Ancient Near East
Images & Art
Maps & Geography
Mythology & Beliefs
People in History
Timelines & Charts
Map of the Roman Empire - Rome
I-4 on the Map
Ancient Rome. The capital city of Italy and the Roman Empire which ruled the Mediterranean world for over 700 years. Rome is clearly mentioned in the Bible as the city of Caesar, and where Paul established a church and spent his last days. Acts 2:10; 18:2; 19:1; 28:14ff.; Rom 1:7, 15; 2 Tim. 1:17.
Acts 2:10 - Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Acts 18:2 - And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Acts 19:1 - And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Acts 28:14 - Where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome.
Romans 1:7 - To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:15 - So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
2 Timothy 1:17 - But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me].
Rome (English pronunciation: /ˈroʊm/; Italian: Roma pronounced [ˈroːma] is the capital of Italy and the country's largest and most populated city and comune, with over 2.7 million residents in 1,285.3 km2 (496.3 sq mi). Rome's metropolitan area is the second largest in Italy (after Milan), with some 3.7 million residents. The city is located in the central-western portion of the Italian Peninsula, on the Tiber River within the Lazio region of Italy. Rome's history spans over two and a half thousand years. It was the capital city of the Roman Kingdom, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, which was the dominant power in Western Europe and the lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea for over seven hundred years from the 1st century BC until the 7th century AD. Since the 1st century AD Rome has been the seat of the Papacy and, after the end of Byzantine domination, in the 8th century it became the capital of the Papal States, which lasted until 1870. In 1871 Rome became the capital of the Kingdom of Italy, and in 1946 that of the Italian Republic. - Wikipedia
Roma, the capital of Italy. A Siculian city, enlarged by the Arcadian (Tyrrhenian) Evander, 1240 b.C. Further enlarged by Romus or Romulus, a Latin chief, who expelled the Tyrrhenians circa 790 B.C. Taken by the Gauls 387 b.C.; by the Visigoths, A.d. 411; by the Vandals, 455 ; by the Heruli, 476; by the Goths, 547. It was surnamed Septicollis from its seven hills: Aventinus, Capitolinus, Coelius, Esquilinus, Palatinus, Quirinalis, Viminalis. In circuit, in the time of Honorius, 21 m.; with 644 towers on the walls (31 gates, Agonensis, Aurelia, Capena, Carmentalis, Catularia, Coelimontana, Esquilina, Fenestrella, Ferentina, vel Piacularis, Flaminia, Flumentana, Frumentaria, Janualis, Lavernalis, Metis, Minutia, Mugonia, Nsevia, Ostiensis, Pinciana, Portuensis, Querquetulana, Ratumena, Randusculana, Romunula, Salutaris, Sanqualis, Septemiana, Trigemina vel Navalis, Trigonia, Viminalis), and seven bridges (jElius, Cestius, Fabricius, Janiculensis, Palatinus, SubHcius, Triumphalis, Viminalis). The city of Romulus occupied M. Palatinus; M. Capitolinus, Coelius, and Quirinalis, were taken in by Tatius; the other three by Servins. - Classical Geography
Maps are essential for any serious study, they help students of Roman history understand the geographical locations and historical backgrounds of the places mentioned in historical sources.
The Roman Empire had begun more formally when Emperor Augustus (63 BC–AD 14; known as Octavian before his throne accession) founded the Principate in 27 BC. This was a monarchy system which was headed by an emperor holding power for life, rather than making himself dictator like Julius Caesar had done, which had resulted in his assassination on 15 March, 44 BC. At home, Emperor Augustus started off a great programme of social, political and economic reform and grand-scale reconstruction of the city of Rome. The city became dotted with impressive and magnificent new buildings, palaces, fora and basilicae. Augustus became a great and enlightened patron of the arts, and his court was attended by such poets as Virgil, Horace and Propertius. His rule also established the Pax Romana, a long period of relative peace which lasted approximately 200 years. Following his rule were emperors such as Caligula, Nero, Trajan, and Hadrian, to name a few. Roman emperor Nero was well-known for his extravagance, cruelty, tyranny, and the myth that he was the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned" during the night of 18 to 19 July 64 AD. The Antonine Plague of 165–180 is believed to have killed as much as one-third of the population. Roman dominance expanded over most of Western Europe and the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, though its influence through client states and the sheer power of its presence was wider than its formal borders. Its population surpassed one million inhabitants. For almost a thousand years, Rome was the most politically important, richest, and largest city in the Western world. After the Empire started to decline and was split, it lost its capital status to Milan and then to Ravenna, and was surpassed in prestige by the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantinople, whose Greek inhabitants continued through the centuries to call themselves Roman.
