Juga, the presiding deity of wedlock. (Paul. Diac. p. 104, Müll.) It does not appear to have contained any other sacred places in ancient times; but Augustus dedicated in it altars to Ceres and Ops Augusta. (Fast. Amit. IV. Id. Aug.) At the top of the street, where it entered the forum, was the fountain called Lacus Servilius, which obtained a sad notoriety daring the proscriptions of Sulla, as it was here that the heads of the murdered senators were exposed. (Cic. Rose. Am. 32; Senec. Prov. 3.) M. Agrippa adorned it with the effigy of a hydra (Festus, p. 290, Müll.). Between the Vicus Jugarius and Capitoline hill, and close to the foot of the latter, lay the Aequimaelium (Liv. 38.28), said to have derived its name from occupying the site of the house of the demagogue, Sp. Maelius, which had been razed (Varr. L.L. 5.157, Müll.; Liv. 4.16). It served as a market-place, especially for the sale of lambs, which were in great request for sacrifices, and probably corresponded with the modern Via del Monte Tarpeo. (Cic. Div. 2.1. 7

Vicus Tuscus.--In the imperial times the Vicus Jugarius was bounded at its eastern extremity by the Basilica Julia; and on the further side of this building, again, lay the Vicus Tuscus. According to some authorities this street was founded in B.C. 507, being assigned to such of the Etruscans in the vanquished host of Aruns as had fled to Rome, and felt a desire to settle there (Liv. 2.15; Dionys. A. R. 5.36); but we have before related, on the authority of Varro and Tacitus, that it was founded in the reign of Romulus. These conflicting statements may, perhaps, be reconciled, by considering the later settlement as a kind of second or subsidiary one. However this may be, it is with the topographical facts that we are here more particularly concerned, about which Dionysius communicates some interesting particulars. He describes the ground assigned to the Tuscans as a sort of hollow or gorge situated between the Palatine and Capitoline hills; and in length nearly 4 stadia, or half a Roman mile, from the forum to the Circus Maximus (5.36). We must presume that this measurement included all the windings of the street; and even then it would seem rather exaggerated, as the whole NW. side of the Palatine hill does not exceed about 2 stadia. We must conclude that it was continued through the Velabrum to the circus. Its length as Canina observes (For. Rom. pt. i. p. 67) is a proof that the forum must have extended from NW. to SE., and not from NE. to SW.; as in the latter case, the space for the street, already too short, would have been considerably curtailed. This street, probably from the habits of its primitive colonists, became the abode of fishmongers, fruiterers, bird-fanciers, silk-mercers, and perfumers, and enjoyed but an indifferent reputation ( “Tusci turba impia vici,” Hor. S. 2.3. 29.) It was here, however, that the best silks in Rome were to be procured ( “Nec nisi prima velit de Tusco serica vico,” Mart. 11.27. 11). In fact, it seems to have been the great shopping street of Rome; and the Roman gentlemen, whose ladies, perhaps, sometimes induced them to spend more than what was agreeable there, vented their ill humour by abusing the tradesmen. According to the scholiast on the passage of Horace just cited, the street was also called Vicus Turarius. This appellation was doubtless derived from the frankincense and perfumes sold in it, whence the allusion in Horace (Hor. Ep. 1.1. 267):-- “Ne capsa porrectus aperta
Deferar in vicum vendentem tus et odores,
Et piper, et quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis.

Being the road from the forum to the circus and Aventine, it was much used for festal processions. Thus it was the route of the Pompa Circensis, which proceeded from the Capitol over the forum, and by the Vicus Tuscus and Velabrum to the circus. (Dionys. A. R. 7.72.) We have seen that the procession of the virgins passed through it from the temple of Apollo outside the Porta Carmentalis to that of Juno Regina on the Aventine. Yet not-withstanding these important and sacred uses, it is one of the charges brought by Cicero against Verres that he had caused it to be paved so villanously that he himself would not have ventured to ride over it. (Verr. 1.59.) We see from this passage that a statue of Vertumnus, the national Etruscan deity, stood at the end of the street next the forum. Becker (Handb. p. 308) places him at the other extremity near the Velabrum. But all the evidence runs the other way; and the lines of Propertius (4.2. 5), who puts the following words into the god's mouth, are alone sufficient to decide the matter (Class. Mus. vol. iv. p. 444):-- “Nec me tura juvant, nec temple laetor eburno
Romanum satis est posse videre forum.

Comitium.--Having thus described the streets which either encircled the forum or afforded outlets from it, we will now proceed to treat of the forum itself, and the objects situated upon and around it, and endeavour to present the reader with a picture of it as it existed under the Kings, during the Republic, and under the Empire. But here, as in the case of the Capitol, we are arrested in the outset by a difficult investigation. We know that a part of the forum, called the comitium, was distinguished from the rest by being appropriated to more honourable uses; but what part of the forum it was has been the subject of much dispute. Some, like Canina, have considered it to be a space running parallel with the forum along its whole southern extent; whilst others, like Bunsen and Becker, have thought that it formed [p. 2.776]a section of the area at its eastern extremity, in size about one-third of the whole forum. An argument advanced by Becker himself (Handb. p. 278) seems decisive against both these views, namely, that we never hear any building on the S. side of the forum spoken of as being on the comitium. Yet in spite of this just remark, he ends by adopting the theory of Bunsen, according to which the comitiumn began at or near the ruin of the three columns and extended to the eastern extremity of the forum: and thus both the temple of Vesta and the Regia must have stood very close to it. The two chief reasons which seem to have led him to this conclusion are, the situation of the rostra, and that of the Tribunal Praetoris. Respecting the former, we shall have occasion to speak further on. The argument drawn from the latter, which is by far the more important one, we shall examine at once. It proceeds as follows (Handb. p. 280): “The original Tribunal Praetoris was on the comitium (Liv. 6.15, 29.16; Gel. 20.1, 11, 47 (from the XII. Tables); Varro, L. L. 5.32. p. 154; Plaut. Poen. 3.6. 11; Macr. 2.12), which, however, is also mentioned as being merely on the forum. (Liv. 27.50, 40.2, 44.) But close to the tribunal was the Puteal Libonis or Scribonianum, and this is expressly mentioned as being near the Fornix Fabius, the Atrium Vestae, the rostra, and lastly the aedes Divi Julii (Porphyr. ad Hor. Ep. 1.19. 8; Schol. Cruq. Ib. Id. ad. Sat. 2.6. 35; Fest. p. 333; Schol. ad Pers. Sat. 4.49); consequently the comitium also must have been close to all these objects.”

We presume that Becker's meaning in this passage is, that the first or original tribunal was on the comitium, and that it was afterwards moved into the forum. It could hardly have been both on the comitium and forum, though Becker seems to hint at such a possibility, by saying that it is “also mentioned as being merely on the forum;” and indeed there seems to be no physical impossibility in the way, since it is evident that the tribunal at first was merely a movable chair ( “dictator--stipatus ea multitudine, sella in comitio posita, viatorem ad M. Manlium misit: qui--agmine ingenti ad tribunal venit,” Liv. 6.15). But if that was his meaning, the passages he cites in proof of it do not bear him out. In the first Livy merely says that a certain letter was carried through the forum to the tribunal of the praetor, the latter of course being on the comitium ( “eae literae per forum ad tribunal praetoris latae,” 27.50). The other two passages cited contain nothing at all relative to the subject, nor can there be any doubt that in the early times of the Republic the comitium was the usual place on which the praetor took his seat. But that the tribunal was moved from the comitium to the forum is shown by the scholiasts on Horace whom Becker quotes. Thus Porphyrio says: “Puteal autem Libonis sedes praetoris fuit prope Arcum Fabianum, dictumque quod a Libone illic primum tribunal et subsellia locata sint.” Primum here is not an adjective to be joined with tribunal--i. e. “that the first or original tribunal was placed there by Libo;” but an adverb--“that the tribunal was first placed there by Libo.” The former version would be nonsense, because Libo's tribunal could not possibly have been the first. Besides the meaning is unambiguously shown by the Schol. Cruq.: “puteal Libonis; tribunal: Quod autem ait Libonis, hine sumsit, quod is primus tribunal in foro statuerit.” If the authority of these scholiasts is suspicious as to the fact of this removal, though there are no apparent grounds for suspicion, yet Becker at all events is not in a condition to invalidate their testimony. He has quoted them to prove the situation of the puteal; and if they are good for that, they are also good to prove the removal of the tribunal. Yet with great inconsistency, he tacitly assumes that the tribunal had always stood in its original place, that is, on the comitium, and by the puteal, contrary to the express evidence that the latter was on the forum. ( “Puteal locus erat in foro,” Sch. Cruq. ad Sat. 2.6. 35.) Libo flourished about a century and a half before Christ. [See Dict. of Biogr. Vol. I. p. 779.] Now all the examples cited by Becker in which the tribunal is alluded to as being on the comitium, are previous to this date. The first two in note 457 might be passed over, as they relate not to the praetor but to the dictator and consuls; nevertheless, they are both anterior to the time of Libo, the first belonging to the year B.C. 382 and the second to 204. The passage from Gellius “ad praetorem in comitium,” being a quotation from the XII. Tables, is of course long prior to the same period. The passage in Varro (5.155, Müll.), which derives the name of comitium from the practice of coming together there (coire) for the decision of suits, of course refers to the very origin of the place. A passage from Plautus can prove nothing, since he died nearly half a century before the change effected by Libo. The passage alluded to in Macrobinus (2.12) must be in the quotation from the speech of C. Titius in favour of the Lex Fannia: “Inde ad comitium vadunt, ne litem suam faciant; veniunt in comitium tristes, &c.” But the Lex Fannia was passed in B.C. 164 (Macrob. 2.13); or even if we put it four years later, in B.C. 160, still before the probable date of Libo's alteration; who appears to have been tribune in B.C. 149. Thus the argument does not merely break down, but absolutely recoils against its inventor; for it, as the Scholia Cruquiana inform us, Libo moved the tribunal from the comitium to the forum, and placed it near the puteal, then it is evident that this part of the area could not have been the comitium.

The comitium, then, being neither on the south nor the east sides of the forum, we must try our fortune on the north. and west, where it is to be hoped we shall be more successful. The only method which promises a satisfactory result is, to seek it with other objects with which we know it to have been connected. Now one of these is the Vulcanal. We learn from Festus that the comitium stood beneath the Vulcanal: “in Volcanali, quod est supra Comitium” (p. 290, Müll.). In like manner Dionysius describes the Vulcanal as standing a little above the forum, using, of course, the latter word in a general sense for the whole area, including the comitium: καὶ τὰς συνόδους ἐνταῦθα ἐποιοῦντο, ἐν Ἡφαίστου χρηματίζοντες ἱερῷ, μικρὸν ἐπανεστηκότι τῆς ἀγορᾶς (2.50). Where ἱερόν is not to be taken of a proper temple (ναός), but signifies merely an area consecrated to the god, and having probably an altar. It was a rule that a temple of Vulcan should be outside the town (Vitr. 1.7); and thus in later times we find one in the Campus Martius ( “tactam de caelo aedem in campo Vulcani,” Liv. 24.10). That the Vulcanal was merely an open space is manifest from its appellation of area, and from the accounts we read of rain falling upon it (Liv. 39.46, 40.19), of buildings being [p. 2.777]erected upon it (Id. 9.46), &c. But that it had an altar appears from the circumstance that sacrifices of live fish taken in the Tiber were here made to Vulcan, in propitiation for human souls. (Festus in Piscatorii Ludi, p. 238, Müll.) Another fact which shows it to have been an open space, and at the same time tends to direct us to its site, is the lotus-tree which grew upon it, the roots of which are said to have penetrated as far as the forum of Caesar, which, as we shall show in its proper section, lay a little N. of the Forum Romanum. “Verum altera lotos in Vulcanali, quod Romulus constituit ex victoria de decumis, aequaeva urbi intelligitur, ut auctor est Masurius. Radices ejus in forum usque Caesaris per stationes municipiorum penetrant.” (Plin. Nat. 16.86.) From which passage-whatever may be thought of the tale of the tree--we deduce these facts: that the Vulcanal existed in the time of Pliny; that it had occupied the same spot from time immemorial; that it could not have been at any very great distance from the forum of Caesar, otherwise the roots of the tree could not possibly have reached thither. Let those consider this last circumstance who hold with Canina that the comitium was on the south side of the forum; or even with Bunsen and Becker that it was on the east. The Vulcanal must originally have occupied a considerable space, since it is represented as having served for a place of consultation between Romulus and Tatius, with their respective senates. (Dionys. A. R. 2.50; Plut. Rom. 20.) Its extent, however, seems to have been reduced in process of time, since the Graecostasis was taken out of its area; a fact which appears from Livy mentioning the Aedes Concordiae, built by Flavius, as being “in area Vulcani” (9.46); whilst Pliny says that it was on the Graecostasis ( “aediculam aeream (Concordiae) fecit in Graecostasi, quae tunc supra comitium erat,” 33.6): whence the situation of the Vulcanal may be further deduced since we know that the Graecostasis adjoined the curia, and the latter, as will be shown presently, lay on the N. side of the forum. Hence the Vulcanal also must have been close to the curia and forum; whence it ran back in a N. direction towards the spot subsequently occupied by the Forum Caesaris. This site is further confirmed by the Notitia, which places the Area Vulcani, as well as the Templum Faustinae and Basilica Paulli in the 4th Regio. Preller indeed says (Regionen, p. 128), that the area cannot possibly be mentioned in its right place here, because it stood immediately over the forum in the neighbourhood of the temple of Faustina, where the old Curia Hostilia stood; but his only reason for this assertion is Becker's dictum respecting the Vulcanal at p. 286, of which we have already seen the value. The comitium, then, would occupy that part of the forum which lay immediately under the Vulcanal, or the W. part of its N. side; a situation which is confirmed by other evidence. Dionysius says that, as the judgment-seat of Romulus, it was in the most conspicuous part of the forum (ἐν τῷ φανερωτάτῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς, 2.29), a description which corresponds admirably with the site proposed. Livy (1.36) says that the statue of Attius Navius was on the steps of the comitium on the left of the curia, whence it may be inferred that the comitium extended on both sides of the curia. Pliny (34.11) speaking of the same statue, says that it stood before the curia, and that its basis was burnt in the same fire which consumed that building when the body of Clodius was burnt there.

Hence, we are led to suppose that the comitium occupied a considerable part of the N. side of the forum; but its exact limits, from the want of satisfactory evidence, we are unable to define. It must have been a slightly elevated place, since we hear of its having steps; and its form was probably curvilinear, as Pliny (34.12) speaks of the statues of Pythagoras and Alcibiades being at its horns ( “in cornibus Comitii” ); unless this merely alludes to the angle it may have formed at the corner of the forum. It has been sometimes erroneously regarded as having a roof; a mistake which seems to have arisen from a misinterpretation of a passage in Livy, in which that author says that in B.C. 208 the comitium was covered for the first time since Hannibal had been in Italy ( “Eo anno primum, ex quo Hannibal in Italiam venisset, comitium tectum esse, memoriae proditum est,” 27.36). Hence, it was thought, that from this time the comitium was covered with a permanent roof. But Piale (del Foro Rom. p. 15, seq.) pointed out that in this manner there would be no sense in the words “for the first time since Hannibal was in Italy,” which indicate a repeated covering. The whole context shows that the historian is alluding to a revived celebration of the Roman games, in the usual fashion; and that the covering is nothing more than the vela or canvas, which on such occasions was spread over the comitium, to shade the spectators who occupied it from the sun. That the comitium was an open place is evident from many circumstances. Thus, the prodigious rain, which so frequently falls in the narrative of Livy, is described as wetting it (Liv. 34.45; Jul. Obseq. 100.103), and troops are represented as marching over it. It was here, also, that the famous Ruminalis Arbor grew (Tac. Ann. 13.58), which seems to have been transplanted thither from the Palatine by some juggle of Attius Navius, the celebrated augur (Plin. Nat. 15.20; ap. Bunsen, Les Forum de Rom. p. 43, seq.), though we can by no means accede to Bunsen's emendation of that passage.

The principal destination of the comitium was for holding the comitia curiata, and for hearing lawsuits ( “Comitium ab eo quod coibant eo, comitiis curiatis, et litium causa,” Var. L. L. 5.155, Müll.), and it must, therefore, have been capable of containing a considerable number of persons. The comitia centuriata, on the other hand, were held in the Campus Martius; and the tributa on the forum proper. The curiata were, however, sometimes held on the Capitol before the Curia Calabra. The comitium was also originally the proper place for contiones, or addresses delivered to the assembled people. All these customs caused it to be regarded as more honourable and important than the forum, which at first was nothing more than a mere market-place. Hence, we frequently find it spoken of as a more distinguished place than the forum; and seats upon it for viewing the games were assigned to persons of rank. Its distinction from the forum, as a place of honour for the magistrates, is clearly marked in the following passage of Livy, describing the alarm and confusion ad Rome after the defeat at Trasimene: “Romae at primum nuntium cladis ejus cum ingenti terrore ac tumultu concursus in forum populii est factus. Matronae vagae per vias, quae repens clades adlata, quaeve fortuna exercitus esset, obvios percontantur. Et quum frequentis contionis modo turba in comitium et curiam versa magistrates vocaret” Ↄ (22.7). When not occupied [p. 2.778]by the magistrates it appears to have been open to the people. Thus, the senate being assembled in the curia to hear the ambassadors of those made prisoners at the battle of Cannae, the people are represented as filling the comitium: “Ubi is fine fecit, extemplo ab ea turba, quae in comitio erat, clamor flebilis est sublatus, manusque ad curiam tendentes, &c.” (Id. 22.60.) Being the place for the contiones it of course had a suggestum, or rostra, from which speeches were delivered; but we shall have occasion to describe this and other objects on and around the comitium and forum when we arrive at them in their chronological order.

It was not till after the preceding account of the comitium had been committed to paper that the writer of it met with the essay on the comitium by Mommsen in the Annali dell' Instituto (vol. xvi.), to which reference has before been made. The writer was glad to perceive that his general view of the situation of the comitium had been anticipated, although he is unable to concur with Mommsen respecting some of the details; such as the situation of the Curia Hostilia, of the temple of Janus, of the Forum Caesaris, and some other objects. In refuting Becker's views, Mommsen has used much the same arguments, though not in such detail, as those just adduced; but he has likewise thought it worth while to refute an argument from a passage in Herodian incidentally adduced by Becker in a note (p. 332). As some persons, however, may be disposed to attribute more weight to that argument than we do ourselves, we shall here quote Mommsen's refutation: “Minus etiam probat alterum, quod à Beckero, p. 332, n. 612, affertur, argumentum desumtum ex narratione Herodiani, 1.9, Severum in somnio vidisse Pertinacem equo vectum διὰ μέσης τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἱερᾶς ὁδοῦ; qui cum venisset κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀγορᾶς, ἔνθα ἐπὶ δημοκρατίας πρότερον δῆμος συνιὼν ἐκκλησίαζεν, equum eo excusso subiisse Severo eumque vexisse ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς μέσης. Non intelligo cur verba ἔνθαἐκκλησίαζεν referantur ad τὴν ἀρχὴν neque ad τῆς ἀγορᾶς, quod multo est simplicius. Nam ut optime quasi in foro insistere videtur qui rerum Romanarum potiturus est, ita de comitio eo tempore inepte haec dicerentur; accedit quod, si ad τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀγορᾶς omen pertineret, Severus ibi constiturus fuisset, neque in foro medio.--Nullis igitur idoneis argumentis topographi Germani comitium eam partem fori esse statuerunt quae Veliis subjacet” (p. 289).