The Roman Republic was wealthy, powerful and stable before it became an empire. According to tradition, Rome became a republic in 509 BC. However, it took a few centuries for Rome to become the great city of popular imagination, and it only became a great empire after the rule of Augustus (Octavian). By the 3rd century BC, Rome had become the pre-eminent city of the Italian peninsula, having conquered and defeated the Sabines, the Etruscans, the Samnites and most of the Greek colonies in Sicily, Campania and Southern Italy in general. During the Punic Wars between Rome and the great Mediterranean empire of Carthage, Rome's stature increased further as it became the capital of an overseas empire for the first time. Beginning in the 2nd century BC, Rome went through a significant population expansion as Italian farmers, driven from their ancestral farmlands by the advent of massive, slave-operated farms called latifundia, flocked to the city in great numbers. The victory over Carthage in the First Punic War brought the first two provinces outside the Italian peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia. Parts of Spain (Hispania) followed, and in the beginning of the 2nd century the Romans got involved in the affairs of the Greek world. By then all Hellenistic kingdoms and the Greek city-states were in decline, exhausted from endless civil wars and relying on mercenary troops. This saw the fall of Greece after the Battle of Corinth 146 BC and the establishment of Roman control over Greece. - Wikipedia
The Book of Maccabees
Rome is also mentioned in the Book of the Maccabees:
1 Macc. 7:1 - In the year one hundred and fifty-one, Demetrius, son of Seleucus, set out from Rome, arrived with a few men in a city on the seacoast, and began to rule there.
1 Macc.8:17 - So Judas chose Eupolemus, son of John, son of Accos, and Jason, son of Eleazar, and sent them to Rome to establish an alliance of friendship with them.
1 Macc.8:19 - After making a very long journey to Rome, the envoys entered the senate and spoke as follows
1 Macc.12:1 - When Jonathan saw that the times favored him, he sent selected men to Rome to confirm and renew his friendship with the Romans.
1 Macc.15:15 - Meanwhile, Numenius and his companions left Rome with letters such as this addressed to various kings and countries.
Rome. Rome lies on the river Tiber, about fourteen miles, in a straight line,
from the sea. Its latitude (41¡ 53' N.) is the same as that of Chicago; its
longitude (12¡ 29' E.) corresponds very nearly with that of Venice and of
Leipzig. Its site forms a part of the gently rolling volcanic plain which lies
between the sea and the Sabine and Alban Mountains, extending from Cape Linaro,
on the north, as far south as Astura and the Pontine Marshes. The earlier city
was confined to the left bank of the river, which here pursues a very winding
course and, dividing, surrounds a small, flat island; but before the end of the
Republic a considerable suburb had sprung up on the right bank, which became the
fourteenth Regio in the division of the city under Augustus.
The oft-mentioned hills of Rome are low, and now, with some exceptions, of gentle slope. In ancient times they were more steep; for the intervening depressions (and to a less extent the lower parts of the hills themselves) have been covered, to the depth of nine, twelve, and in places even thirty feet, by the accumulation of débris. They are partly spurs, or irregular projections, from the line of bluffs which marks the descent from the general altitude of the Campagna into the valley of the Tiber, partly isolated masses nearer the river-bed. To the former class belong the Quirinal and Viminal hills, whose highest elevation above the surface of the Tiber (this being reckoned at 21.98 feet above sea-level) is about 158 feet; the Esquiline, with its two spurs Cispius (151 feet) and Oppius (161 feet); and the Caelian (141 feet), which is separated from both the Esquiline and the Aventine by valleys. The hills standing by themselves are the Capitoline (the two summits 141 feet, the depression between them 98 feet above the Tiber), which was originally connected with the Quirinal by a ridge; the Palatine (141 feet); and the Aventine (128 feet). To the north of the Quirinal, but not counted as one of the Seven Hills, was the Collis Hortorum, now the Pincio (164 feet). The small elevation southwest of the Aventine (Mons Testaceus, now Monte Testaccio, 115 feet) is entirely artificial, being composed chiefly of fragments of pottery. Along the right bank stretched the high ridge of the Ianiculum (253 feet), with its continuation, Mons Vaticanus.
Between the Quirinal and the Tiber was the level Campus Martius, at first a training-field outside the walls, in later times built upon and included within the city limits. The cattle-mart
Plan of Rome.
(Forum Boarium) lay between the Palatine and the Tiber, the Circus Maximus between the Palatine and the Aventine. On the low ground north of the Palatine, stretching towards the Capitoline, was the Forum (often called Forum Romanum, or Forum Magnum, to distinguish it from the imperial forums), the spot in which the life of Rome centred; as it became too small for the congestion of business, relief was sought by building a series of extensions (Fora Caesarum) on the north side. The Colosseum (Amphitheatrum Flavium), the greatest monument of Roman architecture, stands in the depression between the Palatine, Esquiline, and Caelian Hills. See Amphitheatrum.
In its development as a city Rome passed through several stages, some of which are clearly defined. Numerous indications point to the Palatine Hill as the seat of earliest settlement. At a remote period it was fortified by a strong wall of well-squared tufa blocks, laid without mortar; fragments of this wall have been discovered on the south and west sides. At least three gates gave access to the hill-top thus enclosed: the Porta Mugonia (vetus porta Palatii, cf. fig. 7) on the north side, the River-gate (Porta Romanula) on the west side, and a third, of which the name is uncertain, on the south side. To the latest times the Romans regarded the Palatine with especial reverence, and there cherished certain memorials associated with their oldest legends, such as the Hut of Romulus (Casa Romuli), which, though no doubt built of wood, and straw-thatched, was kept in repair, and was still standing in the fourth century A.D. See Domus, p. 536.