So much for the negative side of the question: on the positive side Mommsen adduces (p. 299) an argument which had not occurred to the writer of the present article in proof of the position above indicated for the comitium. It is drawn from the Sacrum Cluacinae. That shrine, Mommsen argues, stood by the Tabernae Novae, that is, near the arch of Severus, as Becker has correctly shown (Handb. p. 321) from Livy 3.48; but he has done wrong in rejecting the result that may be drawn from the comparison of the two legends; first, that the comitium was so called because Romulus and Tatius met upon it after the battle (p. 273); second, that the Romans and Sabines cleansed themselves, after laying aside their arms, at the spot where the statue of Venus Cluacina afterwards stood (Plin. Nat. 15.18. s. 36); whence it follows that the statue was on the comitium. A fresh confirmation, Mommsen continues, may be added to this discovery of the truth. For that the Tabernae were on the comitium, and not on the forum, as Becker supposes, is pretty clearly shown by Dionysius (τὴν τε ἀγορὰν ἐν δικάζουσι καὶ ἐκκλησιάζουσι, καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἐπιτελοῦσι πολιτικὰς πράξεις, ἐκεῖνος ἐκόσμησεν, ἐργαστηρίοις τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις κόσμοις περιλαβών, 3.67).

We are not, however, disposed to lay any great stress on this argument. We think, as we have already said, that Varro's etymology of the comitium, from the political and legal business transacted there rendering it a place of great resort, is a much more probable one; since, as the forum itself did not exist at the time when Romulus and Tatius met after the battle, it is at least very unlikely that any spot should afterwards have been marked out upon it commemorative of that event. It is, nevertheless, highly probable that the statue of Cluacina stood on the comitium, but without any reference to these traditions. We do not, however, think that the tabernae occupied the comitium. By ἀγορά Dionysius means the whole forum, as may be inferred from περιλαβών.

The Forum under the Kings.--In the time of Romulus, then, we must picture the forum to ourselves as a bare, open space, having upon it only the altar of Saturn at about the middle of its western side, and the Vulcanal on its NW. side. Under Numa Pompilius it received a few improvements. Besides the little temple of Janus, which

TEMPLE OF JANUS. (From a Coin)

did not stand far from the forum, but of which we have already had occasion to speak, when treating of the Porta Janualis in the first part of this article, Numa built near it his Regia, or palace, as well as the celebrated temple of Vesta. Both these objects stood very near together at the SE. extremity of the forum. The AEDES VESTAE was a round building (Festus, p. 262; Plut. Num. 11), but no temple in the Roman sense of the word; since it had been purposely left uninaugurated, because, being the resort of the vestal virgins, it was not deemed right that the senate should be at liberty to meet in it (Serv. Aen. 7.153). Its site may be inferred from

TEMPLE OF VESTA. (From a Coin.)

[p. 2.779]

several passages in ancient authors. Thus we learn from Dionysius (2.66) that it was in the forum, and that the temple of the Dioscuri, whose site we shall point out further on, was subsequently built close to it (Id. 6.13; Mart. 1.70. 2). It is also said to have been near the lake, or fountain, of Juturna. (V. Max. 1.8. 1; Ov. F. 1.707) All these circumstances indicate its site to have been near the present church of St. Maria Liberatrice; where, indeed the graves of twelve vestal virgins, with inscriptions, were discovered in the 16th century. (Aldroandus, Memorie, n. 3; Lucio Fauno, Antich. di Roma, p. 206.) In all its subsequent restorations the original round form was retained, as symbolical of the earth, which Vesta represented (Ov. F. 6.265). The temple itself did not immediately abut upon the forum, but lay somewhat back towards the Palatine; whilst the REGIA which lay in front, and a little to the E. of it, marked the boundary of the forum on that side. The latter, also called Atrium Vestae, and Atrium Regium, though but a small building, was originally inhabited by Numa. (Ov. ib. 265; Plut. Rum. 14, &c.). That it lay close to the forum is shown by the account of Caesar's body being burnt before it (App. BC 2.148); and, indeed, Servius says expressly that it lay “in radicibus Palatii finibusque Romani fori” (ad Aen. 8.363). At the back of both the buildings must have been a sacred grove which ran towards the Palatine. It was from this grove that a voice was heard before the capture of the city by the Gauls, bidding the Romans repair their walls and gates. The admonition was neglected; but this impiety was subsequently expiated by building at the spot an altar or sacellum to Aius Loquens. (Cic. Div. 1.4. 5

Tullus Hostilius, after the capture of Alba Longa, adorned the forum with a curia or senate house, which was called after him the CURIA HOSTILIA, and continued almost down to the imperial times to be the most usual place for holding assemblies of the senate. (Varr. L. L. 5.155, Müll.; Liv. 1.30.) From the same spoils he also improved the comitium: “Fecitque idem et sepsit de manubiis comitium et curiam” (Cic. Rep. 2.17); whence we can hardly infer that he surrounded the comitium with a fence or wall, but more probably that he marked it off more distinctly from the forum by raising it higher, so as to be approached by steps. The Curia Hostilia, which from its pre-eminence is generally called simply curia, must have adjoined the eastern side of the Vulcanal. Niebuhr (Beschr. vol. iii. p. 60) was the first who indicated that it must have stood on the N. side of the forum, by pointing out the following passage in Pliny, in which the method of observing noon from it is described:--“Duodecim tabulis ortus tantum et occasus nominantur; post aliquot annos adjectus est meridies, accenso consulum id pronuntiante, cum a curia inter rostra et graecostasim prospexisset solemn” (7.60.) Hence, since the sun at noon could be observed from it, it must have faced the south. If its front, however, was parallel with the northern line of the forum, as it appears to have been, it must have looked a little to the W. of S.; since that line does not run due E., but a few degrees to the S. of E. Hence the necessity, in order to observe the true meridian, of looking between the Graecostasis and rostra. Now the Graecostasis--at a period of course long after Tullus Hostilius, and when mid-day began to be observed in this manner--was a lofty substruction on the right or W. side of the curia; and the rostra were also an elevated object situated directly in its front. This appears from the passage in Varro just alluded to:--“Ante hanc (curiam) rostra: quojus loci id vocabulum, quod ex hostibus capta fixa sunt rostra. Sub dextra hujus (curiae) a comitio locus substructus, ubi nationum subsisterent legati, qui ad senatum essent missi. Is graecostasis appellatus, a parte ut multa. Senaculum supra Graecostasim, ubi aedis Concordiae et Basilica Opimia.” (L. L. 5.155, 156.) When Varro says that the Graecostasis was sub dextra curiae, he is of course looking towards the south, so that the Graecostasis was on his right. This appears from his going on to say that the senaculum lay above the Graecostasis, and towards the temple of Concord; which, as we have had occasion to mention, was seated on the side of the Capitoline hill. It further appears from this passage that the Graecostasis was a substruction, or elevated area (locus substructus) at the side of, or adjoining the comitium (comp. Plin. Nat. 33.6); and must have projected in front of the curia. The relative situation of these objects, as here described, is further proved by Pliny's account of observing midday, with which alone it is consistent. For, as all these objects faced a little to the W. of S., it is only on the assumption that the Graecostasis lay to the W. of the curia, that the meridian sun could be observed with accuracy from any part of the latter between the Graecostasis and rostra.

A singular theory is advanced by Mommsen respecting the situation of the Curia Hostilia, which we cannot altogether pass over in silence. He is of opinion (l.c. p. 289, seq.) that it lay on the Capitoline hill, just above the temple of Concord, which he thinks was built up in front of it; and this he takes to be the reason why the curia was rebuilt on the forum by Sulla. His only authority for this view is the following passage in Livy: “(Censores) et clivum Capitolinum silice sternendum curaverunt et porticum ab aede Saturni in Capitolium ad Senaculum ac super id Curiam” (41.27). From these words, which are not very intelligible, Mommsen infers (p. 292) that a portico reached from the temple of Saturn to the senaculum, and thence to the curia above it, which stood on the Capitol on the spot afterwards occupied by the Tabularium (p. 292). But so many evident absurdities follow from this view, that Mommsen, had he given the subject adequate consideration, could hardly, we think, have adopted it. Had the curia stood behind the temple of Concord, the ground plan of which is still partly visible near the arch of Severus, it is quite impossible that, according to the account of Pliny, mid-day could have been observed from it between the rostra and Graecostasis, since it would have faced nearly to the east. Mommsen, indeed (p. 296), asserts the contrary, and makes the Career Mamertinus and arch of Titus lie almost due N. and S., as is also shown in his plan at the end of the volume. But the writer can affirm from his own observation that this is not the fact. To a person standing under the Capitol at the head of the forum, and opposite to the column of Phocas, the temple of Faustina bears due E. by the compass, and the arch of Titus a few degrees to the S. of E. To a person standing by the arch of Severus, about the assumed site of the curia, the arch of Titus would of course bear a little more S. still. Something must be allowed for variation of the [p. 2.780]compass, but these are trifles. The correct bearings are given in Canina's large plan and in Becker's map, and are wholly at variance with those laid down by Mommsen. Again, it is not to be imagined that Opimius would have built up his temple of Concord immediately in front of the ancient curia, thus screening it entirely from the view of the forum and comitium; a state in which it must have remained for nearly half a century, according to the hypothesis of Mommsen. Another decisive refutation of Mommsen's view is that the Basilica Porcia, as we shall see further on, was situated on the forum close by the curia, whilst according to Mommsen the two buildings were separated by a considerable interval. We hold it, therefore, to be quite impossible that the curia could have stood where Mommsen places it; but at the same time we confess our inability to give a satisfactory explanation of the passage in Livy. A word, or several words, seem to have dropped out, as is the case frequently in the very same sentence, where the gaps are marked in the editions with asterisks. Such a corrupt sentence, therefore, does not suffice as authority for so important a change, in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary.

We shall only further observe that the preceding passages of Varro and Pliny thus appear, when rightly interpreted, mutually to support and explain one another, and show the Graecostasis to have stood to the W. of the curia, first from its proximity to the senaculum and temple of Concord, and secondly, from the mid-day line falling between it and the rostra. That the curia was considerably raised appears from the circumstance that Tarquin the Proud nearly caused the death of Servius Tullius by hurling him down the steps in front of it, which led to the comitium. (Dionys. A. R. 4.38; Liv. 1.48.) It was an inaugurated temple in order that the senate might, hold their meetings in it, but not a sacred one. (Liv. 1.30; Varr. l.c.) of Tullus the forum was adorned with the trophy called PILA HORATIANA, consisting of the spoils won from the Curiatii; but where it stood cannot be determined. (Dionys. A. R. 3.22; Liv. 1.26.)

The SENACULUM referred to in the preceding account appears to have been a raised and open area, adjoining the Graecostasis and curia, on which the senators were accustomed to assemble before they entered the curia in order to deliberate. Thus Varro: “Senaculum vocatum ubi senatus aut ubi seniores consisterent: dictum ut Gerusia apud Graecos” (5.156, Müll). Valerius Maximus gives a still more explicit account: “Senatus assiduam stationem eo loci peragebat qui hodieque Senaculum appellatur: nec exspectabat ut edicto contraheretur, sed inde citatus protinus in Curiam veniebat” (2.2.6). Festus mentions that there were three Senacula in all; namely, besides the one alluded to, another near the Porta Capena, and a third by the temple of Bellona, in the Campus Martius. But as his account is in some respects contradictory of the two preceding authorities, we shall here insert it: “Senacula tria fuisse Romae, in quibus senatus haberi solitus sit, memoriae prodidit Nicostratus in libro qui inscribitur de senatu habendo: unum, ubi nune est aedis Concordiae inter Capitolium et Forum; in quo solebant magistratus D. T. cum Senioribus deliberare; alterum ad portam Capenam; tertium, citra aedem Bellonae, in quo exterarum nationum legatis, quos in urbem admittere nolebant, senatus dabatur” (p. 347, Müll.). Here the senaculum is represented, not as a place in which the senate assembled previously to deliberation, but as one in which it actually deliberated. It is impossible, however, that this could have been so. For in that case what would have been the use of the curia? in which the senate is constantly represented as assembling, except in cases where they held their sittings in some other temple. Besides we have no accounts of the senaculum being an inaugurated place, without which it would have been unlawful for the senate to deliberate in it. Nicostratus therefore, who, from his name, seems to have been a Greek, probably confounded the senacula with the curia, and other temples in which the senate assembled; and at all events his account cannot be set against the more probable one of Varro and Valerius Maximus. There is, however, one part in the account of Festus, which seems to set the matter in a different point of view. The words, “in quo solebant magistratus D.T. cum senioribus deliberare,” seem to point to the senaculum not as a place where the senators deliberated among themselves, but where they conferred with the magistrates; such magistrates we may suppose as were not entitled to enter the curia. Such were the tribunes of the people, who, during the deliberations of the senate, took their seats before the closed doors of the curia; yet as they had to examine and sign the decrees of the Fathers before they became laws, we may easily imagine that it was sometimes necessary for the tribunes and senators to confer together, and these conferences may have taken place at the senaculum ( “Tribunis plebis intrare curiam non licebat: ante valvas autem positis subselliis, decreta patrum attentissima cura examinabant; ut, si qua ex eis improbassent, rata esse non sinerent. Itaque veteribus senatus consultis T. litera subscribi solebat: eaque nota significabatur, ita tribunes quoque censuisse,” V. Max. 2.2.7.) In the reign In this manner the senacula would have answered two purposes; as places in which the senators met previously to assembling in the curia, and as a sort of neutral ground for conferences with the plebeian magistrates.

With regard to the precise situation of the senaculum belonging to the Curia Hostilia, we can hardly assume, with Mommsen, that it occupied the spot on which the temple of Concord was afterwards actually built; nor do the words of Varro and Festus,--“Senaculum ubi aedis Concordiae” --seem to require so very rigorous an interpretation. It is sufficient if it adjoined the temple; though it is not improbable that the latter may have encroached upon some part of its area. After the temple was erected there still appears to have been a large open space in front of it, part of the ancient senaculum, but which now seems to have obtained the name of “Area Concordiae.” Its identity with the senaculum appears from its adjoining the Vulcanal, like the latter: “In area Vulcani et Concordiae sanguinem pluit.” (Liv. 40.19.) “In area Vulcani per biduum, in area Concordiae totidem diebus sanguinem pluit.” (Jul. Obseq. 59.) The temple of Concord became a very usual place for assemblies of the senate, as appears from many passages in ancient authors. (Cic. Phil. 2.7; Lampr. Alex. 6, &c.) From the area a flight of steps led up to the vestibule of the temple: “(Equites Romani) qui frequentissimi in gradibus Concordiae steterunt.” (Cic. Phil. 8.8) According to Macrobius the temple of Saturn also had a senaculum [p. 2.781]( “Habet aram et ante senatulum,” 1.8). This must have been near the senaculum of the Curia Hostilia, but could hardly have been the same. If Macrobius is right, then Festus is wrong in limiting the senacula to three; and it does not seem improbable that the areae near temples, where the senate was accustomed to meet, may have been called senacula.

To Ancus Marcius we can only ascribe the CARCER MAMERTINUS, or prison described by Livy as overhanging the forum ( “media urbe, imminens foro,” 1.33). It is still to be seen near the arch of Severus, under the church of S. Giuseppe dei, Falegnami.

We have before remarked that a new architectural era began at Rome with the reign of Tarquinius Priscus; and if he had not been interrupted by wars, he would doubtless have carried out many of those grand schemes which he was destined only to project. He may almost be called the founder of the forum, since it was he who first surrounded it with private houses and shops. According to Varro (ap. Macrob. § 1.8), he also founded the TEMPLE OF SATURN on the forum at the spot where the altar stood; though, according to another account, it was begun by Tullus Hostilius. At all events, it does not seem to have been dedicated before the expulsion of the kings (Macrob. . c.), and according to Livy (2.21), in the consulship of Sempronius and Minucius, B.C. 497. According to Becker (Handb. p. 312) the ruin of the three columns under the Capitol are remains of it, and this, he asserts, is a most decided certainty, which can be denied only by persons who prefer their own opinion to historical sources, or wilfully shut their eyes. It appears to us, however, judging from these very historical sources, that there is a great deal more authority for the Italian view than for Becker's; according to which the temple of Saturn is the ruin of the eight columns, at the foot of the clivus. All the writers who speak of it mention it as being at the lower part of the hill, and beneath the clivus, while the three columns are a good way up, and above the clivus. Thus Servius (Aen. 2.115, 8.319) says that the temple of Saturn was “ante clivum Capitolini;” and in the Origo gentis Romanae (100.3) it is said to be “sub clivo Capitolino.” In like manner Varro (L. L. 5.42, Müll.) places it in faucibus (montis Saturni); “and Dionysius, π<*>ρὰ τῇ ῥίζῃ τοῦ λόφου, κατὰ τὴν ἄνοδον τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγορᾶς φέρουσαν εἰς τὸ Καπιτώλιον (1.34). Festus (p. 322, Müll.) describes the ara as having been” in imo clivo Capitolino. “Moreover, the miliarium aureum, which stood at the top of the forum (Plin. Nat. 3.9) was under the temple of Saturn:” ad miliarium aureum, sub aedem Saturni “(Tac. H. 1.27);” sub aedem Saturni, ad miliarium aureum “(Suet. Otho. 100.6.) Further, the Monumentum Ancyranum mentions the Basilica Julia as” inter aedem Castoris et aedem Saturni. “Now what has Becker got to oppose to this overwhelming mass of the very best evidence? His objections are, first, that Servius (Aen. 2.116) mentions the temple of Saturn as being” juxta Concordiae templum; “and though the eight columns are near the temple of Concord, yet they cannot, without awkwardness, be called juxta! Secondly, the Notitia, proceeding from the Career Mamertinus, names the temples in the following order: Templum Concordiae et Saturni et Vespasiani et Titi. Now, as the three columns are next to the temple of Concord, it follows that they belong to the temple of Saturn. The whole force of the proof here adduced rests on the assumption that the Notitia mentions these buildings precisely in the order in which they actually occurred. But it is notorious that the authority of the Notitia in this respect cannot be at all depended on, and that objects are named in it in the most preposterous manner. We need no other witness to this fact than Becker himself, who says of this work,” Propterea cavendum est diligenter, ne, quoties plura simul templa nominantur, eodem ea ordine juncta fuisse arbitremur. “(De Muris, &c., p. 12, note.) But thirdly, Becker proceeds:” This argument obtains greater certainty from the inscriptions collected by the Anonymous of Einsiedlen. Fortunately, the entire inscriptions of all the three temples are preserved, which may be still partly read on the ruins. They run as follows:

Senatus populusque Romanus incendio consumptum restituit Divo Vespasiano Augusto.
S. P. Q. R. impp. Caess. Severus et Antoninus pii felic Aug. restituerunt.
S.P.Q.R. aedem Concordiae vetustate collapsam in meliorem faciem opere et cultu splendidiore restituerunt.
Now as the whole of the first inscription, with the exception of the last three words, “Divo Vespasiano Augusto,” are still to be read over the eight columns, and the letters ESTITVER, a fragment of “restituerunt” in the second inscription,


[p. 2.782]

over the three columns, Becker regards the order of the Notitia as fully confirmed, and the three temples to be respectively those of Concord, Vespasian and Titus, and Saturn.

With regard to these inscriptions all are agreed that the third, as here divided, belongs to the temple of Concord; but with regard to the proper division of the first two, there is great difference of opinion. Bunsen and Becker divide them as above, but Canina (Foro Rom. p. 179) contends that the first finishes at the word “restituit,” and that the words from “Divo Vespasiano” down to “restituerunt” form the second inscription, belonging to the temple of Vespasian and Titus. In the original codex containing the inscriptions, which is in the library of Einsiedlen, they are written consecutively, without any mark where one begins and another ends; so that the divisions in subsequent copies are merely arbitrary and without any authority. Now it may be observed that the first inscription, as divided by Canina, may still be read on the architrave of the eight columns, which it exactly fills, leaving no space for any more words. Becker attempts to evade this difficulty by the following assertion: “There is no room,” he says (Handb. p. 357), “for the dedication ‘ Divo Vespasiano,’ on the front of the temple; and although it is unusual for one half of an inscription to be placed on the back, yet on this occasion the situation of the temple excuses it!” We are of opinion, then, that the whole of the words after “restituit” down to the beginning of the inscription on the temple of Concord, belong to the temple of Vespasian, or that of which three columns still remain. Another proof that the words “Divo Vespasiano Augusto” could never have existed over the temple with the eight columns is that Poggio (de Variet. Fort. p. 12), in whose time the building was almost entire, took it to be the temple of Concord, which he could not have done had the dedication to Vespasian belonged to it. (Bunbury, in Class. Mus. iv. p. 27, note.) Thus two out of Becker's three arguments break down, and all that he has to adduce against the mass of evidence, from the best classical authorities, on the other side, is a stiff and pedantic interpretation of the preposition juxta in such a writer as Servius! Thus it is Becker himself who is amenable to his own charge of shutting his eyes against historical evidence. His attempt to separate the altar from the temple (Handb. p.313), at least in locality, is equally unfortunate.


The remains of the temple of Saturn, or the portico with the eight columns at the head of the forum, are in a rude and barbarous style of art, some of the columns being larger in diameter than others. Hence Canina infers that the restoration was a very late one, and probably subsequent to the removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople. From the most ancient times the temple of Saturn served as an aerasium, or state treasury, where the public money, the military ensigns, and important documents were preserved (Liv. 3.69; Plut. Q. R. 42; Macrob. 1.8; Solin. 1.12, &c.). On account of its Grecian origin sacrifices were performed at the altar of Saturn after the Greek rite, that is, capite aperto, instead of capite velato as among the Romans (Macrob. l.c.).

Adjoining the temple of Saturn was a small cella or AEDES OF OPS, which served as a bank for the public money. The Fasti Amiternini and Capranicorum mention it as being “ad Forum,” and “in Vico Jugario,” which determines its position here (Calend. Amit. Dec.; Cal. Capran. Aug.). It is several times alluded to by Cicero: “Pecunia utinam ad Opis maneret” (Phil. 1.7, cf. 2.14). Before the temple stood a statue of Silvanus and a sacred fig-tree, which it was necessary to remove in B.C. 493, as its roots began to upset the statue (Plin. Nat. 15.20). Behind the temple, in a small lane or Angiportus, and about midway up the ascent of the clivus, was the PORTA STERCORARIA, leading to a place where the ordure from the temple of Vesta was deposited on the 15th of June every year. (Varr. L. L. 6.32, Müll.; Festus, p. 344.) This custom seems to have been connected with the epithet of Stercutus applied to Saturn by the Romans, as the inventor of applying manure to the fields (Macr. 1.7.) Close to the Ara Saturni there was a SACELLUM DITIS, in which wax masks were suspended during the Saturnalia. (Ib. 11.)

But the most important alteration made by Tarquinius Priscus with regard to the forum was the causing of porticoes and shops to be erected around it (Liv. 1.35; Dionys. A. R. 3.67). This gave the forum a fixed and unalterable shape. We may wonder at the smallness of its area when we reflect that this was the great centre of politics and business for the mistress of the world. But we must recollect that its bounds were thus fixed when she herself was not yet secure against the attempts of surrounding nations. As her power and population gradually increased various means were adopted for procuring more accommodation--first, by the erection of spacious basilicae, and at last, in the imperial times, by the construction of several new fora. But at first, the structures that arose upon the forum were rather of a useful than ornamental kind; and the tabernae of Tarquin consisted of butchers' shops, schools, and other places of a like description, as we learn from the story of Virginia. These TABERNAE were distinguished by the names of Veteres and Novae, whence it seems probable that only the former were erected in the time of Tarquin. The two sides of the forum, lengthways, derived their names from them, one being called sub Veteribus, the other sub Novis. A passage in Cicero, where he compares these tabernae with the old and new Academy, enables us to determine their respective sites: “Ut ii, qui sub Novis solem non ferunt, item ille cum aestuaret, veterum, ut Maenianorum, sic Academicorum umbram secutus est” (Acad. 4.22). Hence it appears that the Novae, being exposed to the sun, must have been on the northern side of the forum, [p. 2.783]and the Veteres of course on the south side. This relative situation is also established by the accounts which we have of basilicae being built either on or near their sites, as will appear in the sequel. Their arrangement cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, but of course they could not have stood before the curia and comitium. In process of time the forum began to put on a better appearance by the conversion of the butchers' shops into those of silversmiths ( “Hoc intervallo primum forensis dignitas crevit, atque ex tabernis lanienis argentariae factae,” Varro in Non. p. 532, M.). No clue, however, is given to the exact date of this change. The earliest period at which we read of the argentariae is in Livy's description of the triumph of Papirius Cursor, B.C. 308 (9.40). When the comitia were declared it seems to have been customary for the argentarii to close their shops. (Varr. L. L. 6.91, Müll.) The tabernae were provided with Maeniana or balconies, which extended beyond the columns supporting the porticoes, and thus formed convenient places for beholding the games on the forum (Festus, p. 134, Müll.; Isid. Orig. 15.3, 11.) These Maeniana appear to have been painted with subjects. Thus Cicero: “Demonstravi digito pictum Gallum in Mariano scuto Cimbrico sub Novis” (de. Or. 2.66). Pliny mentions another picture, or rather caricature, of a Gaul sub Veteribus, and also a figure of an old shepherd with a stick. The latter appears to have been considered by the Romans as a valuable work, as some of them asked a German ambassador what he valued it at? But the barbarian, who had no taste for art, said he would not have it as a gift, even if the man was real and alive (35.8). According to Varro, quoted by the same author (Ib. 37), the Maeniana sub Veteribus were painted by Serapion.

Another service which Tarquin indirectly rendered to the forum was by the construction of his cloacae, which had the effect of thoroughly draining it. It was now that the LACUS CURTIUS, which had formerly existed in the middle of the forum, disappeared ( “Curtium in locum palustrem, qui turn fuit in foro, antequam cloacae sunt factae, secessisse,” Piso ap. Varr. L. L. 5.149, seq. Müll.) This, though not so romantic a story as the self-immolation of Curtius, is doubtless the true representation; but all the three legends connected with the subject will be found in Varro (l.c.) It was perhaps in commemoration of the drainage that the shrine or sacellum of VENUS CLUACINA was erected on the N. side of the forum, near the Tabernae Novae, as appears from the story of Virginius snatching the butcher's knife from a


shop close to it. (Liv. 3.48; cf. Plin. Nat. 15.36.) The site of the Lacus Curtius after its disappearance was commemorated in another manner. Having been struck with lightning, it seems to have been converted into a dry puteal, which, however, still continued to bear the name of Lacus Curtius (cf. Varr.v § 150): “Curtius ille lacus, siccas qui sustinet aras,
Nunc solida est tellus, sed lacus ante fuit.

Ov. Fast. 6.397.)

Every year the people used to throw pieces of money into it, a sort of augurium salutis, or new year's gift for Augustus. (Suet. Aug. 57.) Close to it grew a fig-tree, a vine, and an olive, which had been fortuitously planted, and were sedulously cultivated by the people; and near them was an altar, dedicated to Vulcan, which was removed at the time of the gladiatorial games given at Caesar's funeral. (Plin. Nat. 15.20; cf. Gruter, Inscr. 61.1, 2.)

Servius Tullius probably carried on and completed the works begun by his predecessor around the forum, just as he finished the wall; but he does not appear to have undertaken anything original excepting the adding of a lower dungeon, called after him TULLIANUM, to the Mamertine prison. ( “In hoc (carcere) pars quae sub terra Tullianum, ideo quod additum a Tullio rege,” Varr. L. L. 5.151.) This remains to the present day, and still realises to the spectator the terrible description of Sallust (Sal. Cat. 55).

The Roman Ciceroni point out to the traveller the SCALAE GEMONIAE inside the Mamertine prison, where there are evident remains of an ancient staircase. But it appears from descriptions in ancient authors that they were situated in a path leading down from the Capitol towards the prison, and that they were visible from the forum. (D. C. 58.5; Valer. Max. 6.9.13; Tac. Hist. 3.74.) Traces of this path were discovered in the 16th century (Luc. Fauno, Ant. di Roma, p. 32), and also not many years ago in excavating the ground by the arch of Severus.

It does not appear that any additions or improvements were made in the forum during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus.

The Forum during the Republic.--One of the earliest buildings erected near the forum in the republican times was the temple of CASTOR AND POLLUX. After the battle at lake Regillus, the Dioscuri, who had assisted the Romans in the fight, were seen refreshing themselves and their horses, all covered with dust and sweat, at the little fountain of Juturna, near the temple of Vesta. (Dionys. A. R. 6.13; V. Max. 1.8.1; Cic. N. D. 2.2, &c.) A temple had been vowed to those deities during the Latin War by Postumius the dictator; and the spot where this apparition had been observed was chosen for its site. It was dedicated by the son of Postumius B.C. 484. (Liv. 2.42.) It was not a temple of the largest size; but its conspicuous situation on the forum made it one of the best known in Rome. From the same circumstance the flight of steps leading up to it served as a kind of suggestum or rostra from which to address the people in the forum; a purpose to which it seems to have been sometimes applied by Caesar. (D. C. 38.6; cf. Cic. p. Sest. 15; Appian, App. BC 3.41.) The temple served for assemblies of the senate, and for judicial business. Its importance is thus described by Cicero: “In aede Castoris, celeberrimo clarissimoque monumento, quod templum in oculis quotidianoque conspectu populi Romani est positum; quo saepenumero senatus convocatur; quo maximarum rerum frequentissimae quotidie advocationes fiunt” (in Verr. 1.49). Though dedicated to the twin gods, the temple was commonly called only Aedes Castoris, as in the preceding passage; whence Bibulus, the colleague of Caesar in the aedileship, took occasion to compare himself to Pollux, who, though he shared the temple in common with his brother, was never once named. (Suet. Cases. 10.) It was restored by [p. 2.784]Metellus Dalmaticus (Cic. Scaur. 46, et ibi Ascon), and afterwards rebuilt by Tiberius, and dedicated in his and Drusus's name, A.D. 6. (Suet. Tib. 20; D. C. 55.27.) Caligula connected it with his palace by breaking through the back wall, and took a foolish pleasure in exhibiting himself to be adored between the statues of the twin deities. (Suet. Cal. 22; D. C. 59.28.) It was restored to its former state by Claudius (Id. 60.6). We learn from Dionysius that the Roman knights, to the number sometimes of 5000, in commemoration of the legend respecting the foundation of the temple, made an annual procession to it from the temple of Mars, outside of the Porta Capena. On this occasion, dressed in their state attire and crowned with olive, they traversed the city and proceeded over the forum to the temple (6.13). Its neighbourhood was somewhat contaminated by the offices of certain persons who trafficked in slaves of bad character, who might be found there in shoals. ( “Num moleste feram si mihi non reddiderit nomen aliquis ex his, qui ad Castoris negotiantur, nequam mancipia ementes vendentesque, quorum tabernae pessimorum servorum turba refertae sunt,” Senec. de Sapient. 13; cf. Plaut. Curc. 4.1. 20.) The three elegant columns near the forum, under the Palatine, are most probably remains of this temple. We have seen in the preceding account that it stood close to the forum, as well as to the temple of Vesta, a position which precisely agrees with that of the three columns. None of the other various appropriations of this ruin will bear examination. Poggio (de Var. Fort. p. 22) absurdly considered these columns to be remains of Caligula's bridge. By the earlier Italian topographers they were regarded as belonging to the temple of Jupiter Stator; but it has been seen that this must have stood a good deal higher up on the Velia. Nardini thought they were remains of the comitium, and was followed by Nibby (Foro Rom. p. 60) and Burgess (Antiq. of Rome, i. p. 366). We have shown that the comitium was not at this side of the forum. Canine takes them to have belonged to the Curia Julia (Foro Rom. parte i. p. 132), which, however, as will appear in its proper place, could not have stood here. Bunsen (Les Forum de Rome, p. 58) identifies them with a temple of Minerva, which, as he himself observes (p. 59), is a “dénomination entiérement nouvelle,” and indeed, though new, not true. It arises from his confounding the Chalcidicum mentioned in the Monumentum Ancyranum with the Atrium Minervae mentioned by the Notitia in the 8th Region. But we have already observed that the curia and Chalcidium, which adjoined it, would be quite misplaced here. The Curiosum, indeed, under the same Region, mentions besides the Atrium Minervae a Templum Castorum et Minervae, but this does not appear in the Notitia. Bunsen was more correct in his previous adoption of the opinion of Fea, that the columns belonged to the temple of Castor. (Bullettino dell Inst. 1835; cf. Bunbury in Class. Mus. iv. p. 19.)

The capture of the city by the Gauls, B.C. 390, which, as we have before said, inflicted so much injury that the Romans entertained serious thoughts of migrating to Veii, must of course have occasioned considerable damage in the vicinity of the forum. The Curia Hostilia, however, must have escaped, since Livy represents the senate as debating in it respecting this very matter (5.55). Such shops and private houses as had been destroyed were probably restored in the fashion in which they had previously existed. It was now that the little temple to AIUS LOQUENS, or LOUTIUS, to which we have before alluded, was erected on the Nova Via, not far from the temple of Vesta (Ib. 50). From this period the forum must have remained without any important alterations down to the time of M. Porcius Cato, when basilicae first began to be erected. During this interval all that was done was to adorn it with statues and other ornaments, but no building was erected upon it; for the small ex voto temple to Concord, which appears to have been made of bronze, erected on the Vulcanal by the aedile C. Flavius, B.C. 303 (Id. 9.46), can


hardly come under that denomination. It was probably also during this period that the GRAECOSTASIS, [p. 2.785]or elevated area, which served as a waiting-place for foreign ambassadors before they were admitted to an audience of the senate, was constructed on the Vulcanal close to the curia, as before described. The adornment of the suggestum or oratorical platform on the comitium with the beaks of the ships taken from the Antiates, forms, from the connection of this celebrated object with the history of republican Rome, and the change of name which it underwent on the occasion, a sort of epoch in the history of the forum. This occurred B.C. 337. (Plin. Nat. 34.11.) The ROSTRA at this time stood, as we have said, on the comitium before the curia--a position which they continued to occupy even after the time that new ones were erected by Julius Caesar. (D. C. 43.49 ; Ascon. ad Cic. Milon. 5.) The rostra were a templum, or place consecrated by auguries ( “Rostrisque earum (navium) suggestum in foro extructum, adornari placuit: Rostraque id templum appellatum,” Liv. 8.14; comp. Cic. in Vatin. 10) They are distinguished by Dio Cassius (56.34) from those erected by Caesar, by the epithet of Βῆμα δημηγορικόν, and by Suetonius by that of veteran. (Suet. Aug. 100.) It may be inferred from a passage in a letter of Fronto's to the emperor Antoninus, that the rostra were not raised to any very great height above the level of the comitium and forum ( “Nec tantulo superiore, quanto rostra foro et comitio excelsiora; sed altiores antemnae sunt prora vel potius carina,” lib. i. ep. 2). When speaking from the rostra it was usual in the more ancient times for the orator to turn towards the comitium and curia,--a custom first neglected by C. Licinius Crassus in the consulship of Q. Maximus Scipio and L. Mancinus, who turned towards the forum and addressed himself to the people (Cic. Am. 25); though, according to Plutarch (Gracch. 5), this innovation was introduced by C. Gracchus.

ROSTRA. (From a Coin.)

The erecting of columns in honour of military achievements came very early into use at Rome, and seems to have preceded the triumphal arch. The first monument of this sort appears to have been the column on the forum called the COLUMNA MAENIA, commemorative of the victory gained by C. Maenius over the Latins, B.C. 338. (Liv. 8.13.) Livy, indeed, in the passage cited says that the monument was an equestrian statue; whilst Pliny on the other hand (34.11) states that it was a column, which is also mentioned by Cicero. (Sest. 58.) Niebuhr would reconcile both accounts, by assuming that the statue was on a column. (Hist. vol. iii. p. 145.) Pliny in another place (7.60) says that the column afforded the means of determining the last hour of the day ( “A columna Maenia ad carcerem inclinato sidere supremam pronuntiabat (accensus)” ); but it is very difficult to see how a column standing on the forum could have thrown a shadow towards the career in the evening.

Another celebrated monument of the same kind was the Duilian column, also called COLUMNA ROSTRATA, from its having the beaks of ships sculptured upon it. It was erected in honour of C. Duilius, who gained a great naval victory over the Carthaginians, B.C. 260. According to Servius (Georg. 3.5.29) there were two of these columns, one on or near the rostra, the other in front of the circus. Pliny, indeed (34.11), and Quintilian (Inst. 1.7) speak of it as “in foro;” but forum is a generic name, including the comitium as a part, and therefore, as used by these authors, does not invalidate the more precise designation of Servius. The basis of this column was found at no great distance from the arch of Severus (Ciacconio, Columnae Rostratae Inscrip, Explicatio, p. 3, ap. Canina, Foro Rom. p. 301, note), a fact which confirms the position which we have assigned to the comitium and curia. The inscription in a fragmentary state is still preserved in the Palazzo de' Conservatori.


On the forum in front of the rostra stood the statue of MARSYAS with uplifted hand, the emblem of civic liberty. (Serv. ad Aen. 4.58 ; cf. Macr. 3.12.) Here was the great resort of the causidici, and also of the Roman courtesans. Hence Martial (2.64. 8):--“Ipse potest fieri Marsya causidicus.”

Horace (Sat. 1.6. 120) has converted the pointed finger of the Satyr into a sign of scorn and derision against an obnoxious individual:-- “----obeundus Marsya, qui se
Vultum ferre negat Noviorum posse minoris.

It was here that Julia, the daughter of Augustus, held her infamous orgies, in company with the [p. 2.786]vilest of the Roman prostitutes. (Senec. Ben. 6.32; Plin. Nat. 21.6.) The account given by Servius of this statue has been the subject of much discussion, into which the limits of this article will not permit us to enter. The whole question has been exhausted by Creuzer. (Stud. ii. p. 282, seq.; cf. Savigny, Gesch. des Röm. Rechts, 1.52.)

Near the rostra were also the statues of the THREE SIBYLS (Plin. Nat. 34.11), which are apparently the same as the three Μοῖραι or Fates, mentioned by Procopius. (B. Goth. 1.25.) These also were at the head of the forum, towards the temple of Janus, a position which points to the same result as the Duilian column with respect to the situation of the comitium.

Livy's description of a great fire which broke out about the forum B.C. 211 affords some topographical particulars: “Interrupit hos sermones nocte, quae pridie Quinquatrus fuit, pluribus simul locis circa forum incendium ortum. Eodem tempore septem Tabernae, quae postea quinque, et argentariae, quae nunc Novae appellantur, arsere. Comprehensa postea privata aedificia, neque enim tum basilicae erant: comprehensae Lautumiae, forumque piscatorium, et atrium regium. Aedis Vestae vix defensa est” (26.27). As the fire, wilfully occasioned, broke out in several places, and as the Curia Hostilia does not seem to have been endangered, we may perhaps conclude that the Septem Tabernae here mentioned were on the S. side of the forum. The argentariae afterwards called Novae were undoubtedly on the N. side, and, for the reason just given, they perhaps lay to the E. of the curia, as the fire seems to have spread to the eastward. It was on the N. side that the greatest damage was done, as the fire here spread to the Lautumiae and Forum Piscatorium. The Septem Tabernae appear to have been the property of the state, as they were rebuilt by the censors at the public expense, together with the fish-market and Atrium Regium ( “Locaverunt inde reficienda quae circa forum incendio consumpta erant, septem tabernas, macellum, atrium regium,” Id 27.11). This passage would seem to show that the reading quinque (tabernae) in that previously cited is corrupt. Muretus has observed that one codex has “quae postea vet.,” which in others was contracted into v., and thus taken for a numeral. (Becker, Handb. p. 297, notes). Hence we may infer that the Veteres Tabernae on the S. side of the forum were seven in number, and from the word postea applied to them, whilst nunc is used of the Novae, it might perhaps be inferred that the distinctive appellation of Veteres did not come into use till after this accident.