How long the Palatine city sufficed for the needs of the population cannot even be conjectured. After a time the limits seem to have been extended so as to include the Cispius, the Oppius, and the depression between them (Fagutal), together with the valley lying between these and the Palatine (Subura), as well as the small spur which the Palatine throws out towards the northeast (Velia), and a portion of its slope on the northwest side (Cermalus). To the city thus formed of seven parts (the original Palatine city being counted as one) the name Septimontium appears to have been given; but evidence regarding it is both meagre and unsatisfactory. More is known about the boundaries of Rome in the next stage of development, when enlarged by the addition of the Quirinal, Viminal, and Caelian Hills. It was now divided into four wards (regiones; cf. Varro, L. L. v. 45), the first (Regio Suburana) comprising the Caelian Hill and the Subura; the second (Esquilina), the Cispius, Oppius, and Fagutal; the third (Collina), the Quirinal and Viminal Hills; the fourth (Palatina) included the Palatine, Cermalus, and Velia. The Capitoline Hill was made a part of the city, but not set off as a separate ward; it was retained as a common sanctuary and fortress. Of the fortifications, by which this city of the four wards must have been protected, no trace has yet been found.
The bounds of Rome in the period with which the name of Servius Tullius is connected can be made out, for a large portion of the circuit, with exactness; for they were unchanged during the whole time of the Republic, and were marked by a line of imposing fortifications (agger Servii Tullii), remains of which have been discovered at many points. The Aventine Hill was now included within the limits, which were extended also further to the east on the Quirinal, Viminal, and Esquiline Hills. The wall of Servius was pierced by a number of gates, of which those most frequently mentioned are the Porta Carmentalis, at the foot of the Capitoline; the Porta Collina and Porta Esquilina, on the east side; and especially the Porta Capena, which opened into the Appian Way. The area bounded by the wall was about two square miles.
By the time of Augustus, Rome had extended beyond the Servian wall on every side. In B.C. 8 he divided the whole city, including the parts beyond the Servian limits, into fourteen wards (indicated on the Plan by Roman numerals). In each ward was afterwards placed a watch-house (excubitorium) for the vigiles, of whom there were seven cohorts (=about 7000 men), so distributed that each cohort looked after two wards; the duties of the vigiles were those of our policemen and firemen combined. The wards were subdivided into precincts (vici; the vicus as a subdivision is much older than the time of Augustus), each comprising a group, or block, of buildings; over the precincts were the precinct-masters (magistri vicorum), whose duties included not only the general oversight of other matters, but especially provision for the worship of the Lares Compitales (q. v.), to which the worship of the Genius of Augustus was added.
This larger Rome was finally fortified by a massive wall, commenced by Aurelian in A.D. 271, but not finished till the reign of Probus (A.D. 276-282). The Aurelian wall, as it is generally called (on the Plan, Murus Aureliani et Probi), was about 54 feet high on the outside, faced with brick, and strengthened (at any rate after the first restoration) by 381 square towers. It was repaired by Arcadius and Honorius in A.D. 403, afterwards by other rulers, and by several Popes; the greater part is still standing. It was constructed in great haste, as is shown by the large use of materials taken from other structures, and by the fact that walls previously erected for different purposes (e. g. see Plan, Castra Praetoria and Amphitheatrum Castrense), whose aggregate length amounted to about one sixth of the entire circuit, were incorporated in it as they stood. There were originally fourteen gates, vaulted, and flanked with round towers, besides the posterns, or small passages used for purposes of traffic in time of peace; the number was raised to fifteen by the enlargement of the Porta Pinciana from a postern to a gate of full size, probably by Honorius (Bull. Com. Arch. 1892, p. 102). The whole length of the wall was 11.7 miles (18837.50 m.); the area enclosed by it was 5.019 square miles, less than one-eighth the area of New York City.
The religious boundary of Rome, the Pomerium (q.v.), was not moved forward at the same time with the civil and military limits. The Pomerium of the city in the period when it comprised four wards and the Capitoline remained unchanged till the time of Sulla , who caused an extension to be made, but for some reason did not include the Aventine; this was outside the Pomerium till the reign of Claudius. Only he who had extended the territorial limits of Rome was entitled to the distinction of enlarging the Pomerium. After Sulla, at least Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, and Titus availed themselves of the privilege; and the line of Aurelian's wall for considerable distances seems to have coincided with a Pomerium previously fixed, perhaps also with an earlier limit of taxation for provisions brought into the city.
The population of Rome in the different periods cannot be estimated, even approximately; but, to judge from the area within the Aurelian wall, it can hardly at any time have exceeded 1,800,000.
The Tiber within the Aurelian wall was spanned by several bridges. The earliest was the Pons Sublicius, which was constructed of wood so that it could be cut down easily on the approach of an enemy; it was kept in repair, on religious grounds, even after bridges of stone stood above and below it. Next came the bridges connecting the island with the two banks, Pons Fabricius and Pons Cestius, both originally of wood, but renewed in stone in the first century B.C. The first stone bridge was the Pons Aemilius, also called Lapideus, dating from B.C. 142. The others were Pons Agrippae (reign of Augustus), Pons Aurelius (probably dating from the reign of Caracalla), and Pons Probi (reign of Probus). Frequently reckoned with these are two bridges outside the walls—the famous Mulvian Bridge (Pons Mulvius or Milvius, B.C. 109), two miles north on the Via Flaminia; and the Pons Aelius by the Campus Martius, built by Hadrian. Nero's bridge (Pons Neronis) was broken down, perhaps as early as the time of Hadrian. See Pons.