It also appears from this passage, that there were no basilicas at Rome at this period. It was not long afterwards, however, namely B.C. 184, that the first of these buildings was founded by M. Porcius Cato in his censorship, and called after him BASILICA PORCIA. In order to procure the requisite ground, Cato purchased the houses of Maenius and Titius in the Lautumiae, and four tabernae. (Liv. 39.44.) Hence we may infer that the Lautumiae lay close at the back of the forum; which also appears from the circumstance that Maenius, when he sold his house, reserved for himself one of its columns, with a balcony on the top, in order that he and his posterity might be able to view from it the gladiatorial shows on the forum. (Ps. Ascon. ad Cic. Div. in Caecil. 16; cf. Schol. ad Hor. Sat. 1.3. 21.) This column must not be confounded with the monument called the Columna Maenia, which stood on the forum. The Basilica Porcia must have stood close to the curia, since it was destroyed by the same fire which consumed the latter, when the body of Clodius was burnt in it (Ascon. ad Cic. pro Mil. Arg. p. 34, Orell.); but it must have been on the eastern side, as objects already described filled the space between the curia and the Capitoline hill. The FORUM PISCATORIUM stood close behind it, since Plautus describes the unsavoury odours from that market as driving away the frequenters of the basilica into the forum:--

Tum piscatores, qui praebent populo pisces foetidos
Qui advehuntur quadrupedanti crucianti canterio
Quorum odos subbasilicanos omnes abigit in forum.

In the time of Cicero, the tribunes of the people held their assemblies in the Basilica Porcia. (Plut. Cato Min. 5.) After its destruction by fire at the funeral of Clodius it does not appear to have been rebuilt; at all events we do not find any further mention of it.

The state of the forum at this period is described in a remarkable passage of Plautus ; in which, as becomes a dramatist, he indicates the different localities by the characters of the men who frequented them

Qui perjurum convenire volt hominem mitto in comitium;
Qui mendacem et gloriosum, apud Cloacinae sacrum
Ditis damnosos maritos sub basilica quaerito;
Ibidem erunt scorta exoleta, quique stipulari solent;
Symbolarum collatores apud Forum Piscarium ;
In foro infimo boni homines atque dites ambulant;
In medio propter canalem, ibi ostentatores meri;
Confidentes garrulique et malevoli supra lacum,
Qui alteri de nihilo audacter dicunt contumeliam
Et qui ipsi sat habent, quod in se possit vere dicier.
Sub Veteribus ibi sunt, qui dant quique accipiunt foenere;
Pone aedem Castoris ibi sunt, subito quibus credas male,
In Tusco Vice ibi sunt homines, qui ipsi sese venditant.
In Velabro vel pistorem, vel lanium, vel aruspicem,
Vel qui ipsi vortant, vel qui allis ut vorsentur praebeant.
[Ditis damnosus maritos apud Leucadiam Oppiam].

This is such a picture as Greene might have drawn of Paul's, or Ben Jonson of Moor Fields. The good men walking quietly by themselves in the obscurest part of the forum, whilst the flash gentlemen without a denarius in their purses, are strutting conspicuously in the middle; the gourmands gathering round the fishmarket and clubbing for a dinner; the gentlemen near the Lacus Curtius, a regular set of scandal-mongers, so ready to speak ill of others, and so wholly unconscious that they live in glass-houses themselves ; the perjured witness prowling about the comitium, like the man in West-minster Hall in former days with a straw in his shoe; the tradesman in the Vicus Tuscus, whose spirit of trading is so in-bred that he would sell his very self ; all these sketches from life present a picture of manners in “the good old times” of the Roman Republic, when Cato himself was censor, which shows that human nature is very much the same thing in all ages and countries. In a topographical point of view there is little here but [p. 2.787]what confirms what has been already said respecting the forum and its environs; except that the usurers sub Veteribus show that the bankers' shops were not confined to the N. side of the forum. What the canalis was in the middle of the forum is not clear, but it was perhaps a drain. The passage is, in some places, probably corrupt, as appears from the two obscure lines respecting the mariti Ditis, the second of which is inexplicable, though they probably contain some allusion to the Sacellum Ditis which we have mentioned as adjoining the temple of Saturn. Mommsen, however (l.c. p. 297), would read “dites damnosos marito,” &c., taking these “dites” to be the rich usurers who resorted to the basilica and lent young men money for the purpose of corrupting city wives. But what has tended to throw doubts upon the whole passage is the mention of the basilica, since, according to the testimony of Cicero (Cic. Brut. 15), Plautus died in the very year of Cato's censorship. Yet the basilica is also alluded to in another passage of Plautus before quoted; so that we can hardly imagine but that it must have existed in his lifetime. If we could place the basilica in Cato's aedileship instead of his censorship, every difficulty would vanish; but for such a view we can produce no authority.

Mommsen (Ib. p. 301), has made an ingenious, and not improbable attempt to show, that Plautus, as becomes a good poet, has mentioned all these objects on the forum in the order in which they actually existed; whence he draws a confirmation of the view respecting the situation of the comitium. That part of the forum is mentioned first as being the most excellent. Then follows on the left the Sacrum Cluacinae, the Basilica Porcia, and Forum Piscatorium, and the Forum Infimum. Returning by the middle he names the canalis, and proceeds down the forum again on the right, or southern side. In the “malevoli supra lacum” the Lacus Servilius is alluded to at the top of the Vicus Jugarius. Then we have the Veteres Tabernae, the temple of Castor, the Vicus Tuscus, and Velabrum.

The Basilica Porcia was soon followed by others. The next in the order of time was the BASILICA FULVIA, founded in the censorship of M. Aemilius Lepidus, and M. Fulvius Nobilior, B.C. 179. This was also “post Argentarias Novas” (Liv. 40.51), and must therefore have been very close to the Basilica Porcia. From the two censors it was sometimes called Basilica Aemilia et Fulvia. (Varr. L.L. 6.4, Müll.) All the subsequent embellishments and restorations appear, however, to have proceeded from the Gens Aemilia. M. Aemilius Lepidus, consul with Q. Lutatius in B.C. 78, adorned it with bronze shields bearing the effigies of his ancestors. (Plin. Nat. 35.4.) It appears to have been entirely rebuilt by L. Aemilius Paullus, when aedile, B.C. 53. This seems to have been the restoration alluded to by Cicero (Cic. Att. 4.16), from which passage--if the punctuation and text are correct, for it is almost a locus desperatus--it also appears that Paullus was at the same time constructing another new and magnificent basilica. Hence a difficulty arises respecting the situation of the latter, which we are unable to solve, since only one BASILICA PAULLI is mentioned by ancient authors; and Plutarch (Plut. Caes. 29) says expressly that Paullus expended the large sum of money which he had received from Caesar as a bribe in building on the forum, in place of the Basilica Fulvia, a new one which bore his own name, (Cf. Appian, App. BC 2.26.) It is certain at least that we must not assume with Becker (Handb. p. 303) that the latter was but a poor affair in comparison with the new one because it was built with the ancient columns. It is plain that in the words “nihil gratius illo monumento, nihil gloriosius,” Cicero is alluding to the restoration of the ancient basilica, since he goes on to mention it as one which used to be extolled by Atticus, which would not have been possible of a new building; and the employment of the ancient columns only added to its beauty. The building thus restored, however, was not destined to stand long. It seems to have been rebuilt less then twenty years afterwards by Paullus Aemilius Lepidus (D. C. 49.42); and in about another twenty years this second restoration was destroyed by a fire. It was again rebuilt in the name of the same Paullus, but at the expense of Augustus and other friends (Id. 54.24), and received further embellishments in. the reign of Tiberius, A.D. 22. (Tac. Ann. 3.72.) It was in this last phase that Pliny saw it when he admired its magnificence and its columns of Phrygian marble (36.24).


The third building of this kind was the BASILICA SEMPRONIA, erected by T. Sempronius Gracchus in his censorship, B.C. 169. For this purpose he purchased the house of Scipio Africanus, together with some adjoining butchers' shops, behind the Tabernae Veteres, and near the statue of Vertumnus, which, as we have said, stood near the forum at the end of the Vicus Tuscus. (Liv. 44.16.) This, therefore, was the first basilica erected on the S. side of the forum. We hear no further mention of it, and therefore it seems probable that it altogether disappeared, and that its site between the Vicus Tuscus and Vicus Jugarius was subsequently occupied in the imperial times by the Basilica Julia.

The LAUTUMIAE, of which we have had occasion to speak when treating of the Basilica Porcia, was not merely the name of a district near the forum, but also of a prison which appears to have been constructed during the Republican period. The Lautumiae are first mentioned after the Second Punic War, and it seems very probuble, as Varro says (L. L. 5.151, Müll.), that the name was derived from the prison at Syracuse; though we can hardly accept his second suggestion, that the etymology is to be traced at Ròme, as well as in the Sicilian city, to the circumstance that stone quarries formerly existed at the spot. The older topographers, down to the time of Bunsen, assumed that Lautumiae was only another appellation for the Carcer Mamertinus, a misconception perhaps occasioned by the abruptness with which Varro (l.c.) passes from his account of the Tullianum to that of the Lautumiae. We read of the latter as a place for the custody of hostages and prisoners of war in Livy (32.26, 37.3); a purpose to which neither the size nor the dungeon-like construction [p. 2.788]of the career would have adapted it. That the Lautumiae was of considerable size may also be inferred from the circumstance that when the consul Q. Metellus Celer was imprisoned there by the tribune L. Flavius, Metellus attempted to assemble the senate in it. (D. C. 37.50.) Its distinctness from the Carcer Mamertinus is also shown by Seneca (Controv. 27, p. 303, Bipont).

An important alteration in the arrangement of the forum, to which we have before alluded, was the removal of the TRIBUNAL PRAETORIS from the comitium to the eastern end of the forum by the tribune L. Scribonius Libo, apparently in B.C. 149. It now stood near the Puteal, a place so called from its being open at the top like a well, and consecrated in ancient times either from the whetstone of the augur Navius having been buried there, or from its having been struck by lightning. It was repaired and re-dedicated by Libo; whence it was afterwards called PUTEAL LIBONIS, and PUTEAL SCRIBONIANUM. After this period, its vicinity to the judgment-seat rendered it a noted object at Rome, and we find it frequently alluded to in the classics. (Hor. Ep. 1.19. 8, Sat. 2.6. 35; Cic. p.


Sest. 8, &c.) The tribunal of the praetor urbanus seems, however, to have remained on the comitium. Besides these we also find a TRIBUNAL AURELIUM mentioned on the forum, which seems to have stood near the temple of Castor (Cic. p. Sest. 15, in Pis. 5, p. Cluent. 34), and which, it is conjectured, was erected by the consul M. Aurelius Cotta B.C. 74. These tribunals were probably constructed of wood, and in such a manner that they might be removed on occasion, as for instance, when the whole area of the forum was required for gladiatorial shows or other purposes of the like kind; at least it appears that the tribunals were used for the purpose of making the fire in the curia when the body of Clodius was burnt in it. (Ascon. ad Cic. Mil. Arg. p. 34.)

In the year B.C. 121 the TEMPLE OF CONCORD was built by the consul L. Opimius on the Clivus Capitolinus just above the senaculum (Varr. L. L. 5.156, Müll.); but, as we have already had occasion to discuss the history of this temple when treating of the Capitol and of the senaculum, we need not revert to it here. At the same time, or a little afterwards, he also erected the BASILICA OPIMIA, which is mentioned by Varro in close connection with the temple of Concord, and must therefore have stood on its northern side, since on no other would there have been space for it. Of this basilica we hear but very little, and it seems not improbable that its name may have been afterwards changed to that of “Basilica Argentaria,” perhaps on account of the silversmiths' and bankers' shops having been removed thither from the tabernae on the forum. That a Basilica Argentaria, about the origin of which nobody can give any account, existed just at this spot is certain, since it is mentioned by the Notitia, in the 8th Regio, when proceeding from the forum of Trajan, as follows: “Cohortem sextam Vigilum, Basilicam Argentariam, Templum Concordiae, Umbilicum Romae,” &c. The present Salita di Marforio, which runs close to this spot, was called in the middle ages “Clivus Argentarius;” and a whole plot of buildings in this quarter, terminating, according to the Mirabilia (Montf. Diar. Ital. p. 293), with the temple of Vespasian, which, as we shall see in the sequel, stood next to the temple of Concord, bore the name of “Insula Argentaria” (Becker, Handb. p. 413, seq.).

In the same year the forum was adorned with the triumphal arch called FORNIX FABIUS or FABIANUS, erected by Q. Fabius Allobrogicus in commemoration of his triumph over the Allobroges. This was one of the earliest, though not precisely the first, of this species of monuments at Rome, it having been preceded by the three arches erected by L. Stertinius after his Spanish victories, of which two were situated in the Forum Boarium and one in the Circus Maximus. (Liv. 33.27.) We may here remark that fornix is the classical name for such arches; and that the term arcus, which, however, is used by Seneca of this very arch (Const. Sap. 1), did not come into general use till a late period. The situation of this arch is indicated by several passages in Roman authors. We have already cited one from Cicero (p. Planc. 7), and in another he says that Memmius, when coming down to the forum (that is, of course, down the Sacra Via), was accustomed to bow his head when passing through it ( “Ita sibi ipsum magnum videri Memmium, ut in forum descendens caput ad fornicem Fabii demitteret,” de Orat. 2.66). Its site is still more clearly marked by the Pseudo-Asconius (ad Cic. Verr. 1.7) as being close to the Regia, and by Porphyrio (ad Hor. Epist. 1.19. 8) as near the Puteal Libonis.

The few other works about the forum during the remainder of the Republican period were merely restorations or alterations. Sulla when dictator seems to have made some changes in the curia (Plin. Nat. 34.12), and in B.C. 51, after its destruction in the Clodian riots, it was rebuilt by his son Faustus. (D. C. 40.50.) Caesar, however, caused it to be pulled down in B.C. 45, under pretence of having vowed a temple to Felicitas, but in reality to efface the name of Sulla. (Id. 44.5.) The reconstruction of the Basilica Fulvia, or rather the superseding of it by the Basilica Paulli, has been already mentioned.

It now only remains to notice two other objects connected with the Republican Forum, the origin of which cannot be assigned to any definite period. These were the SCHOLA XANTHA and the JANI. The former, which lay back considerably behind the temple of Saturn and near the top of the Clivus Capitolinus, consisted of a row of arched chambers, of which three are still visible. They appear from inscriptions to have been the offices of the scribes, copyists, and praecones of the aediles,and seem to be alluded to by Cicero. (Philipp. 2.7, p. Sest. 12.) Another row was discovered in 1835, at the side of the temple of [p. 2.789]Vespasian and against the wall of the Tabularium, with a handsome though now ruined portico before them, from which there was an entrance into each separate chamber. From the fragments of the architrave an inscription could still be deciphered that it was dedicated to the twelve Dei Consentes. (Canina, Fore Rom. p. 207, Bullet. d. Inst. 1835.) This discovery tallies remarkably with the following passage in Varro: “Et quoniam (ut aiunt) Dei facientes adjuvant, prius invocabo eos; nec ut Homerus et Ennius, Musas, sed XII. deos consentis; neque tamen eos urbanos, quorum imagines ad forum auratae stant, sex mares et feminae totidem, sed illos XII. deos, qui maxime agricolarum duces sunt” (R. R. 1.1). We may, however, infer that the inscription was posterior to the time of Varro, probably after some restoration of the building; since in his De Lingua Latina (8.7]) he asks: “Item quaerunt, si sit analogia, cur appellant omnes aedes Deum Consentum et non Deorum Consentium?” whereas in the inscription in question we find it written “Consentium.” We may further remark that the former of these passages would sanction the including of the whole Clivus Capitolinus under the appellation of “forum.”

With respect to the Jani on the forum, it seems rather problematical whether there were three of them. There appear to have been two Jani before the Basilica Paulli, to which the money-lenders chiefly resorted. (Schol. ad Hor. Ep. 1.1. 54.) But when Horace (Sat. ii 3. 18) says-- “----postquam omnis res mea Janum
Ad medium fracta est,

he probably means, as we said before, the middle of the street, and not a Janus which lay between two others, as Becker thinks must necessarily follow from the use of the word medius. (Handb. p. 327, note.)

The Forum under the Empire.--The important alterations made by Julius Caesar in the disposition of the forum were the foundation of its subsequent appearance under the Empire. These changes were not mere caprices, but adaptations suited to the altered state of political society and to Caesar's own political views. But the dagger of the assassin terminated his life before they could be carried out, and most of them were left to be completed by his successor Augustus. One of the most important of these designs of Caesar's was the building of a new curia or senate-house, which was to bear his name. Such a building would be the badge of the senate's servitude and the symbol of his own despotic power. The former senate-house had been erected by one of the kings; the new one would be the gift of the first of the emperors. We have mentioned the destruction of the old curia by fire in the time of Sulla, and the rebuilding of it by his son Faustus; which structure Caesar caused to be pulled down under a pretence, never executed, of erecting on its site a temple of Felicitas.

The curia founded by Pompey near his theatre in the Campus Martius--the building in which Caesar was assassinated--seems to have been that commonly in use; and Ovid (Ov. Met. 15.801), in describing that event, calls it simply Curia:-- “----neque enim locus ullus in urbe
Ad facinus diramque placet, nisi Curia, caedem.

We may suppose that when Caesar attained to supreme power he was not well pleased to see the meetings of the senate held in a building dedicated by his great rival.

A new curia was voted a little before Caesar's death, but he did not live to found it; and the Monumentum Ancyranum shows that it was both begun and completed by Octavianus.

Respecting the site of the CURIA JULIA the most discordant opinions have prevailed. Yet if we accept the information of two writers who could not have been mistaken on such a subject, its position is not difficult to find. We learn from Pliny that it was erected on the comitium: “Idem (Augustus) in Curia quoque quam in Comitio consecrabat, duas tabulas impressit parieti” (35.10) ; and this site is confirmed by Dio Cassius: τὸ Βουλευτήριον τὸ Ἰούλιον, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κληθὲν παρὰ τῷ Κομιτίῳ ὠνομασμένῳ ὠκοδόμουν, ὥσπερ ἐψήφιστο (47.19). It is impossible to find any other spot for it on the comitium than that where the old curia stood. Besides the author last quoted expressly informs us that in consequence of some prodigies that occurred in the year before Caesar's murder it had been resolved to rebuild the Curia Hostilia (καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τό τε Βουλευτήριον τὸ Ὁστίλιον ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι ἐψηφίσθη, Ib. 45.17.) At the time when this decree was made Caesar was himself pontifex maximus; it would have been a flagrant Breach of religion to neglect a solemn vow of this description; and we cannot therefore accept Becker's assertion that this vow was never accomplished. (Handb. p. 331, note 608.) We cannot doubt that the curia erected by Augustus was in pursuance of this decree, for Caesar did not live even to begin it ( “Curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum--feci,” Mon. Ancyr); but though the senate-house was rebuilt, it was no longer named Hostilia, but, after its new founder, Julia. Now what has Becker got to oppose to all this weight of testimony? Solely a passage in Gellius,--which, however, he misapprehends,--in which it is said, on the authority of Varro, that the new curia had to be inaugurated, which would not have been the case had it stood on the ancient spot ( “Turn adscripsit (Varro) de locis in quibus senatus consultum fieri jure posset, docuitque confirmavitque, nisi in loco per augures constitute, quod templum appellaretur, senatusconsultum factum esset, justum id non fuisse. Propterea et in Curia Hostilia et in Pompeia. et post in Julia, cum profana ea loca fuissent, templa esse per augures constitute,” 14.7.7.) But Becker has here taken only a half view of these augural rites. As a temple could not be built without being first inaugurated, so neither could it be pulled down without being first exaugurated. This is evident from the accounts of the exauguration of the fanes in order to make room for the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. ( “Et, ut libera a caeteris religionibus area esset tota Jovis templique ejus, quod inaedificaretur, exaugurare fana sacellaque statuit, quae aliquot ibi a Tatio rege, consecreta inaugurataque postea fuerant,” Liv. 1.55, cf. 5.54; Dion. Halic. 3.69.) When Caesar, therefore, pulled down the curia of Faustus he first had it exaugurated, by which the site again became a locus profanus, and would of course require a fresh inauguration when a new temple was erected upon it. The curia in use in the time of Propertius (4.1. 11) must have been the Curia Julia; and the following lines seem to show that it had risen on the site of the ancient one:-- “Curia praetexto quae nune nitet alta Sonata
Pellitos habuit, rustica cords, Patres.
[p. 2.790]


B. Basilica Ulpia.

C. Forum Trajani.

D. Forum Augusti.

E. Forum Julium.

F. Forum Transitorium.

G. Templum Pacis.

H. Basilica Constantini.

I. Tabularium.

K. Templum Vespasiani et Titi.

L. Templum Concordiae.

M. Curia or Senatus.

N. Basilica Aemilia seu Paulli.

P. Templum Antonini et Faustinae.

Q. Aedes Divi Julli

R. Aedes Vestae.

S. Aedes Castoris.

T. Basilica Julia.

U. Graecostasis.

V. Templum Saturni.

a. Columna Trajani.

b. Equus Trajani.

c. Equus Caesaris.

d. Carcer Mamertinus.

e. Arcus Severi.

f. Templum Jani.

g. Aedes Penatium.

h. Columna Phocae.

i. Equus Domitiani.

k. Rostra Julia.

l. Fornix Fabii.

m. Schola Xantha.

n n. Clivus Capitolinus.

[p. 2.791]

A further confirmation that the new curia stood on the ancient spot is found in the fact that down to the latest period of the Empire that spot continued to be the site of the senate-house. The last time that mention is made of the Curia Julia is in the reign of Caligula (“Consensit (senatus) ut consules non in Curia, quia Julia vocabatur, sed in Capitolium convocarent,Suet. Cal. 60); and as we know that the curia was rebuilt by Domitian, the Julia must have been burnt down either in the fire of Nero, or more probably in that which occurred under Titus. It is not likely, as Becker supposes (Handb. p. 347), that Vespasian and Titus would have suffered an old and important building like the curia to lie in ashes whilst they were erecting their new amphitheatre and baths. The new structure of Domitian, called Senatus in the later Latin ( “Senatum dici et pro loco et pro hominibus,” Gel. 18.7, 5), is mentioned by several authorities (Hieronym. an. 92. i. p. 443, ed. Ronc.; Cassiod. Chron. ii. p. 197; Catal. Imp. Vienn. p. 243.) The place of this senatus is ascertained from its being close to the little temple of Janus Geminus, the index belli pacisque (ἔχει δὲ τὸν νεὼν (δ Ἰανὸς) ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ πρὸ τοῦ Βουλευτηρίου, Procop. B. G. 1.25); and hence from its proximity to Numa's sacellum it was sometimes called “Curia Pompiliana” (Vopisc. Avrel. 41, Tacit. 3.) The same situation is confirmed by other writers. Thus Dio Cassius mentions that Didius Julianus, when he first entered the curia as emperor, sacrificed to the Janus which stood before the doors (73.13). In the same manner we find it mentioned in the Notitia in the viiith Region. That it occupied the site of the ancient church of S. Martina, subsequently dedicated to and now known as S. Luca, close to the arch of Severus, appears from an inscription (Gruter, 170.5) which formerly existed in the Ambo, or hemicycle, of S. Martina, showing that this hemicycle, which was afterwards built into the church, originally formed the Secretarium Senatus (Urlichs, Röm. Top. p. 37, seq.; Preller, Regionen, p. 142.) The Janus temple seems to have been known in the middle ages under the appellation of templum fatale, by which it is mentioned in the Mirabilia Urbis. ( “Juxta eum templum fatale in S. Martina, juxta quod est templum refugii, i. e., S. Adrianus,” Ib.) In the same neighbourhood was a place called in the later ages “Ad Palmam,” which also connects the senatus with this spot, as being both near to that place and to the Arcus Severi. Thus Ammianus: “Deinde ingressus urbem Theodoricus, venit ad Senatum, et ad Palmam populo alloquutus,” &c. (Excerpt. de Odo. 66.) And in the Acta SS., Mai. vii. p. 12: “Ligaverunt ei manus a tergo et decollaverunt extra Capitolium et extrahentes jactaverunt eum juxta arcum triumphi ad Palmam.” (cf. Anastas. V. Sist. 100.45.) The appellation “ad Palmam” was derived from a statue of Claudius II. clothed in the tunica palmata, which stood here: “Illi totius orbis judicio in Rostris posita est columna cum palmata statua superfixa.” (Treb. Pollio, Claud. 100.2.)

We cannot doubt, therefore, that the curia or senatus built by Domitian was near the arch of Severus; which is indeed admitted by Becker himself (Handb. p. 355). But, from his having taken a wrong view of the situation of the comitium, he is compelled to maintain that this was altogether a new site for it; and hence his curia undergoes no fewer than three changes of situation, receiving a new one almost every time that it was rebuilt, namely, first, on the N. side of his comitium secondly on the S. side, and thirdly near the Arcus Severi, for which last site the evidence is too overwhelming to be rejected. We trust that our view is more consistent, in which the senate-house, as was most probable, appears to have always retained its original position. And this result we take to be no slight confirmation of the correctness of the site which we have assigned to the comitium. In their multitudinous variations, Bunsen and Becker are sore puzzled to find a place for their second curia--the Julia--on their comitium, to which the passages before cited from Pliny and Dion inevitably fix them. Bunsen's strange notions have been sufficiently refuted by Becker (Handb. p. 333), and we need not therefore examine them here. But though Becker has succeeded in overthrowing the hypothesis of his predecessor, he has not been able to establish one of his own in its place. In fact he gives it up. Thus he says (p. 335) that, in the absence of all adequate authority, he will not venture to fix the site of the curia ; yet he thinks it probable that it may have stood where the three columns are; or if that will not answer, then it must be placed on the (his) Vulcanal. But his complaint of the want of authorities is unfounded. If he had correctly interpreted them, and placed the comitium in its right situation, and if he had given due credit to an author like Dio Cassius when he says (l.c.) that it was determined to rebuild the Curia Hostilia, he had not needed to go about seeking for impossible places on which to put his Curia Julia.

There are three other objects near the forum into which, from their close connection with the Basilica Julia, we must inquire at the same time. These are the CHALCIDICUM, the IMPERIAL GRAECOSTASIS, and a TEMPLE OF MINERVA. We have already seen that the first of these buildings is recorded in the Monumentum Ancyranum as erected by Augustus adjoining the curia ; and the same edifice is also mentioned by Dio Cassius among the works of Augustus: τό τε Ἀθήναιον καὶ τὸ Χαλκιδικὸν ὠνομασμένον, καὶ τὸ Βουλευτήριον, τὸ Ἰουλίειου, τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ τιμῇ γενόμενον, καθιέρωσεν (51.22). But regarding what manner of thing the Chalcidicum was, there is a great diversity of opinion. It is one of those names which have never been sufficiently explained; but it was perhaps a sort of portico, or covered walk (deambulatorium), annexed to the curia. Bunsen, as we have mentioned when treating of the temple of Castor in the preceding section, considers the Athenaeum and Chalcidicum to have been identical; and as the Notitia mentions an Atrium Minervae in the 8th Region, and as a Minerva Chalcidica is recorded among the buildings of Domitian, he assumes that these were the same, and that the unlucky ruin of the three columns, which has been so transmuted by the topographers, belonged to it. In all which we can only wonder at the uncritical spirit that could have suggested such an idea; for in the first place the Monumentum Ancyranum very distinctly separates the aedes Minervae, built by Augustus, from the Chalcidicum, by mentioning it at a distance of five lines apart; secondly, the aedes Minervae is represented to be on the Aventine, where we find one mentioned in the Notitia (cf. Ov. Fast. 6.728; Festus, v. Quinquatrus, p. 257, Müll.), and consequently a long way from the curia and its adjoining Chalcidicum ; thirdly, they are also mentioned separately by Dio Cassius in the passage [p. 2.792]before cited, whose text is not to be capriciously meddled with by reading, τό τε Ἀθήναιον τὸ καὶ Χαλκιδικὸν ὠνομασμένον, in order to prop a theory which cannot support itself. We need not, therefore, enter further into this view. That of Becker (Handb. p. 335) seems probable enough, that the Chalcidicum usurped, the place of the senaculum of the curia, though we should be more inclined to say that of the Graecostasis, as the position of the latter seems at all events to have been shifted about this period. We learn from Pliny (33.6) that in his time it no longer stood “supra Comitium.” Yet such a place seems to have existed to the latest period, and is mentioned in the Notitia (Regio viii.) under the altered name of Graecostadium, close to the Basilica Julia, though the MSS. vary with regard to the position. It had probably, therefore, been removed before the time of Pliny to the south side of the forum, and perhaps at the time when the new curia and Chalcidicum were built. If this was so, it would tend to prove that the comitium did not extend across the whole breadth of the forum. The Atrium Minervae of the Notitia must have been of a later period.

Another change in the disposition of the forum, with reference to the politics of the times, which was actually carried out by Caesar in his lifetime, was the removal of the ancient rostra. The comitium, which may be called the aristocratic part of the forum, had become in a great measure deserted. The popular business was now transacted at the lower end of the forum; and Caesar, who courted the mob, encouraged this arrangement. The steps of the temple of Castor had been converted into a sort of extempore rostra, whence the demagogues harangued the people, and Caesar himself had sometimes held forth from them. (D. C. 38.6; cf. Cic. p. Sest. 15; App. BC 3.41.) Dio Cassius expressly mentions that the ROSTRA were changed by Caesar (43.49). The change is also mentioned by Asconius: “Erant enim tune rostra non eo loco quo nunc sunt, sed ad Comitium prope juncta Curiae” (ad Cic. Mil. 5), where, by this absolute and unqualified mention of the curia, he must of course have meant the curia existing in his time, which was the Julia; and this shows that it stood on the ancient site of the Hostilia. Another proof that the rostra were moved in Caesar's life-time may be derived from Livy (Epit. cxvi.): “Caesaris corpus a plebe ante Rostra crematum est.” For, as Appian (App. BC 2.148) indicates the place in another manner, and says that the burning of the body took place before the Regia, it is plain that the rostra mentioned in the Epitome just cited must have been very near the Regia. But we have seen that the ancient rostra were on the comitium, at the other end of the forum. There are other passages from which we may arrive at the exact situation of the new rostra. Thus Suetonius, in his account of the funeral of Augustus, says that a panegyric was pronounced upon him by Drusus from the rostra under the Tabernae Veteres ( “pro Rostris sub Veteribus,” Aug. 100; cf. D. C. 56.34). It should be stated, however, that the common reading of this passage is “pro Rostris veteribus,” that is, from the old rostra on the comitium; and we shall see further on that the old rostra appear to have existed after the erection of the new. It is not, however, probable that they would be used on this occasion, even if they were ever used at all; and we see from Dio Cassius's account of the funeral of Octavia, the sister of Augustus, that Drusus also on that occasion pronounced a panegyric from the new rostra, or those commonly used, as we must conclude from Dion's mentioning them without any distinctive epithet (ἐπὶ τοῦ Βήματος). Canina (Foro Rom. p. 129) adopted the common reading, with the omission of sub, because he imagined that “sub Veteribus” must mean “under some old building,” instead of its being a designation for the S. side of the forum. And Cicero, when pronouncing one of his invectives against Antony from the rostra, bids his audience look to the left at the gilt equestrian statue of Antony, which, as appears from what Cicero says a little further on, stood before the temple of Castor. (Phil. 6.5.) From a comparison of all these passages we may state with precision that the new rostra were established by Caesar on the SE. side of the forum, between the temple of Castor and the Regia, a spot which, as we have said, had previously become the regular place for the contiones. But, as this spot was on Becker's comitium,--his lower end of the forum being our upper end,--he could not of course admit that this was the place on which the new rostra were erected, and he is therefore obliged to place them a great deal higher up towards the Capitol, and to the W. of the temple of Castor. As, however, in questions of this sort, one error always begets another, he is thus puzzled to account for the circumstance how Cicero, speaking from these rostra, could allude to the statue of Antony as being on his left (Handb. p. 337); and, in order to avoid this contradiction, asserts that Dio Cassius was mistaken, in saying that the rostra were removed in Caesar's lifetime. It must be the old rostra, those on the (his) comitium, before which Caesar's body was burnt, and then everything goes right. Unfortunately, however, the testimony of Dion is confirmed by the expressive silence of the Monumentum Ancyranum. That record, in which Augustus so ostentatiously recites his buildings, his repairs, and his alterations, says not a word about the rostra. We have seen a little while ago that Becker contradicts Dion respecting the Curia Julia, and now he contradicts both that author and the Monumentum Ancyranum, and solely because he has adopted a wrong site for his comitium. How shall we characterise a topographical system which at every turn comes into collision with the best authorities? On the other hand, if there is any truth in the system we have adopted, all the merit we can claim for it is derived from paying due respect to these authorities, and implicitly following what they say, without presuming to set our own opinion above their teaching. Before we quit this subject it may be as well to say that, though these new rostra of Caesar's became the ordinary suggestum, or platform, for the orators, yet the old ones do not appear to have been demolished. We have before seen, from a passage in Trebellius Pollio, that the old rostra ad Palmam, or near the arch of Severus, existed in the time of Claudius II.; and the Notitia and Curiosum expressly mention three rostra on the forum.

In a bas-relief on the arch of Constantine Canina has correctly recognised a representation of this part of the forum, with the buildings on the Clivus Capitolinus. Constantine is seen addressing the people from a raised platform or suggestum, provided with a balustrade, which is undoubtedly intended for the ancient rostra. Canina is further of opinion [p. 2.793]that an elevated terrace, presenting the segment of a circle, which was excavated at this part of the forum some years ago, is the actual rostra (Indicazione, p. 270, ed. 1850, and his Dissertation “Sui Rostri del Foro Romano” in the Atti dell' Accademia Rom. di Archeologia, viii. p. 107, seq.; cf. Becker, Handbuch, p. 359). It seems also to have been here that Augustus received the homage of Tiberius, when the latter was celebrating his German triumph: “Ac priusquam in Capitolium flecteret, descendit e curru, seque praesidenti patri ad genua submisit.” (Suet. Tib. 20.) The scene is represented on the large Vienna Cameo. (Eckhel, Pierres gravées, 1; Mongez, Iconogr. Rom. 19, vol. ii. p. 62.) If these inferences are just the ancient rostra would appear to have been used occasionally after the erection of the new ones.

The STATUES OF SULLA AND POMPEY, of which the former appears to have been a gilt equestrian one, were re-erected near the new rostra, as they had formerly stood by the old ones. After the battle of Pharsalus they were both removed, but Caesar replaced them. Besides these there were two STATUES OF CAESAR, and an equestrian STATUE OF OCTAVIAN. (D. C. 42.18, 43.49, 44.4; Suet. Jul. 75; App. BC 1.97.)

Caesar also began the large basilica on the S. side of the forum, called after him the BASILICA JULIA; but, like most of his other works, he left it to be finished by Augustus ( “Forum Julium et Basilicam quae fuit inter aedem Castoris et aedem Saturni, coepta profligataque opera à patre meo perfeci,” Mon. Ancyr.). Its situation is here so accurately fixed “. . . . . .A. . .
. . . . . . ASILICA .
. . . . . . . . . ER
. . . . SET ADIECIT>
. . . . . . . .
” thus leaving no doubt that they were the same. (Bullettino dell' Inst. Marzo, 1835) Panvinius, whose work was written in 1558, as appears from the dedicatory epistle, says that the inscription was found “paulo ante in foro Romano prope columnam,” that is, the column of Phocas. The basis on which it stood must therefore have been again covered with rubbish, till the inscription was re-discovered in its more imperfect form after a lapse of nearly three centuries. Anulinus and Fronto were consuls A.D. 199, and consequently in the reign of Septimius Severus, when the basilica appears to have been repaired.

Altogether, therefore, the site of the basilica may be considered as better ascertained than these of most of the imperfect monuments. It must have been bounded on the E. and W., like the basilica Sempronia, by the Vicus Tuscus and the Vicus Jugarius. It appears from the Monumentum Ancyranum that the original building, begun by Caesar, and completed by Augustus, was burnt down during the reign of the latter, and again rebuilt by him on a larger scale, with the design that it should be dedicated in the names of his grandsons Caius and Lucius (“Et eandem basilicam consumptam incendio ampliato ejus solo sub titulo nominis filiorum”) that it cannot possibly be mistaken, namely, between the temple of Saturn, which, as we have seen, stood at the head of the forum, and the temple of Castor, which lay near that of Vesta; and the Notitia indicates the same position; so that it must have been situated between the Vicus Jugarius and Vicus Tuscus. It has been seen before that this was the site of the ancient Basilica Sempronia, a building of which we hear no more during the imperial times; whence it seems probable that it was either pulled down by Caesar in order to erect his new basilica upon the site, or that it had previously gone to ruin. And this is confirmed by the fact that, in the excavations made in 1780, it was ascertained that the basilica was erected upon another ancient foundation, which Canina erroneously supposes to have been that of the comitium. (Fredenheim,Exposé d'une Découverte faite dans le Forum Romain, Strasbourg, 1796; Fea, Varietià di Notizie e della Basilica Giulia ed alcuni Siti del Foro Romano, ap. Canina, Foro Romano, p. 118.) In some excavations made in 1835 near the column of Phocas, another proof of the site of the basilica was discovered. It was the following fragment of an inscription, which taken by itself seems too mangled and imperfect to prove anything: “... A ... ASILICA . . . ER REPARATAE ... SET ADIECIT.” It was recollected, however, that this must be the fragment of an inscription discovered in the 16th century at this spot, which is recorded by Gruter (171.7) and by Panvinius in his Descriptio Urbis Romae (Graevius, iii. p. 300). The two inscriptions, when put in juxtaposition, appear as follows:-- “GABINIUS VETTIUS
” “[meorum] inchoavi et, si vivus non perfecissem, perfici ab heredibus [meis jussi].” But, from a supplement of the same inscription recently discovered, it appears that Augustus lived to complete the work (“Opera fecit nova--forum Augustum, Basilicam Juliam,” etc.; Franz, in Gerhard's Archäolog. Zeit. No. 2.1843). Nevertheless it seems to have anciently borne the names of his grandsons: “Quaedam etiam opera sub nomine alieno, nepotum scilicet et uxoris sororisque fecit: ut porticum basilicamque Lucii et Caii, &c.” (Suet. Aug. 29). The addition which Augustus mentions having made to the building ( “ampliato ejus solo” ) may probably have been the portico here mentioned. In A.D. 282 it was again destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt by Diocletian (Catal. Imp. Vienn. p. 247, Ronc.)

The Basilica Julia was chiefly used for the sittings of law-courts, and especially for the causae centumvirales (Plin. Ep. 5.21, 2.14.) Its immense size maybe inferred from another passage in Pliny(6.33), from which we learn that 180 judices, divided into 4 concilia, or courts, with 4 separate tribunals, and numerous benches of advocates, besides a large concourse of spectators, both men and women,were accustomed to assemble here. The 4 tribunals are also mentioned by Quintilian (In. Or. 12.5, 6). [p. 2.794]

The funeral of Caesar was also that of the Republic. After his death and apotheosis, first an ALTAR and then an AEDES DIVI JULIA were erected to him, on the spot where his body had been burnt (Βωμόν τινα ἐν τῷ τῆς τυρᾶς Χωρίῳ ἱδρυσάμενοι. D. C. 44.51; καὶ ἡρῷόν οἱ ἔν τε τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ἐν ἐκέκαυτο προκατεβάλλοντο, Id. 47.18; “Aedem Divi Juli--feci,” Mon. Ancyr.) We also find mention of a column of Numidian marble nearly 20 feet high, erected to him on the forum by the people, with this inscription: “Parenti Patriae,” (Suet. Jul. 88.) This, however, seems to have been the same monument sometimes called ara; for Suetonius goes on to say that the people continued for a long while to offer sacrifice and make vows at it ( “Apud eandem longo tempore sacrificare, vota suscipere, controversias quasdam interposito per Caesarem jurejurando distrahere perseveravit” ). This ara or column was afterwards overthrown by Dolabella (Cic. Phil. 1.2, ad Att. 14.15). We have before seen that Caesar's body was burnt on the forum, before the Regia and the new rostra which he had erected, and we must therefore conclude that this was the spot where the altar was set up by the people, and subsequently the temple by Augustus. But this has been the subject of a warm controversy. Bunsen placed the temple on the Velian ridge, so that its front adjoined the Sacra Via where it crosses the eastern boundary of the forum, whilst Becker (Handb. p. 336) placed it on the forum itself, so that its back adjoined the same road. The authorities are certainly in favour of the latter view; and the difficulties raised by Urlichs (Röm. Top. p. 21, seq.), who came to the rescue of Bunsen's theory, arise from the mistake shared alike by all the disputants, that this end of the forum was the comitium. Urlichs might have seen that this was not so from a passage he himself quotes (p. 22) from the Fasti Amiternini, XV. Kal. Sept., showing that the temple stood on the forum ( “Divo Julio ad Forum” ). He seeks, however, to get rid of that passage by an unfortunate appeal to the Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. S. 1.6. 35, in order to show that after the time of Caesar there was no longer any distinction made between the forum and comitium, since the puteal is there named as being on the forum, instead of on the comitium as Urlichs thinks it should be. But this is only trying to support one error by another, since we have already shown that the puteal really was on the forum and not on the comitium. We need not therefore meddle with this controversy, which concerns only those who have taken a wrong view of the comitium.