Along the Tiber were wharfs. The river-bed was skilfully adjusted—far more skilfully than under the system adopted some years ago and put into effect at enormous expense by the Italian engineers—to the great variation in the volume of water carried down, which at flood-height has been known to measure fourteen times the amount flowing when the river is at its ordinary level. The channel was graded at three elevations, so as to make three stages. Thus at the Pons Aelius the bottom division, for low water, was 218.2 feet wide; the middle division, for ordinary height, 319.9 feet wide; while to the upper division, designed to carry off the water in time of flood, a width of 442.9 feet was given (Bull. Com. Arch. 1893, p. 15). A complicated system of drains led into the Tiber through several large main sewers. Of the latter the Cloaca Maxima is justly celebrated as one of the best examples of early hydraulic construction. According to tradition it was built in the time of the Tarquins. Starting in the Subura, it followed a very irregular course, which was perhaps determined by the channel of a primitive brook (Mitth. 1891, p. 86). It passed beneath the Forum at the lowest point, under the east end of the Basilica Iulia, and emptied into the Tiber by the Forum Boarium. The channel of the Cloaca Maxima was paved with polygonal blocks of lava, and vaulted with large voussoirs of a hard kind of tufa (lapis Gabinus) laid without mortar; to give greater solidity at the mouth, the vaulting there for some distance was composed of voussoirs of peperino (lapis Albanus) arranged in three rings. The dimensions of the channel vary; where it is largest, at the opening into the Tiber, it is 14.75 feet wide and 18.96 feet high, measured from the pavement to the middle of the vault (Ant. Demkm. 1889, Taf. 37). See Cloaca.
The architecture of Rome in the early days was unpretentious. Even the temples, built after Etruscan patterns, were low and of common materials covered with stucco. The streets were narrow and crooked; as a large amount of wood was used in construction, it is not surprising that between the years B.C. 215 and 50 seven terrible conflagrations swept over the parts of the city along the Tiber and about the Forum; inundations of the river also at times caused great destruction. Not till near the end of the Republic did ambitious citizens direct their energies towards the erection of fine public buildings, such as Pompey's theatre; some, in the same period, as Lucullus and Aemilius Scaurus, lavished money upon palatial residences, which they ornamented with costly marbles. Cicero, patriot that he was, found Rome inferior to Capua not only in general appearance, but particularly in the matter of streets, and he speaks contemptuously of the building materials—in latere aut in caemento, ex quibus urbs effecta est ( II. xlvii. 99; Leg. Agr. II. xxxv. 96). He himself had a house on the north slope of the Palatine which cost him 3,500,000 sesterces (about $144,000); the house of Aemilius Scaurus is said to have been sold to the infamous Clodius for the enormous sum of nearly 15,000,000 sesterces (about $615,000).
Iulius Caesar formed large plans for the beautifying of Rome, but in the midst of their accomplishment his life was cut short. Augustus completed the edifices which his adoptive father had left unfinished, and inaugurated a new epoch in the extent to which he carried not only the erection of buildings, but also the restoration of earlier structures (the temples restored by him numbered eighty-two) and the use of fine materials, especially marble and travertine (lapis Tiburtinus); his saying that he “found the city of brick and left it of marble” was no idle boast (Suet. Aug. 28; cf. Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Aug. 19-21). His example was followed by other emperors, among whom the greatest builders were Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, and Hadrian; of lower rank than these as regards the architectural style, though not the size, of their buildings (chiefly Thermae), were Caracalla, Diocletian, and Constantine. Roman architecture was at its best in the period from Augustus to Hadrian.
The contributions of the Romans to the progress of the arts were greater in the field of architecture than in any other. From the time of Sulla they freely adopted the architectural forms of the Greeks; but with these they combined the extensive use of the round arch, and gradually worked out a system which enabled them to erect immense structures, such as lay within the range of neither the Greek nor the Etruscan architecture. Lacking the Greek sensitiveness to perfect proportion, 1 they relied, for effect, more upon massiveness than upon symmetry, and indulged in greater richness of decoration than Greek taste would have allowed. Under the Empire they ransacked the known world for the choicest marbles, as well as for the hard stones, the granites, and porphyries; these they turned to account in every conceivable way, larger masses being used for columns and other architectural members, thin slabs for incrustation, and small fragments for mosaics. (See Musivum Opus.) Surfaces finished in stucco were decorated in brilliant colours, frequently with complicated designs, sometimes with paintings of high merit (see Pictura); bas-reliefs also were painted. In their adaptation of the Greek orders of architecture the Romans made changes affecting alike the shaft, capital, and architrave. (See Columna.) Borrowing also from the Greeks the plan of the oblong temple and that of the hill-side theatre, they altered both; at the same time, contrary to Greek practice, they raised their temples upon
Temple of Vesta. (Restoration.)