We will, however, remark that the passage adduced by Becker in his Antwort, p. 41, from the Scholiast on Persius (4.49), where the puteal is mentioned as “in porticu Julia ad Fabianum arcum,” confirms the sites of these places: from which passage we also learn that the temple had a portico. Vitruvius says (3.3) that the temple, which must have been a small one, was of the order called peripteros pycnostylos, that is, having columns all round it, at a distance of one diameter and a half of a column from one another. It must have been raised on a lofty base or substruction, with its front towards the Capitol, as we see from the following lines of Ovid (Ov. Met. 15.841):-- “----ut semper Capitolia nostra forumque
Divus ab excelsa prospectet Julius aede.

The same circumstance, as well as its close proximity to the temple of Castor, are indicated in the following verses of the same poet (Ex Pont. 2.285):-- “Fratribus assimilis, quos proxima templa tenentes
Divus ab excelsa Julius aede videt.

This substruction, or κρηπίς, as it is called by Dion, served, as we have seen, for a third rostra and, after the battle of Actium, was adorned by Augustus with the beaks of the captured Egyptian ships, from which time it was called ROSTRA JULIA. (D. C. 51.19.)

Such were the alterations made by Julius Caesar in the forum, and by Augustus in honour of his adoptive father. The latter also made a few other additions. He erected at the head of the forum, under the temple of Saturn, the MILIARIUM AUREUM, which we have before had occasion to mention. (D. C. 54.8; Suet. Otho 6; Tac. H. 1.27.) It was in shape like a common milestone, but seems to have been of bronze gilt. Its use is not very


clear, as the milestones along the various roads denoted the distances from the gates. But when we recollect that Augustus included a great extent of new streets in his Regions, it seems not improbable that it was intended as a measure of distances within the city; and indeed we find that it was made the starting point in the survey of the city under Vespasian. (Plin. Nat. 3.9.) Hence it might be regarded, as Plutarch says (Galb. 24), the common centre at which all the roads of Italy terminated. The UMBILICUS ROMAE which Becker confounds with it (p. 344) appears to have been a different thing, as the Notitia mentions both of them separately under Regio viii. The piece of column excavated near the arch of Severus must have belonged to this umbilicus, or to some other monument, not to the miliarium, which appears from the Notitia and Curiosum to have retained till a late period its original position near the temple of Saturn at the head of the forum.

We also read of a FORNIX AUGUSTI or triumphal arch erected on the forum in honour of Augustus, but its position is nowhere accurately defined; though from some Scholia on Virgil (Aen. 8.5.606) edited by Mai, it is supposed to have been near the temple of Julius (Canina, Foro Rom. p. 139 note.) [p. 2.795]

The ARCUS TIBERII, another triumphal arch, dedicated to Tiberius, was erected at the foot of the Clivus Capitolinus near the temple of Saturn, in commemoration of the recovery of the Roman standards lost with the army of Varus. (Tac. Ann. 2.41.) Tiberius also restored the temple of Castor in the name of himself and of his brother Drusus, as well as the temple of Concord, as we have before had occasion to remark.

Under the following emperors down to the time of Domitian we do not read of many alterations on the forum. The fire of Nero seems to have chiefly destroyed its lower part, where the temple of Vesta and the Regia lay; the upper portion and the Capitol appear to have escaped. The Curia Julia was probably burnt down in the fire which occurred in the reign of Titus; at all events it was certainly rebuilt by Domitian. The celebrated STATUE OF VICTORY, consecrated in the curia by Augustus, appears, however, to have escaped, since Dio Cassius expressly says that it existed in his time, and we find it mentioned even later. (Suet. Aug. 100; D. C. 51.22; Herodian, 5.5.) It was this statue, or more correctly perhaps the altar which stood before it, that occasioned so warm a contention between the Christian and heathen parties in the senate in the time of Theodosius and Valentinian II., the former being led by Ambrosius, the latter by Symmachus, the praefectus urbi. (Symmach. Epist. 10.61; cf. Ambros. Epist. ad calcem Symm. ed. Par. i. p. 740, ii. pp. 473, 482; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iii. p. 409, seq., ed. Smith.) Ambrose is said to have obtained its removal; though this, perhaps, relates only to the altar, since the statue is mentioned by Claudian as still existing in the time of Honorius. (De VI. Cons. Hon. 5.597):-- “Adfuit ipsa suis ales Victoria templis
Romanae tutela togae: quae divite penna
Patricii reverenda fovet sacraria coetus.

Domitian had a peculiar predilection for two deities, Janus and Minerva. He erected so many archways all over the city that an ancient pasquinade, in the form of a Greek pun, was found inscribed upon one of them: “Janos arcusque cum quadrigis et insignibus triumphorum per Regiones urbis tantos ac tot extruxit ut cuidam Graece inscriptum sit, ἀρκεῖ.” (Suet. Dom. 13; cf. D. C. 57.1.) Among other temples of Minerva he is said by some authorities to have erected one on the forum between those of Vesta and Castor. (Becker, Handb. p. 356.) But there seems to have been hardly room for one at this spot; and, as we have before remarked, the Notitia does not mention it. Domitian also built, in honour of his father and brother, the TEMPLE OF VESPASIAN AND TITUS, next to the temple of Concord. The three columns on the Clivus Capitolinus most probably belong to it. The opinion that the eight Ionic columns are remains of this temple has been already discussed.

Such was the state of the forum when the colossal equestrian STATUE OF DOMITIAN was erected on it near the Lacus Curtius. Statius (Silvae 1.1) has written a small poem on this statue, and his description of it affords many interesting topographical particulars, which fully confirm what has been already said respecting the arrangement of the forum:--

Quae superimposito moles geminata colosso
Stat Latium complexa forum? coelone peractum
Fiuxit opus? Siculis an conformata caminis
Effigies, lassum Steropem Brontemque reliquit?
. . . . .
Par operi sedes. Hinc obvia limina pandit,
Qui fessus bellis, adscitae munere prolis,
Primus iter nostris ostendit in aethera divis.
. . . . .
At laterum passus hinc Julia tecta tuentur
Illinc belligeri sublimis regia Paulli.
Terga pater blandoque videt Concordia vultu.
Ipse autem puro celsum caput aere septus
Templa superfulges, et prospectare videris
An nova contemptis surgant palatia flammis
Pulcrius; an tacita vigilet face Troïcus ignis
Atque exploratas jam laudet Vesta ministras, &c.

The statue, therefore, must have faced the east, with the head slightly inclined to the right, so as to behold the temple of Vesta and the Palatine. Directly in front of it rose the temple of Divus Julius; on the right was the Basilica Julia, on the left the Basilica Aemilia; whilst behind, in close juxtaposition, were the temples of Concord and of Vespasian and Titus. The site of the statue near the Lacus Curtius is indicated in the poem (5.75, seq.).

The next important monument erected on the forum after the time of Domitian appears to have been the TEMPLE OF ANTONINUS AND FAUSTINA, considerable remains of which still exist before and in the walls of the modern church of S. Lorenzo in Miranda. It stood at the eastern extremity of the N. side of the forum. These remains, which are now sunk deep in the earth, consist of the pronaos or vestibule. composed of eight columns of cipollino marble supporting an architrave, also part of the cella, built of square blocks of piperino. The architrave is ornamented with arabesque candelabra and griffins. On the front the inscription is still legible:-- DIVO. ANTONIO . ET



But as a temple was decreed both to Antoninus Pius and his wife, the elder Faustina (Capitol. Anton. P. 100.6, 13), and to the younger Faustina, their daughter (Ib. 100.26), and as divine honours were also rendered after his death to M. Aurelius Antoninus, the husband of the latter, it becomes doubtful to which pair the temple is to be referred (Nibby, Foro Rom. p. 183). It seems, however, most probable that it was dedicated to Antoninus Pius and the elder Faustina. It is stated by Pirro Ligorio (ap. Canina, Foro Rom. p. 192) that in the excavations made here in 1547, the basis of a [p. 2.796]statue was discovered with an inscription purporting that it was erected by the guild of bakers to Antoninus Pius. In the time of Palladio the temple was a great deal more perfect than it is at present, and had an atrium in front, in the middle of which stood the bronze equestrian statue of M. Aurelius, which now adorns the Capitol. (Architettura, lib. 4. c. 9.) The inscription in Gruter (cclix. 6) probably belonged to the pedestal of this statue. It was found in the Sacra Via in 1562. Some difficulty, however, arises with regard to this account, since from various other sources we learn that the statue stood for a long while before the church of St. John Lateran. From Palladio's account of the cortile, or court, it would appear that the building lay some distance back from the Sacra Via.

In the reign of Commodus a destructive fire, which lasted several days, occasioned much damage in the neighbourhood of the forum, and destroyed among other things the temple of Vesta. (Herodian, 1.14.) According to Dio Cassius the same fire extended to the Palatine and consumed almost all the records of the empire (72.24). It was on the same occasion that the shop of Galen, which stood on the Sacra Via, was burnt down, and also the Palatine Library, as he himself assures us. (De Compos. Medicam. 1.100.1.)

This damage seems to have been repaired by Septimius Severus, the munificent restorer of the Roman buildings, who with a rare generosity commonly refrained from inscribing his own name upon them, and left their honours to the rightful founders ( “Romae omnes aedes publicas, quae vitio temporum labebantur, instauravit; nusquam prope suo nomine inscripto, servatis tamen ubique titulis conditorum,” Spart. Sever. c. ult.). Of the original monuments erected by that emperor the principal one was the ARCUS SEVERI or triumphal arch, which still exists in good preservation at the top of the Roman forum. The inscription informs us that it was dedicated to Severus, as well as to his two sons, Caracalla and Geta, in his third consulate and the 11th year of his reign, consequently in A.D. 203. Between the temple of Concord and the arch, the church of SS. Sergio e Bacco was built in the middle ages, with its tower


resting upon the arch. It appears from a medal of Caracalla that a chariot with six horses and persons within it stood on the summit of the arch, and other persons on horseback at the sides, supposed to be the emperor's sons. It was erected partly in front of the temple of Concord, so as in some degree to conceal the view of that building, and thus to disturb the whole arrangement of the edifices at this part of the forum. Originally it does not seem to have spanned any road, as the latest excavations show that it stood somewhat elevated above the level of the forum, and that the two side arches were approached by means of steps. (Canina, Foro Rom. p. 202.) The paved road that may be now seen under it must have been made at a later period. It would be quite a mistake to suppose that the Sacra Via passed under it. This road (here the Clivus Capitolinus) began to ascend the hill in front of the temple of Saturn and under the arch of Tiberius.

There seem to have been several other arches in the neighbourhood of the curia or senatus, and further on in the street which led into the Campus Martius; but whether these belonged to the numerous ones before alluded to as erected by Domitian, or were the works of a later age, cannot be determined, nor are they of such importance as to justify any extended research in this place. The haphazard names bestowed on them in the middle ages, as Arcus manus carneae, and perhaps also panis aurei, afford no clue by which to determine their meaning with any certainty.

Aurelian erected a golden statue of the GENIUS OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE on the rostra; and that these were the ancient rostra may be inferred from this statue being mentioned as close to the senatus, or curia, in the Notitia. ( “Aurelianus--Genium Populi Romani in Rostra posuit,” Catal. Imp. Vienn. t. ii. p. 246, ed. Ronc.; “continet,--Genium Populi Romani aureum et Equum Constantini, Senatum, Atrium Minervae,” &c. Not. Reg. viii.) The same inference may be deduced from a passage in Dio Cassius (47.2), which describes some vultures settling on the temple of Concordia, as also on the sacellum of the Genius of the People; but as this passage relates to Augustus and Antony, it likewise proves that the sacellum must have been there long previously to the time of Aurelian, though when it was erected cannot be determined. The Equus Constantini, recorded in the preceding passage of the Notitia, is also mentioned by the Anonymus Einsiedlensis near the arch of Severus, under the title of Cavallus Constantini.

We shall here mention three other statues which stood in this neighbourhood, since they serve to confirm the topography of it as already described. Pliny mentions three STATUES OF THE SIBYL as standing near the rostra. ( “Equidem et Sibyllae juxta Rostra esse non miror, tres sint licet,” 34.11.) That he meant the ancient rostra is evident from his going on to say that he considered these statues to be among the earliest erected in Rome. At a late period of the Empire these seem to have obtained the name of the Fates (Μοῖραι or Parcae). They are mentioned by Procopius, in a passage before alluded to, as in the vicinity of the curia and temple of Janus (ἔχει δὲ τὸν νεὼν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ πρὸ τοῦ Βουλευτηρίου ὀλίγον ὑπερβάντι τὰ τρία φᾶτα οὕτω γὰρ Ῥωμαῖοι τὰς Μοίρας νενομίκασι καλεῖν, B. G. 1.25.) A whole street or district in this quarter seems to have been named after them, since both the modern church of S. Adriano, at the eastern corner of the Via Bonella, and that of SS. Cosmo e Damiano, which stands a little beyond the temple of Faustina, and consequently out of the proper boundaries of the forum, are said to have been founded in it. ( “Fecit ecclesiam beato Adriano martyri in tribus Fatis,” Anastas. V. Honor. i. p. [p. 2.797]121, Blanch; “In ecclesia vero beatorum Cosmae et Damiani in tribus Fatis,” &c. Id. V. Hadr. ib. p. 254.) Hence perhaps the name of templum fatale applied to the temple of Janus.

The last object which we shall have to describe on the forum is the COLUMN OF PHOCAS. Whilst the glorious monuments of Julius and Augustus, the founders of the empire, have vanished, this pillar, erected in the year 608 by Smaragdus, exarch of Ravenna, to one of the meanest and most hateful of their successors, still rears its head to testify the low abyss to which Rome had fallen. It appears from the inscription, which will be found in Canina (Foro Rom. p. 213) and Bunsen (Beschr. vol. iii. p. 271), that a gilt statue of Phocas stood upon the summit. The name of Phocas has been erased from this column, probably by Heraclius; but the date sufficiently shows that it must have been dedicated to him. Previously to the discovery of this inscription, which happened in 1813, it was thought that the column belonged to some building ; and indeed it was probably taken from one, as the workmanship is much superior to what could have been executed in the time of Phocas. Byron alludes to it as the “nameless column with a buried base.” In the excavations made in 1816, at the expense of the duchess of Devonshire, the pedestal was discovered to be placed on a raised basis with steps of very inferior workmanship. (Murray's Handbook of Rome, p. 62.) It may be remarked that this column proves the forum to have been in its ancient state, and unencumbered with rubbish, at the commencement of the 7th century. Between this pillar and the steps of the Basilica Julia are three large bases intended for statues.


Forum Julium.--As Rome increased in size, its small forum was no longer capable of accommodating the multitudes that resorted to it on mercantile or legal business; and we have seen that attempts were early made to afford increased accommodation by erecting various basilicae around it. Under the Empire, when Rome had attained to enormous greatness, even these did not suffice, and several new fora were constructed by various emperors; as the Forum Caesaris or Julium, the Forum Augusti, the Forum Nervae or Transitorium, and lastly the Forum Trajani. The political business, however, was still confined to the ancient forum, and the principal use of the new fora was as courts of justice. Probably another design of them was that they should be splendid monuments of their founders. In most cases they did not so much assume the aspect of a forum as that of a temple within an enclosed space, or τέμενος,--the forum of Trajan being the only one that possessed a basilica. From this characteristic of them, even the magnificent temple of Peace, erected by Vespasian without any design of its being appropriated to the purposes of a forum, obtained in after times the names of Forum Vespasiani and Forum Pacis.

The first foundation of this kind was that of Caesar, enclosing a TEMPLE OF VENUS GENITRIX, which he had vowed before the breaking out of the Civil War. After the battle of Pharsalus the whole plan of it was arranged. It was dedicated after his triumph in B.C. 45, before it was finished, and indeed so hastily that it was necessary to substitute a plaster model for the statue of Venus, which afterwards occupied the cella of the temple. (Plin. Nat. 35.45.) Caesar did not live to see it completed, and it was finished by Augustus, as we learn from the Monumentum Ancyranum. We are told by Appian (App. BC 2.102) that the temple was surrounded with an open space, or τέμενος, and that it was not destined for traffic but for the transaction of legal business. As it stood in the very heart of the city Caesar was compelled to lay out immense sums in purchasing the area for it, which alone is said to have cost him “super H. S. millies,” or about 900,000l. sterling. (Suet. Jul. 26; Plin. Nat. 36.24.) Yet it was smaller than the ancient forum, which now, in contradistinction to that of Caesar, obtained the name of Forum Magnum. (D. C. 43.22.)

No vestige of the Forum Julium has survived to modern times, and very various opinions have been entertained with regard to its exact site; although most topographers have agreed in placing it behind the N. side of the Forum Romanum, but on sites varying along its whole extent. Nardini was the first who pointed to its correct situation behind the church of Sta Martina, but it was reserved for Canina to adduce the proof.

We must here revert to a letter of Cicero's (ad Att. 4.16), which we had occasion to quote when speaking of the restoration of the Basilica Aemilia under the forum of the Republic. It has an important passage with regard to the situation of the Forum Julium, but unfortunately so obscurely worded as to have proved quite a crux to the interpreters. It appears to have been written in B.C. 54, and runs as follows: “Paullus in medio foro basilicam jam paene texuit iisdem antiquis columnis; illam autem quam locavit facit magnificentissimam. Quid quaeris? nihil gratius illo monumento, nihil gloriosius. Itaque Caesaris amici (me dico et Oppium, dirumparis licet) in monumentum illud, quod tu tollere laudibus solebas, ut forum laxaremus et usque ad atrium Libertatis explicaremus, contempsimus sexcenties H. s. Cum privatis non poterat transigi minore pecunia. Efficiemus rem gloriosissimam : nam in Campo Martio septa tributis comitiis marmorea sumus et tecta facturi eaque cingemus excelsa porticu,” &c. Of these words Becker has given two different interpretations. He first imagined (Handb. p. 302, seq.) that Cicero was speaking only of two buildings: the Basilica Aemilia, which Paullus was restoring, and a new basilica, which the same person was building with Caesar's money, and which was afterwards named the Basilica Julia. But before he had finished his work he altered his mind, and at p. 460 pronounces his opinion that Cicero was speaking of no fewer than four different edifices : 1st, the Basilica Paulli ( “Paullus--Columnis” ); 2nd, the Basilica Julia ( “illam--gloriosius” ); 3rd, the Forum Julium ( “Itaque--pecunia” ); 4th, the Septa Julia ( “Efficiemus,” &c.). With all these views, except the second, we are inclined to agree; but we do not think it probable that Paullus would be constructing two basilicae at the same time; nor do we perceive how a new one only then in progress could have been a monument that Atticus had been accustomed to praise. The chief beauty of the basilica of Paullus was derived from its columns ( “Nonne inter magnifica dicamus basilicam Paulli columnis e Phrygibus mirabilem,” Plin. Nat. 36.24. s. 1); and though it had undergone two or three subsequent restorations before the time of Pliny, we are nevertheless inclined to think that the columns praised by him were the very same [p. 2.798]which Atticus had so often admired. However this may be, we see through the obscurity of Cicero's letter the rough sketch of a magnificent design of Caesar's, which had not yet been perfectly matured. The whole space from the back of the Basilica Aemilia as far as the Septa Julia in the Campus Martius was to be thrown open; and perhaps even the excavation of the extremity of the Quirinal, ultimately executed by Trajan, may have been comprised in the plan. Cicero is evidently half ashamed of this vast outlay in favour of Caesar, and seeks to excuse it with Atticus by leading him to infer that it will place his favourite monument in a better point of view. When Cicero wrote the plan was evidently in a crude and incipient state. The first pretence put forth was probably a mere extension of the Forum Romanum; but when Caesar a few years later attained to supreme power the new foundation became the Forum Julium. In his position some caution was requisite in these affairs. Thus the curia of Faustus was pulled down under pretence of erecting on its site a temple of Felicitas--a compliment to the boasted good fortune of Sulla, and his name of Felix. But instead of it rose the Curia Julia. The discrepancy in the sums mentioned by Cicero and Suetonius probably arose from the circumstance that as the work proceeded it was found necessary to buy more houses. If this buying up of private houses was not for the Forum Julium, for what purpose could it possibly have been? The Curia Julia stood on the site of the Curia Hostilia, the Basilica Julia on that of the Sempronia, and we know of no other buildings designed by Caesar about the forum.

With regard to the situation of the ATRIUM LIBERTATIS, to which Cicero says the forum was to be extended, we are inclined to look for it, with Becker, on that projection of the Quirinal which was subsequently cut away in order to make room for the forum of Trajan. The words of Livy, “Censores extemplo in atrium Libertatis escenderunt” (43.16), seem to point to a height. A fragment of the Capitoline plan, bearing the inscription LIBERTATIS, seems to be rightly referred by Canina to the Basilica Ulpia. (Foro Rom. p. 185; cf. Becker, Antwort, &c. p. 29.) Now, if our conjecture respecting the site of the Atrium Libertatis is correct, it would have been occupied by the forum of Trajan and its appurtenances; and it therefore appears probable that the Atrium was comprehended in the Basilica Ulpia. Nor is this a mere unfounded guess, since it appears from some lines of Sidonius Apollinaris (Epig. 2), that in his time the Basilica Ulpia was the place where slaves received their manumission. And that the old Atrium Libertatis was devoted to manumission and other business respecting slaves appears from several passages of ancient authors. Thus Livy: “Postremo eo descensum eat, ut ex quatuor urbanis tribubus unam palam in Atrio Libertatis sortirentur, in quam omnes, qui servitutem servissent, conjicerent” (45.15). And Cicero: “Sed quaestiones urgent Milonem, quae sunt habitae nunc in Atrio Libertatis: Quibusnam de servis?” &c. (Mil. 22). Lastly, it may be mentioned that the following fragment of an inscription was found near the church of S. Martina, and therefore near this spot:-- SENATVS . POPVLVSQVE [ROMANVS]

(Canina, Foro Room. p. 391).

The preceding letter of Cicero's points to the Forum Julium as closely adjoining the Basilica Aemilia, and there are other circumstances that may be adduced in proof of the same site. Ovid (Ov. Fast. 1.258) alludes to the temple of Janus as lying between two fora, and these must have been the Forum Romanum and the Forum Caesaris. Pliny's story (16.86) of the lotus-tree on the Vulcanal, the roots of which penetrated to the forum of Caesar, whatever may be its absolute truth, must at all events have possessed sufficient probability to be not actually incredible; and there is no situation for Caesar's forum which tallies with that story better than that here assigned to it with relation to the site of the Vulcanal, as established in the preceding pages. Our Vulcanal need not have been distant more than about 30 yards from the Forum Julium; that of Becker lies at about five times that distance from it, and would render Pliny's account utterly improbable.

Palladio mentions that in his time considerable remains of a temple were discovered behind the place where the statue of Marforio then stood, near the church of S. Martina, which, from the cornice being adorned with sculptures of dolphins and tridents, he took to be one dedicated to Neptune. But as we have no accounts of a temple of Neptune in this neighbourhood, and as these emblems would also suit the sea-born goddess, it seems probable that the remains belonged to the temple of Venus Genitrix. This is still more strikingly confirmed by Palladio's account of its style of architecture, which was pycnostyle, as we know that of Venus to have been. (Archit. lib. 4.31; comp. Vitr. 3.23.

We can hardly doubt, therefore, that the forum of Caesar lay on this spot, as is indicated by so many various circumstances. The only objection that has been urged against it is the following passage of Servius, which places the ARGILETUM, a district which undoubtedly adjoined the Forum Julium, in quite a different part of the town: “Sunt geminae belli portae--Sacrarium hoc Numa Pompilius fecerat circa imum Argiletum juxta theatrum Marcelli, quod fuit in duobus brevissimis templis. Duobus autem propter Janum bifrontem. Postea captis Faliscis, civitate Tusciae, inventum est simulacrum Jani cum frontibus quatuor. Unde quod Numa instituerat translatum est ad forum Transitorium et quatuor portarum unum templum est institutum” (ad Virg. Aen. 7.607). That the Argiletum adjoined the forum of Caesar is evident from the following epigram of Martial's (1.117. 8):-- “Quod quaeris propius petas licebit
Argi nempe soles subire letum:
Contra Caesaris est forum taberna
Scriptis postibus hinc et inde totis
Omnes ut cito perlegas poetas.
Illinc me pete, ne roges Atrectum;
Hoc nomen dominus gerit tabernae.

Hence, if Servius is right, the forum of Caesar could not have been where we have placed it, but on the S. side of the Capitoline hill; and this opinion has found some defenders (Mommsen, Annali dell' Instit. vol. xvi. p. 311, seq.) We trust, however, that the situation of the small temple of Janus, the index belli pacisque, has been clearly established by what we have said in the former part of this article. Servius is evidently confounding this little temple with the larger one near the theatre of Marcellus; and indeed the whole passage is a heap of trash. For how can we connect such remote events as the [p. 2.799]taking of Falisci, or rather Falerii, and the erection of a Janus Quadrifrons on the Forum Transitorium, which did not exist till many centuries afterwards? Livy also indicates the Janus-temple of Numa as being in the Argiletum ( “Janum ad infimum Argiletum indicem pacis bellique fecit,” 1.19); whence we must conclude that it was a district lying on the N. side of the forum. We do not think, however, with Becker (Handb. p. 261), that any proof can be drawn from the words of Virgil (Aen. 8.345, seq.), where, with a poetical license, the various places are evidently mentioned without regard to their order. But how far the district called Argiletum may have been encroached upon by the imperial fora it is impossible to say.

The forum of Caesar must have been very splendid. Before the temple of Venus stood a statue of the celebrated horse which would suffer nobody but Caesar to mount him, and whose fore-feet are said to have resembled those of a human being (Suet. Jul. 61; Plin. Nat. 8.64). The temple was adorned with pictures by the best Greek artists, and enriched with many precious offerings (Plin. Nat. 7.38, 9.57, 37.5, &c.). It was one of the three fora devoted to legal business, the other two being the Forum Romanum and Augusti:-- “Causas, inquis, agam Cicerone disertius ipso
Atque erit in triplici par mihi nemo foro.
” (Mart. 3.38. 2.)

Whether it was ever used for assemblies of the senate seems doubtful; at all events the passage cited by Becker (Handb. p. 369) from Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 16.27) proves nothing, as the word curia there seems to point to the Curia Julia. Of the subsequent history of the Forum Caesaris but little is known. It appears to have escaped the fire of Nero; but it is mentioned among the buildings restored by Diocletian after the fire under Carinus ( “Opera publica arserunt Senatum, Forum, Caesaris patrimonium, Basilicam Juliam et Graecostadium,” Catal. Imp. Vienn. where, according to Preller, Reg. p. 143, we must read “Forum Caesaris, Atrium Minervae.” ) It is mentioned in the Ordo Romanus, in the year 1143, but may then have been a ruin.

Forum Augusti.--This forum was constructed for the express purpose of affording more accommodation for judicial business, which had now increased to such an extent that the Forum Romanum and Forum Julium did not suffice for it. It included in its area a TEMPLE OF MARS ULTOR, vowed by Augustus in the civil war which he had undertaken to avenge his father's death:-- “Mars ades, et satia scelerato sanguine ferrum,
Stetque favor causa pro meliore tuus.
Templa feres, et, me victore, vocaberis Ultor.
Voverat, et fuso laetus ab hoste redit.
” (Ov. Fast. 5.575, seq.)

This temple was appointed to be the place where the senate should consult about wars and triumphs, where provinces cum imperio should be conferred, and where victorious generals should deposit the insignia of their triumphs (Suet. Aug. 29). The forum was constructed on a smaller scale than Augustus had intended, because he could not obtain the consent of some neighbouring householders to part with their property (Ib. 56). It was opened for business before the temple was finished, which was dedicated B.C. 1 (Ib. 29; Veil. Pat. 2.100). The forum extended on each side of the temple in a semicircular shape (Palladio, Archit. iv.), with porticoes, in which Augustus erected the statues of the most eminent Roman generals. On each side of the temple were subsequently erected triumphal arches in honour of Germanicus and Drusus, with their statues (Tac. Ann. 2.64). The temple is said to have been very splendid (Plin. Nat. 36.54), and was adorned, as well as the forum, with many works of art (Ib. 7.53, 34.18, 35.10; Ov. Fast. 5.555, &c.) The Salii were accustomed to banquet here; and an anecdote is recorded of the emperor Claudius, that once when he was sitting in judgment in this forum, he was so attracted by the savoury odour of the dinner preparing for these priests, that he quitted the tribunal and joined their party. (Suet. Cl. 33.) This anecdote has partly served to identify the site of the temple, an inscription having been discovered on one of the remaining walls in which the Salii and their Mansiones are mentioned (Canina, Foro Rom. p. 150).

The remains of three of the columns, with their entablature, of the temple of Mars Ultor are still to be seen near the place called the Arco de' Pantani. It must therefore have adjoined the back of the Forum Caesaris. These three columns, which are tall and handsome, are of the Corinthian order. All we know respecting the history of the Forum Augusti is that it was restored by Hadrian (Spart. Hadr. 19). The church of S. Basilio was probably built on the site of the temple (Ordo Romn. 1143; Mabill. Mus. Ital. ii. p. 143).


Forum Transitorium or Forum Nervae.--This forum was begun by Domitian, but completed and dedicated by Nerva (Suet. Dom. 5; Aur. Vict. Caes. 12). We have said that Domitian had a particular predilection for Minerva, and he founded a large AEDES MINERVAE in this forum ( “Dedicate prius fore, quod appellatur Pervium, quo aedes Minervae eminentior consurgit et magnificentior,” A. Vict. Ib.). From this circumstance it was also called Forum Palladium ( “Limina post Pacis Palladium que forum,” Mart. 1.2. 8); besides which it also had the name of Pervium or Transitorium, apparently because it was traversed by a street which connected the N. and S. sides of the city, which was not the case with the other fora (Niebuhr, in the Beschreibung Roms, iii. p. 282). Thus Lampridius (Alex. Sev. 28): “In foro Divi Nervae, quod Transitorium dicitur;” and Aurelius Victor in the passage just cited. From the line of Martial's before quoted, it appears to have adjoined the temple of Peace, erected by Vespasian, which we shall have occasion to describe in another section. There appears to have stood upon it a temple, or rather perhaps fourfold archway of Janus Quadrifrons, probably somewhat resembling that which still exists near S. Georgio in Velabro, connecting the roads which led to the four different forums, namely, the Forum Romanum, Forum Caesaris, Forum Nervae, and Forum Pacis, as Vespasian's temple of Peace was sometimes called. The passage [p. 2.800]before quoted from Servius (Serv. ad Aen. 7.607), however absurd in other respects, may at least be received as evidence of the existence of such a Janus here, especially as it is confirmed by other writers. Thus Joannes Lydus: καὶ τοιοῦτον αὐτοῦ ἄγαλμα (τετράμορφον) ἐν τῷ φόρῳ τοῦ Νερβᾶ ἐτὶ καὶ νῦν λέγεται σεσωσμένον (de Mens. 4.1). So also Martial:-- “Nunc tua Caesareis cinguntur limina donis
Et fora tot numeros, Jane, quot ora geris
” (10.28. 5).

In the middle ages this Janus-temple appears to have borne the name of Noah's Ark.

In the time of Pope Paul V. considerable remains existed of the pronaos, or vestibule of this temple of Minerva, consisting of several columns with their entablature, with the following inscription: IMP. NERVA. CAESAR. AVG. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. II. IMP. II. PROCOS. (Canina, Foro Rom. p. 171.) Paul took these columns to adorn his fountain, the Acqua Paolo, on the Janiculum. In the Via Alessandrina there are still remains of the wall of peperino which formed the enclosure of the forum, together with two large Corinthian columns half buried in the earth, now called the Colonnacce. Their entablature is covered with mutilated reliefs, and over them is an Attic, with a figure of Minerva, also in relief. The situation of the forum of Nerva, and the remains of it existing in his time, are decribed by Palladio (Architettura, lib. iv.), also by Du Pérac (tom. vi.), who observes, that it was then the most complete ruin of a forum in Rome. The Colonnacce are represented by Gamucci, Antichità di Roma, p. 55; Desgodetz, p. 159, seq.; Overbeke, pl. 39. There is a good description of the fora of Augustus and Nerva by Niebuhr in the Beschreibung Roms, vol. iii. p. 275.

Forum Trajani.--Thus between the Capitoline and Palatine hills, the Velian ridge and the ascent of the Quirinal, the valley was almost filled with a splendid series of public places, which we might imagine could hardly be surpassed. Yet it was reserved for Trajan to complete another forum, still more magnificent than any of the preceding ones, for the construction of which the Quirinal itself was forced to yield up part of its mass. Previously to the time of Trajan that hill was connected with the Capitoline by a sort of isthmus, or slender neck; the narrow and uneven defile between them was covered with private houses, and traversed only by a single road of communication between the forum and Campus Martius. But on the western side of this defile lay one of the handsomest quarters of Rome, containing the Septa Julia, the Flaminian circus, the theatres of Balbus, Pompey, and Marcellus, together with those temples and porticoes which so much excited the admiration of Strabo, and which he has described in a passage quoted in the former part of this article. The design of the forum of Trajan was, therefore, to connect this quarter of the town with the imperial fora in a manner not unworthy of the magnificent structures on either side of it. This gigantic work, a portion of which still remains, though the greater part has disappeared under the united influences of time and barbarism, is supposed to have been projected, and even begun, by Domitian. (Aur. Vict. Caes. 13; Hieron. i. p. 443, Ronc.; Cassiod. Chron. ii. p. 197.) It was, however, executed by Trajan, with the assistance of the celebrated architect Apollodorus of Damascus. (D. C. 69.4.) But no ancient author has left us a satisfactory description of it, and we are obliged to make out the plan, as best we may, from what we can trace of the remains; a task somewhat aided by the excavations made by the French when they had possession of Rome at the commencement of the present century. (See Tournon, Etudes Statist. Rome, tom. ii. p. 253, pl. 28, 29; Fea, Notizie degli scavi nell‘ Anfiteatro Flavio e nel Foro Traiano, Rom. 1813; Bunsen, Les Forum de Rome, iide partie, p. 24, seq.) This immense work consisted of the following parts :--


The forum, properly so called, a large open area immediately adjoining the NW. sides of the fora of Caesar and Augustus, and filling the whole space between the Capitoline and Quirinal,--much of the latter hill, indeed, and some of the former, having been cut away in order to make room for it. This part, which was called the area or atrium fori (Gel. 13.24; Amm. Marc. 16.10), contained, in the middle, an equestrian statue of Trajan, and was adorned with many other statues. The SW. and NE. sides of this square where the ground had been cut away from the hills, was occupied with semicircular buildings. There are still large remains of that under the Quirinal, which are vulgarly called the baths of Paullus Aemilius. The lower part of this edifice, which has only been laid open within the last few years, consists of quadrangular niches, which probably served as little shops; above them was a vaulted portico, with rooms and staircases leading to the upper floors. Piranesi and other topographers conjectured that there was another similar building on the side of the Capitol, at the place called the Chiavi d'Oro; but Canina was the first to demonstrate its existence in his Indicazione Topografica. Along the front of each of the crescents thus formed there seems to have been a portico, which gave the forum its proper rectangular form. The forum was thus divided into three parts, through both the exterior ones of which there was a road for carriages, as appears from traces of pavement; whilst the square, or middle division was paved with flag-stones. In the middle of the SE. side there seems to have been a triumphal arch, vestiges of which were discovered in the time of Flaminio Vacca (Memorie, no. 40), forming the principal entrance on the side of the imperial fora.



Next to the forum on the NW. side lay the BASILICA ULPIA, which extended across it lengthways, and thus served to form one of its sides. The basilica was called Ulpia from Trajan's family name. The plan of the middle part is now laid entirely open. It seems to have been divided internally by four rows of columns, thus forming five aisles, with circular absides or chalcidica at each end. During the excavations [p. 2.801]the bases of these columns were discovered partly in their original situation. But it is doubtful whether the fragments of columns of gray granite now seen there belonged to the interior of the basilica; it is more probable that it had columns of giallo antico and paonezzato, remains of which have been found (Nibby, For. Trajano, p. 353). The floor was paved with slabs of the same marbles. It is supposed from the authority of two passages in Pausanias to have had a bronze roof (5.12, 10.5). On the side which faced the forum were three magnificent entrances, a large one in the middle and two smaller on each side, decorated with columns, as may be seen on medals.


On the NW. side of the basilica stood, and still stands, the COLUMN OF TRAJAN, the finest monument of the kind in the world. This column was intended to answer two purposes: to serve as a sepulchre for Trajan, and to indicate by its height the depth of soil excavated in order to make room for the forum and its buildings. The latter object is expressed by the inscription, which runs as follows;--


(Cf. Aur. Vict. Epit. 13; D. C. 68.16). The height of the column, including the pedestal, is 127 1/2 English feet. The diameter at the base is between 12 and 13 feet, and rather more than a foot less at the top. The shaft consists of 19 cylindrical pieces of white marble, in which steps are cut for ascending the interior. On the top was a statue of Trajan, now replaced by that of St. Peter, erected by Pope Sixtus V. When the tomb beneath was opened by the same pontiff, in 1585, it was discovered to be empty. Round the column runs a spiral band of admirable reliefs, representing the wars of Trajan against Decebalus, and containing no fewer than 2500 human figures. The height of the reliefs at the bottom is 2 feet, increasing to nearly double that size at the top; thus doing away with the natural effect of distance, and presenting the figures to the spectator of the same size throughout. The best descriptions of this magnificent column will be found in Fabretti, De Columna Trajani, Rome, 1690, with plates by Pietro Santi Bartoli; Piranesi, Trofeo, o sia magnifica Colonna Coclide, &c., with large folio drawings; De Rossi, Colonna Trajana designata.

The column stood in an open space of no great extent, being 66 feet long and 56 broad. This space was bounded on its two sides by porticoes with double columns. In the NW. side of the basilica,2


on either side of the column, were two libraries, the BIBLIOTHECA GRAECA AND LATINA, as indicated by Sidonius:-- “Cum meis poni statuam perennem
Nerva Trajanus titulis videret
Inter auctores utriusque fixam
”--(ix. Epigr. 16.) [p. 2.802]


There are evident traces that Trajan's forum extended still farther to the NW., though it is doubtful whether this extension was owing to Trajan himself or to Hadrian. Excavations in this direction have brought to light enormous granite pillars belonging probably to the temple which Hadrian dedicated to Trajan (Spart. Hadr. 19), and which



is mentioned in the Notitia in conjunction with the column. This is further confirmed by some inscriptions bearing the name of Hadrian which have been discovered in this quarter. (Bunsen, Les Forum Romains, iide partie, p. 35.) Thus the space occupied by these noble structures extended from the fora of Caesar and Augustus almost to the Via Lata, or to the modern Piazza degli Apostoli.

How long the forum of Trajan existed is uncertain. The Anonymous of Einsiedlen mentions it in the way from Porta Nomentana to the Forum Romanum. In the Mirabilia it seems to be spoken of as a thing that has disappeared.