high foundations, and gave to their theatres a full elevation on the exterior. (See Aedes; Theatrum.) But apart from these, they so developed several architectural types as to make them distinctively Roman; such were the circus (q.v.), the amphitheatre (see Amphitheatrum), the basilica (q.v.), baths (see Thermae), the triumphal arch (see Arcus), the commemorative column (see Columna Cochlis), the round tomb (see Mausoleum; Sepulcrum), and the aqueduct, so far as this was constructed above ground on the principle of the arcade. The Roman roads also, though in the modern view belonging rather to the domain of engineering than to that of architecture, were equally characteristic (see Via); and certain of their bridges, as that at Alcántara in Spain, command universal admiration. No other city has been able to boast of so great a number and variety of beautiful or impressive structures as Rome in the first half of the fourth century A.D. According to a Catalogue dating from that period, the city contained 2 circuses, 2 amphitheatres, 3 theatres, 10 basilicas, 11 thermae, 36 arches of marble, 2 commemorative columns, 6 obelisks (imported from Egypt), 423 temples, 1790 domus—that is, extensive private residences, or palaces, of the wealthy—besides which there were reckoned 46,602 tenements (insulae); the open places were adorned with 2 colossi (probably those of Nero and Augustus), 22 “great horses” (presumably counting not merely the large equestrian statues, as that of Marcus Aurelius, now in the square of the Capitol, but also groups of which horses formed a part, as those of the Dioscuri on the Capitoline and the Quirinal), to which are added 80 gilded and 77 ivory statues of the gods, no mention being made of the countless lesser statues on every side.
The number of obelisks in Rome is known to have been about twice that given in the Catalogue. Of the 19 aqueducts by which, according to the Catalogue, the city was supplied with water, part were branches. The principal aqueducts were: Aqua Appia, built in B.C. 312; Anio Vetus, for the Esquiline Hill, B.C. 272; Aqua Marcia (B.C. 144) and Aqua Tepula (B.C. 125), extending to the Capitoline; three constructed in the reign of Augustus: Aqua Iulia (B.C. 33), in the line of the Marcia and Tepula; Aqua Virgo (B.C. 19), for the Campus Martius; and Aqua Alsietina (B.C. 2), for his naumachia on the right bank of the Tiber; Anio Novus, built by Caligula; Aqua Claudia, by Claudius; Aqua Traiana, by Trajan, the last on the right bank; Aqua Severiana and Aqua Alexandrina, constructed to supply baths, the former by Septimius, the latter by Alexander, Severus. According to Lanciani's calculations, the amount of water brought in daily by the aqueducts in the time of Nerva (before the last three named in the list were built) was about 23,839,793 cu. ft. (cu. m. 675,092; see his I Comentarii di Frontino, p. 362). Three of the aqueducts have been repaired and are in use—the Aqua Marcia, Aqua Virgo, and Aqua Traiana. See Aquaeductus.
The names and dates of the more noteworthy buildings will now be given in connection with a rapid survey of the City according to its main divisions, commencing with the Capitoline Hill.
On the northern summit of the Capitoline was the Stronghold (Arx) of the earlier city. Within
1. Temple of Concord. 2. Temple of Saturn. 3. Temple of Castor. 4. Temple of Vesta. 5. Probable location of the Temple of Ianus. 6. Prison—Carcer. 7. Probable location of the Basilica Opimia. 8. Probable location of the Basilica Porcia. 9. Probable location of the Curia Hostilia. 10. Curia Iulia. 11. Probable location of the Rostra before 44 B.C. 12. Rostra, after 44 B.C. 13. Probable location of the Temple of Iupiter Stator. Plan of the Capitol and Forum in time of the Republic.
its walls were the Auguraculum, an open place where auspices were taken; the Temple of Iuno Moneta, with which the Mint was connected; and a Temple of Concord, built in B.C. 217; but their location is uncertain. On the southern summit was the most magnificent of all Roman temples, that of Iupiter Optimus Maximus, called the Capitolium. It stood in an area, on a high platform, and was nearly square, being Etruscan in plan and style; the sum of the four sides measured perhaps 760 feet. The front part was a triple colonnade; behind this were the three large cellae, the middle one for Iupiter, the other two for Minerva and Iuno. The original edifice is ascribed to the Tarquins, but it was not dedicated till the first year of the Republic, B.C. 509. It became a repository of the richest booty and votive offerings. In B.C. 83 it was burned to the ground; it was rebuilt, with richer adornment, the second temple being dedicated in B.C. 69. Again filled with treasures, it fell a prey to flames in A.D. 69. It was rebuilt a third time on the same plan, but as a Corinthian hexastyle, only to be burned again in A.D. 80. It was restored with great splendour, the fourth temple being dedicated by Domitian in A.D. 82. It was not again destroyed by fire, but remained to be dismantled by plunderers.
The Capitol was reached from the Forum by a graded road (Clivus Capitolinus, paved in B.C. 174), from which a branch led to the Arx. Of the open places, shrines, and private buildings on the Capitoline outside the Capitol and the Arx very little is known. The Tarpeian Rock was on the southeast side. On the slope of the Capitoline overlooking the Forum was the Tabularium, a depository for archives, erected in B.C. 78.
The northeast and southwest sides of the Forum in early times were lined with small shops (tabernae), which eventually were removed to make room for public buildings. The very ancient shrine of Ianus stood somewhere near the middle of the northwest side; the round Temple of Vesta at the southeast corner. The Palace of the Vestals (Atrium Vestae), southeast of the temple, was greatly changed by enlargements and restorations; near it was the official residence of the Pontifex Maximus (Regia). In the vaults of the Temple of Saturn (dedicated B.C. 497) the public treasure was kept (see Aerarium); the eight Ionic columns remaining belong to a later restoration. The three beautiful Corinthian columns still standing on the foundation of the Temple of Castor (dedicated B.C. 484) date from a restoration in B.C. 6. The Temple of Concord was likewise of early date (dedicated B.C. 366); but the existing plan and fragments date from a remodelling of the edifice in B.C. 7. Under the Empire temples were erected in honour of Iulius Caesar (Templum Divi Iulii, marking the spot where his body was burned, dedicated B.C. 29); of Vespasian (three Corinthian columns remain); of Faustina, wife of Antoninus Pius, dedicated to him also after his death in A.D. 161 (now the Church of S. Lorenzo in Miranda); and of Romulus, the small son of Maxentius, who died in A.D. 309; this last building, of circular form (now incorporated in the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian), lies just beyond the Temple of Faustina, northeast of the Forum. In A.D. 367 a series of twelve chapels, containing gilded statues of the Olympian divinities, was erected in the southwest corner (Porticus Deorum Consentium).
The oldest of the basilicas was the Basilica Porcia, built by the elder Cato in B.C. 184; this and the Basilica Opimia (B.C. 121) were removed, as the ground was needed for the extensions of the Forum. The Basilica Fulvia et Aemilia, built in B.C. 179, north of the shops, was extended afterwards to the edge of the Forum; as this side has not been excavated, its foundations cannot be traced. The Basilica Sempronia (B.C. 170) was erected on the site of the house of Scipio Africanus Maior, and was itself replaced by the magnificent Basilica Iulia, which was begun by Iulius Caesar in B.C. 54 and completed by Augustus. See Basilica.
The open space of the Forum was paved with large blocks of stone. Along the south side passed the Holy Way (Via Sacra), the course of which varied somewhat in different periods. Across this, at the point where it entered the Forum (north of the Regia), was the Arch of the Fabii (Fornix Fabianus), erected in B.C. 121; south of the Temple of Iulius Caesar was the Arch of Augustus (B.C. 19),
The Roman Forum in the Time of the Empire.
and at the upper end of the Basilica Iulia, the Arch of Tiberius (A.D. 16)—all these commemorating famous victories. The Arch of Septimius Severus (A.D. 203) is in a good state of preservation, though the six horses and the chariot which stood upon it, with Victory placing a crown upon the head of Severus, have long since disappeared. Several columns surmounted by statues stood in the Forum; the latest of them, the tasteless Column of Phocas (A.D. 608), is still in place, without the image.
Near the northwest corner of the Forum was the only prison in Rome (carcer), comprising a large upper and smaller lower dungeon, the latter of very ancient construction. East of the prison was the open space of the Comitium (q.v.). Here were the ancient Senate-house (Curia Hostilia) and the Speakers' Platform, called Rostra, because ornamented with the beaks of the ships taken from the Antiates in B.C. 338. Both were removed by Caesar, who commenced the erection of a new Senate-house (Curia Iulia, finished by Augustus) and the rebuilding of the Rostra at the upper end of the Forum; when the Rostra began to be used in the new location is a matter of doubt. The Platform in its final form was about 78 feet long, 33 feet wide, and 10 feet high; the top was adorned with statues. A second Speakers' Platform (Rostra Iulia) was erected in front of the Temple of Iulius Caesar, forming part of the façade, and was ornamented with the beaks of ships taken at the battle of Actium. Near the southwest corner of the Rostra was the Golden Milestone (Milliarium Aureum), erected by Augustus, from which distances were calculated on the Roman roads; at the northwest corner Constantine set up the Umbilicus Romae, in the form of a cone, as the ideal centre of the city and the Roman world. There is much uncertainty in regard to the plan and location of several other structures about the Forum, as the Secretarium Senatus and Graecostasis. Somewhere near the middle of the open space was the Lacus Curtius, which appears to have become a dry puteal by the time of Augustus; near the Temple of Castor was the Lacus Iuturnae, which was still known in the Middle Ages.