After the Capitol and forum, the Palatine hill is undoubtedly the most interesting spot at Rome, both from its having been the cradle of the eternal city, and also the seat of its matured power--the residence of the emperors when those emperors ruled the world, or, in the words of Tacitus, “ipsa imperii arx” (H. 3.70),--a circumstance from which it has given name to the residences of subsequent princes. (D. C. 53.16.) In treating of the topography of this region, and indeed of that of the remainder of the city, we shall not endeavour to observe a chronological order, as was desirable in treating of the forum, in order that the reader might gain a clear idea of its appearance in the various periods of Roman history; but shall follow the most convenient method without regard to the dates of the different objects mentioned. We have already described the situation and height of the hill The latter, however, cannot be very accurately given, as the soil is covered to a great depth with rubbish, the sole remains of those magnificent edifices which once stood upon it. On the side of the Circus Maximus, indeed, in the Vigna del Collegio Inglese, these ruins assume something of a more definite form; but the gigantic arches and terraces at that part, though they may still excite our wonder, are not sufficiently perfect to enable us to trace any plan of the buildings which they once formed. However, they must all have been subsequent to the time of Nero; since the ravages of the fire under that emperor were particularly destructive on the Palatine hill. Hence the chief topographical interest attaches to the declivities of the hill, which present more facilities for ascertaining spots connected with and sanctified by the early traditions of the city,--of which several have already been discussed, as the Porta Romanula and Clivus Victoriae, the Porta Mugionis, the Curiae Veteres, &c.

We have already seen that the declivity towards the Capitoline hill was called GERMALUS or CERMALUS; but though in ancient times this was regarded as a separate hill, the reason is not clear, since it by no means presents any distinct features, like the Velia. Here was the LUPERCAL. according to tradition a grotto sacred to Pan ever since the time of the Arcadians (Dionys. A. R. 1.32. 79), and near it the FICUS RUMINALIS, or sacred fig-tree, under which Romulus and Remus were discovered suckled by the wolf. It is difficult to determine the exact spot of the Lupercal. Evander points it out to Aeneas as lying “gelida sub rupe” (Verg. A. 8.343), and Dionysius (l.c.) describes it as on the road (κατὰ τὴν ὅδον) leading to the Circus Maximus; and his authority is preferable to that of Servius, who describes it as “in Circo” (ad Aen. 8.90). Its most probable site therefore is at the western angle of the hill, towards the circus. Its situation is in some degree connected with that of the CASA ROMULI. The description of the 10th Regio, or Palatine, in the Notitia begins at the Casa Romuli, and proceeding round the base of the hill to the N. and E. ends, in coming from the circus, with the Lupercal; whence it is plain that the Casa Romuli must have stood a little to the N. of it. Plutarch notices the Casa Romuli, which was also called Tugurium Faustuli, in the following manner: Ῥωμύλος δὲ (ᾤκει) παρὰ τοὺς λεγομένους Βαθμοὺς Καλῆς Ἀκτῆς: οὗτοι δέ εἰσι περὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν ἱππόδρομον τὸν μέγαν ἐκ Παλαντίου κατάβασιν (Rom. 20). Here the expression Καλὴ Ἀκτή is puzzling, as an equivalent name does not occur in any Latin author. Properly ἀκτή signifies the sea-shore, and cannot therefore be applied to the banks of the Tiber: nor, in prose at least, to an inland bank. Hence Preller is inclined to think that it is merely Plutarch's awkward translation of the Roman name for a place called Pulcra Rupes, which obtained this appellation after the Lupercal had been restored by Augustus and adorned with architectural elevations. (Regionen, p. 181.) But Plutarch was surely master of his own language; and though he may not have been a very profound Latin scholar, yet as he lived some time in Rome and occupied himself with studying the history and manners of the people, we may perhaps give him credit for knowing the difference between rupes and littus. It seems more probable therefore that the Roman [p. 2.803]name of the place alluded to was PULCRUM LITTUS than Pulcra Rupes (though unfortunately we do not find it mentioned in any Latin author), and that, like the Casa Romuli and Lupercal, it was a traditionary name, as old as the story of Romulus and Remus itself. According to that story, we must recollect that the Tiber had overflowed its banks and formed a lake here, and that the cradle was washed ashore at the foot of the Palatine; whence the name litters, which is frequently used of the shores of a lake, might without impropriety be applied to this spot. The βαθμοί or steps mentioned by Plutarch in the preceding passage were of course a more recent work, but their date cannot be fixed. Propertius (5.1. 9) seems to allude to them in the following passage as existing even in the time of Romulus and Remus:-- “Qua gradibus domus ista Remi se sustulit olim
Unus erat fratrum maxima regna focus.

But though we can hardly imagine their existence at that time, yet the passage at all events suffices to prove the existence of the steps in the time of Augustus. Becker, however, will by no means allow this. (Handb. p. 420 and note.) Plutarch goes on to say that in the neighbourhood of the Casa Romuli stood the cherry-tree said to have sprung from the lance hurled by Romulus from the Aventine to the Palatine; and that the tree withered and died from the roots having been injured when Caius Caesar (Caligula) caused the steps to be made there. (Γαΐου δὲ Καίσαρος, ὥς φασι, τὰς ἀναβάσεις ἐπισκευάζοντος καὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν περιορυττόντων τὰ πλησίον, ἔλαθον αἱ ῥίζαι κακωθεῖσαι παντάπασι, καὶ τὸ φυτὸν ἐμαράνθη.) Hence Becker draws the conclusion that this was the origin of the steps, and that they did not exist before the time of Caligula. But this is by no means a necessary consequence from Plutarch's words, since ἐπισκευάζω often signifies to repair or make better. We find the same steps mentioned by Solinus under the name of Scalae Caci: “Ad supercilium scalarum Caci habet terminum (Roma Quadrata), ubi tugurium fuit Faustuli. Ibi Romulus mansitavit,” &c. (1.18). It cannot be doubted that these are the same steps mentioned by Propertius and Plutarch. Gerhard proposed to emend this passage by reading Caii for Caci; an emendation of which Becker of course approved, as it suits his view that the steps did not exist before the time of Caligula. But unfortunately he was not aware of a passage in Diodorus Siculus which also mentions these steps in a manner confirmatory of the account of Solinus and Propertius: τοῦ δὲ Κακίου ἐν εῷ Παλατίῳ καταβασίς ἐστιν ἔχουσα λιθίνην κλίμακα τὴν ὀνομαζομένην ἀπ᾽ ἐκεινοῦ Κακίαν (4.21). And as Diodorus wrote in the age of Augustus, the existence of the steps before the time of Caligula is thus proved.

An AEDES ROMULI is also mentioned on the Germalus in the sacred books of the Argives quoted by Varro (L. L. 5.54, Müll.); but it is not found in any other author, and hence it may appear doubtful whether it is not the same as the Casa Romuli. The round church of S. Teodoro on the W. side of the Palatine has frequently been identified with this Aedes Romuli, and it is very probable that it was built over the remains of some ancient temple; but it is too far from the circus to have been the Casa Romuli, which lay more towards S. Anastasia. Besides the Casa seems to have been nothing more than a little thatched hut; of which, as we have seen, there appears to have been a duplicate on the Capitol.

In the dearth of any more accurate information we cannot fix the situation of these venerable relics of Roman antiquity more precisely than may be gathered from the preceding general indications. M. Valerius Messala and C. Cassius Longinus, who were censors in B.C. 154, projected, and even began, a theatre at this spot, which was to extend from the Lupercal on the Germalus towards, the Palatine. But this scheme was opposed by the rigid morality of Scipio Nasica, and all the works were put up to auction and sold. (Veil. Pat. 1.15; V. Max. 2.4.2; Appian, App. BC 1.28.) The Lupercal is mentioned in the Monumentum Ancyranum, as reconstructed by Augustus; whence Canina infers that the ancient one must have been destroyed when this theatre was commenced. (Indicazione Topogr. p. 460, 1850.) The Casa Romuli is represented by Fabius Pictor, as translated by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.79), to have been carefully preserved in his time, the damage occasioned by age or tempests being made good according to the ancient pattern. Whether the building mentioned in the Notitia was still the same it is impossible to say.

We have already noticed, when treating of the city of Romulus, the SANCTUARY OF VICTORIA--most probably a sacred grove--and the CLIVUS VICTORIAE on the NW. slope of the Palatine. At or near this spot an AEDES MATRIS DEUM was erected B.C. 191, to contain the image of the Mater Idaea, which Scipio Nasica had brought from Asia thirteen years before. (Liv. 36.35; Cic. Har. R. 12) It must have been to the N. of the Casa Romuli, since it is mentioned after it in the Notitia, when proceeding in that direction, yet at some distance from the N. point of the hill between which and the temple the Domus Tiberiana must have intervened. It is recorded as having been twice burnt down; once in B.C. 110, when it was rebuilt by Metellus (Jul. Obs. 99), and again in A.D. 2, in the same fire which destroyed the palace of Augustus, by whom it was restored. (V. Max. 1.8.11; D. C. 55.12; Mon. Ancyr.). It must also have been destroyed in the conflagration under Nero, and again rebuilt. Becker (Handb. p. 421) observes that its front must have faced the E., as the statue of the Magna Mater Idaea is described by Dio Cassius as looking that way (46.43). But this relates only to the statue; and we fancy that there is some reason to believe, from a passage in Martial, that the temple was a round one, and could not therefore be properly said to face any way. In this passage two temples are mentioned (1.70. 9):-- “Flecte vias hac qua madidi sunt tecta Lyaei
Et Cybeles picto stat Corybante tholus.

Becker observes (p. 422) that the age and situation of the temples here mentioned cannot be determined, as they occur nowhere else; and this seems to be true of the temple of Bacchus; but there appears to be no reason why the THOLUS CYBELES--which Becker writes Torus, without any apparent meaning--may not have been the Aedes Matris Deum before referred to. The description of the road to the house of Proculus given in this epigram suits the situation of this temple; and the house itself is mentioned as “nec propior quam Phoebus amat.” Now, the temple of Apollo, built by Augustus, lay close to that of the Idaean Mother, as we shall see presently; and, [p. 2.804]indeed, they are mentioned in one breath in the Notitia. ( “Aedem Matris Deum et Apollinis Rhamnusii.” ) That this Tholus Cybeles may have been the temple which once occupied the site of the present circular church of S. Teodoro before referred to, we can only offer a conjecture; its situation, at least, admirably corresponds with that of the temple of the Idaean Mother.

We find a temple of this deity, as well as one of JUVENTAS mentioned in the Monumentum Ancyranum (tab. 4.50.8) as erected by Augustus on the Palatine. The first of these may, however, have been only a restoration of the ancient temple. We can hardly conclude from the word feci that it was an entirely new and separate structure; since we find the same word used in that record with relation to other edifices which were among the most ancient in Rome, and of which it is not likely that there should have been duplicates: such as the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol, that of Quirinus, that of Juno Regina on the Aventine, and others. In these cases it seems probable that the edifices were in such a ruinous state from long neglect that Augustus found it necessary to rebuild them from their foundations; which would justify the use of the word feci instead of refeci, but hardly the regarding of them as entirely new temples. The great care used by Augustus in restoring the ancient temples is alluded to by Horace (Od. 3.6). The temple of Juventas may possibly have been new; at all events it could hardly have been the one dedicated by C. Licinius Lucullus about the same time as that of the Mater Magna Idaea, since the former was in the Circus Maximus. (Liv. 36.36; cf. Cic. Brut. 18, ad Att. 1.18.)

What the PENTAPYLUM may have been which is mentioned in the Notitia between the temple of Apollo and the palace of Augustus, it is difficult to say, except that it was probably a building with five gates. Preller (Regionen, p. 183) cites a passage from an anonymous describer of the Antiquities of Constantinople in Banduri (Imp. Orient. i. p. 21), in which a building in that city called Tetrapylum, which was used for depositing and bewailing the corpse of the emperor, or of that of any member of his family, is mentioned; and as this building is said to have been imitated from one at Rome, Preller thinks it highly probable that the Pentapylum in question may have afforded the model, and been used for a similar purpose.

Of the temples of JUPITER VICTOR and JUPITER STATOR--the former near the Nova Via and Porta Mugionis, the latter farther off towards the Sacra Via--we have already spoken when describing the Romulean city; besides which there seems to have been a temple of JUPITER PROPUGNATOR, probably of the time of the Antonines, known only from an inscription. (Gruter. ccc. 2; Orell. 42; Canina, Indicazione, p. 469.) We have also had occasion to mention the CURIAE VETERES and the sacellum of FORTUNA RESPICIENS. Other ancient buildings and shrines on the Palatine, the sites of which cannot be exactly determined, were the CURIA SALIORUM (Palatinorum), where the ancilia and the lituus Romuli were preserved, probably not far from the temple of Vesta (Dionys. A. R. 2.70; Cic. Div. 1.1. 7; Gruter, Inscr. 163.5; Orell. 2244); a fanum, or ARA FEBRIS (Cic. Leg. 2.1. 1; V. Max. 2.5.6; Plin. Nat. 2.5), an ancient sacellum of the DEA VIRIPLACA, the appeasing deity of connubial quarrels (V. Max. 2.1 § 6); and an Ἀφροδίσιον, or TEMPLE OF VENUS (D. C. 74.3).

When the Romans began to improve their domestic architecture, and to build finer houses than those which had contented their more simple ancestors, the Palatine, from its excellent and convenient situation, early became a fashionable quarter. We have already alluded slightly to some of the more noted residences on this hill. The house of VITRUVIUS VACCUS is one of the most ancient which we find mentioned in this quarter. It was pulled down in B.C. 330 in consequence of the treasonous practices of its owner; after which the site remained unbuilt upon, and obtained the name of VACCI PRATA (Liv. 8.19; Ps. Cic. p. Dom. 38); but how long it remained in this state it is impossible to say. The PORTICUS CATULI rose on the Palatine from a similar cause. Its site had previously been occupied by the house of M. Fulvius Flaccus, who perished in the sedition of C. Gracchus: the house was then razed, and the ground on which it stood called FLACCIANA AREA, till this portico was erected on it by Q. Lutatius Catulus, after his Cimbric victory. (V. Max. 6.3.1; Ps. Cic. p. Dom. 43) Near it stood the HOUSE OF CICERO which he bought of Crassus,--probably not the celebrated orator,--the fate of which we have already related. It seems to have been on the NE. side of the Palatine, as Cicero is described by Plutarch as traversing the Sacra Via in order to arrive at the forum (Cic. 22): and Vettius calls Cicero “vicinum consulis,” that is, of Caesar, who then dwelt in the Regia (ad Att. 2.24). CATILINE´S HOUSE was also on the Palatine, and was annexed by Augustus to his residence. (Suet. Ill. Gramm. 17.) Here also was a HOUSE OF ANTONIUS, which Augustus presented to Agrippa and Messala (D. C. 53.27); and also the HOUSE OF SCAURUS, famed for its magnificence. (Cic. Scaur. 27; Plin. Nat. 36.3.)

With the reign of Augustus a new era commenced for the Palatine. It was now marked out for the imperial residence; and in process of time, the buildings erected by successive emperors monopolised the hill, and excluded all private possessions. Augustus was born in this Region, at a place called AD CAPITA BUBULA, the situation of which we are unable to determine (Suet. Aug. 5). In early manhood he occupied the house of the orator C. Licinius Calvus “juxta forum super scalas anularias” (Ib. 72); but neither can the site of this be more definitely fixed. Hence he removed to the Palatine, where he at first occupied the HOUSE OF HORTENSIUS, a dwelling conspicuous neither for size nor splendour. (Ib.) After his victory over Sextus Pompeius, he appears to have purchased several houses adjoining his own, and to have vowed the TEMPLE OF APOLLO, which he afterwards built (Vell. 2.81; D. C. 69.15.) This temple, the second dedicated to that deity at Rome--the earlier one being in the Circus Flaminius--does not, however, appear to have been begun till after the battle of Actium, or at all events the plan of it was extended after that event. It is well known that after that victory Augustus dedicated a temple to the Leucadian Apollo near Actium, and in like manner the new structure on the Palatine was referred to the same deity; whence the phrases “Actius Apollo” (Verg. A. 8.704; Prop. 4.6. 67), and “Phoebus Navalis” (--“ubi Navali stant sacra Palatia Phoebo,” Prop. 4.1. 3). It was dedicated in B.C. 27. It was surrounded with a portico containing the BIBLIOTHECAE GRAECA [p. 2.805]ET LATINA (Suet. Aug. 29; D. C. 53.1; Mon. Ancyr.) These far-famed libraries were quite distinct institutions, as appears from monumental inscriptions to slaves and freedmen attached to them, who are mentioned as “a Bibliotheca Latina Apollinis,” or, “a Bibliotheca Graeca Palatina” (Panvinius in Graevius, Thes. iii. col. 305; Orell. Inscr. 40, 41). In them were the busts or clipeatae imagines of distinguished authors. (Tac. Ann. 2.83.) Propertius, in a short poem (3.29), has given so vivid a description of the whole building, that we cannot do better than insert it:-- “Quaeris cur veniam tibi tardior? Aurea Phoebo
Porticus a magno Caesare aperta fuit.
Tota erat in speciem Poenis digest columnis
Inter quas Danai femina turba senis.
Hic equidem Phoebo visus mihi pulchrior ipso
Marmoreus tacita carmen hiare lyra.
Atque aram circum steterant armenta Myronis
Quatuor artificis, vivida signa, boves.
Turn medium claro surgebat marmore templum
Et patria Phoebo carius Ortygia.
In quo Solis erat supra fastigia currus
Et valvae Libyci nobile dentis opus.
Altera dejectos Parnassi vertice Gallos
Altera moerebat funera Tantalidos.
Delude inter matrem deus atque inter sororem
Pythius in longa carmina veste sonat.

Hence we learn that the columns of the portico were of African marble, and between them stood statues of the fifty daughters of Danaus (cf. Ovid. Amor. 2.2. 4.) According to Acron, fifty equestrian statues of the sons of Danaus also stood in the open space. (Schol. ad Pers. 2.56.) The temple itself was of solid white marble from Luna (Carrara). (Serv. Verg. A. 8.720.) The statue alluded to by Propertius as “Phoebo pulchrior ipso” was that of Augustus himself, which represented him in the dress and attitude of Apollo. (Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. Ep. 1.3, 17: Serv. ad Virg. Ec. 4.10.) In the library was also a colossal bronze statue of Apollo, 50 feet in height (Plin. Nat. 34.18), as well as many precious works of art. (lb. 34.8, 37.5, &c.) The Sibylline books were preserved in the temple (Suet. Aug. 31; Amm. Marc. 23.3) before which was the spacious place called the AREA APOLLINIS.

From all these notices we may gather some idea of the splendour of this celebrated temple; but its exact site, as well as that of the PALACE OF AUGUSTUS, is nowhere clearly intimated. From several passages, however, which have been cited when discussing the situation of the Porta Mugionis, we may infer pretty accurately that the latter must have stood at the NE. side of the Palatine, between the arch of Titus and the temple of Vesta. (S. Maria Liberatrice.) It appears from a passage in Ovid ( “Inde tenore pari,” &c., Trist. 3.1. 59), that the temple must have lain some way beyond the palace, and there seems to be no reason why we may not place it near S. Teodoro, though it stood perhaps on the summit of the hill. This seems to be the spot indicated in the Notitia. The temple is there called “aedis Apollinis Rhamnusii” --an epithet not easily explained, notwithstanding the attempt of Preller (Regionen, p. 182); although there can be no doubt that the temple built by Augustus is meant.

In the same document a DOMUS TIBERIANA, or palace of Tiberius, is mentioned as distinct from that of Augustus; a house, indeed, which he probably inherited, as he was born on the Palatine. (Suet. Tib. 5.) In his youth, when he lived in a quiet, retired manner, he first inhabited the house of Pompey in the Carinae, and afterwards that of Maecenas on the Esquiline (Ib. 15); but when he became emperor, it is most probable that he resided on the Palatine, till he secluded himself in the island of Capreae. The Domus Tiberiana must have stood near the NW. corner of the Palatine, since it is described as affording an exit into the Velabrum ( “per Tiberianam domum in Velabrum,” Tac. Hist. 1.27). Suetonius, speaking of the same departure of Otho, says that he hastened out at the back of the palace ( “proripuit se a postica parte Palatii,” Otho, 6); from which passages it would appear that the two palaces were connected together, that of Augustus being the more conspicuous towards the forum, whilst that of Tiberius formed the back front. It was from the latter that Vitellius surveyed the storming of the Capitol. (Sue