The first extension of the Forum, made by Iulius Caesar (Forum Caesaris or Forum Iulium, see Map of Rome), was east of the Arx; in the centre was a Temple of Venus Genetrix, in front of which stood a bronze statue of Caesar's war-horse (Suet. Caes. 61). On the east side of this Augustus built a second extension (Forum Augusti), in which was the splendid Temple of Mars Ultor (dedicated B.C. 2), adorned with costly works of art. Nearer the Forum Romanum Vespasian laid off a similar area, and erected in it the magnificent Temple of Peace (Templum Pacis). This was connected with the forums of Caesar and Augustus by the Forum of Nerva , which was planned and almost finished by his predecessor Domitian; the boundary-wall
Restoration of the Forum.
was richly ornamented with Corinthian columns and reliefs, and in it was a prostyle hexastyle Temple of Minerva, also of the Corinthian order. The last and finest of the imperial forums was that of Trajan, who cut away the ridge between the Capitoline and Quirinal to make room for it. It was entered from the Forum of Augustus, through a high triumphal arch. From this the visitor passed into an area with colonnades on either side, which opened out into two semicircular extensions; at the upper end of the latter was the great Basilica Ulpia. Beyond the Basilica was a small area in which rose the immense column of Trajan (without the base 97 feet,=100 Roman feet, high), adorned with reliefs celebrating his campaigns against Decebalus. On either side of this were two buildings in which a large library was stored (Bibliotheca Ulpia); just beyond them Hadrian erected a temple in honour of Trajan and Plotina.
The greater part of the Palatine Hill in the Republican period was given up to the residences of wealthy citizens. There were, however, several
Restoration of Hadrian's Mausoleum.
temples the location of which, even now that a considerable portion of the hill has been excavated, has not been determined with exactness. Somewhere on the northern side was the very ancient Temple of Victory; farther down towards the Via Sacra lay the Temple of Iupiter Stator. Of later date were the Temple of the Magna Mater (dedicated B.C. 191), and the Temple of Iupiter Victor (see Plan), which seems to have been changed into a temple of the Sun by Elagabalus. But these temples were eclipsed in splendour by the Temple of Apollo, dedicated B.C. 28; the site of this, and of the library connected with it, has not yet been cleared.
Augustus, who was born on the Palatine, made it a place of imperial residence. His palace, enlarged by the additions of his successors (Domus Augustana), became the nucleus of a complex of palatial edifices to the magnificence of which the world has elsewhere afforded no parallel. (The arrangement in general, so far as the excavations have gone, may be made out from the Plan.) Tiberius seems to have had a separate palace before his father's death (Domus Tiberiana). Caligula added to this; and, utilizing the roofs of intermediate buildings, he made a bridge from the Palatine to the Capitoline. Nero, after the nine-days fire in July, A.D. 64, extended his Golden House (Domus Aurea) over the Velia and even to the Esquiline; together with the Palace on the Palatine it must have covered about a square mile, but the parts beyond the Palatine were removed by the following emperors. The Stadium was probably built by Hadrian. Septimius Severus extended the palace beyond the Stadium; at the southeast corner, overlooking the Via Appia, he erected the
Plan of the Palatine.
Septizonium, a beautiful marble balcony in at least three stories. On the slope of the Palatine at the middle of the south side was the Paedagogium, a school for the pages of the imperial household.
North of the Palatine ran the Via Sacra, connecting at the east end with a street that skirted the southeast side and led into the Via Appia near the Porta Capena. Across the Via Sacra at the highest point of the Velia was the Arch of Titus, commemorating his victories over the Jews in A.D. 70 (dedicated in A.D. 81 by Domitian). Near this was the magnificent Temple of Venus and Rome, built by Hadrian, with two great apsidal niches facing in opposite directions (partly incorporated in the church of S. Francesca Romana). Further towards the Forum was the Basilica of Constantine, the main part of which was erected by Maxentius before B.C. 312; its remains are among the most impressive in Rome. At the end of the Via Sacra the triumphal Arch of Constantine is still standing, not far from the Colosseum. See Arcus.
The Colosseum (probably so named from the colossus of Nero, more than 100 feet high, which stood near it) was commenced by Vespasian, and dedicated by Titus in A.D. 80, but it seems not to have been entirely finished till later. It is in the form of an ellipse, the circuit of which measures nearly one-third of a mile (1728 feet), the major axis 615 feet, the minor axis 510 feet; the area is about 5.7 acres. The four stories furnished seats for 87,000 spectators. More ample still was the Circus Maximus, which was first provided with a permanent structure by Caesar; his building was in three stories, the first of stone, the other two of wood, and was about 2130 feet long, seating 150,000 spectators. This Circus was several times burned, rebuilt, and enlarged; before A.D. 79 it accommodated 250,000 spectators, and at the beginning of the fourth century its capacity is said to have reached the incredible number of 485,000. See Amphitheatrum.
The other great buildings in the eastern part of Rome were the Thermae of Titus ( III.), erected in A.D. 80 on a part of the site of the Golden House. The Thermae of Caracalla (Thermae Antoninianae, Reg. XII.) could accommodate at one time 1600 bathers, and were of unparalleled magnificence. The quadrangular enclosure (see Map of Rome) measures more than a fifth of a mile (1081 feet) on each side, and the ruins now have something of the appearance of a great fortress. On the Quirinal (Reg. VI.) were the immense Thermae of Diocletian (dedicated in A.D. 305), part of the remains of which have been turned to use in modern edifices, and the Thermae of Constantine, which, though restored as late as A.D. 443, have left few traces. See Thermae.
The public edifices in the Campus Martius were numerous and important. Here was the Theatre of Pompey (erected B.C. 55); with this was connected the Porticus Pompei, together with the Exedra, in which stood the statue of Pompey mentioned in the narratives of the death of Caesar. Nearer the Capitoline and the Tiber were the Theatre of
The Palatine Hill as seen from the Capitoline (1893).
Marcellus, of which an imposing section of exterior wall is still to be seen, and the Theatre of Balbus, both dedicated in B.C. 11; among other buildings erected during the reign of Augustus were the Porticus of Octavia and Porticus of Philippus, both named after relatives of the emperor, the Thermae of Agrippa, and the original Pantheon. The Pantheon in its present form, dating from the reign of Hadrian (though the inscription of Agrippa is still on the front of the Portico), is not only in a better state of preservation than any other Roman edifice, but ranks high among remarkable buildings. Its plan has the form of a circle 140 feet in diameter on the inside, with a rectangular portico sustained by sixteen Corinthian columns of granite 39 feet high. Over the round structure, which is of brick, is a massive dome 140 feet at its highest point above the paved floor; the building is lighted by an aperture, 30 feet in diameter, at the centre of the dome. Near the Tiber, in the northern part of the Campus Martius, was the huge Mausoleum of Augustus, the chambers of which were used as burial-places for members of the imperial family down to Nerva. To his reign also belonged the completion of the new Saepta, commenced by Iulius Caesar; this, originally an open space marked off to facilitate voting by centuries, was now surrounded by marble porticos, and provided with elaborate barriers of division. The Stadium, built by the emperor Domitian for Greek games, had seats for 30,000 spectators; the Circus of Flaminius (B.C. 221) was probably still larger. In the Campus Martius were many temples, early and late, as those of Hope (Templum Spei), of Neptune (eleven columns remain), and of the Egyptian Isis. The Column of Marcus Aurelius, similar to that of Trajan, is well preserved; the triumphal arches across the Via Lata have disappeared.
The famous Temple of Aesculapius, founded in B.C. 291, was on the island in the Tiber. On the right bank of the river was a Circus, built for the most part by Caligula, but named after Nero. East of this Hadrian erected his massive Mausoleum (now Castello di S. Angelo), in the form of a drum of masonry, 240 feet in diameter, resting on a square base measuring 341 feet on the sides; the whole structure was about 165 feet high, and on the top was a gilded statue of the emperor. Near by he built a Circus.
Bibliography.—Indispensable for more than superficial study of the subject are the publications devoted to the presentation and discussion of new discoveries and the results of investigation: Notizie degli Scavi, a monthly report of all excavations and “finds” in Italian territory (from 1876); Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica comunale di Roma (from 1873); Monumenti antichi pubblicati per cura della R. Accademia dei Lincei (from 1891; vol. i., e. g., contains L'Itinerario di Einsiedeln e l'Ordine di Benedetto Canonico, by Lanciani, and Mommsen's Commentarium Ludorum Saecularium Quintorum). Of especial value are the publications of the German Archaeological Institute: Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abtheilung (from 1886; following the Annali and Bulletino, 1829-85); Jahrbuch des K. D. Arch. Inst. (from 1886), with the Archäologische Anzeiger (from 1886; following the Archäologische Zeitung, 1843-85); and the Antike Denkmäler (from 1886; following the Monumenti Inediti, 1829- 1885). The contributions of the French School at Rome appear in the Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire (from 1881).
Middleton's Remains of Ancient Rome (2 vols. London, 1892; enlarged edition of Ancient Rome in 1885) and Burn's Rome and the Campagna (London, 1876; small edition, with the title Ancient Rome and its Neighbourhood, London, 1895) are attractive in appearance, but untrustworthy in regard to details; of greater merit, so far as they go, are The Roman Forum (London, 1877) and The Marvels of Rome (edition of the Mirabilia Urbis Romae, London, 1889), by F. M. Nichols; Hülsen's Forum Romanum (English edition, Rome, 1893) contains two admirable reconstructions; worthy of recommendation also are the panorama by Bühlmann and Wagner, Rom mit dem Triumphzug des Kaisers Constantin im Jahre 312, with descriptive text by F. von Reber (Munich, 1890), and the reconstruction of the Baths of Diocletian by Paulin, Les Thermes de Dioclétien (Paris, 1890). There is a succinct but clear description of the ruins at Rome in Baedeker's Central Italy and Rome (11th edition, Leipzig, 1893). An interesting account of late discoveries is given by Lanciani in Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries (Boston, 1888) and Pagan and Christian Rome (Boston, 1893). Prof. Lanciani is publishing a detail map of Rome, scale 1.1000; the 48 sheets appear in 8 fasciculi (Milan; fasc. 1-3, 1893-95). An excellent brief handbook is Otto Richter's Topographie der Stadt Rom (Nördlingen, 1889; reprinted from Müller's Handbuch der klass. Alterthumswissenschaft). Jordan's Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum (Berlin, vol. i. pt. i. 1878, pt. ii. 1885, vol. ii. 1871) is of much value; Gilbert's Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum (Leipzig, 3 pts. 1883, 1885, 1890) is less satisfactory. Among later works on Roman architecture, Choisy, L'Art de Bâtir chez les Romains (Paris, 1873), and Durm, Die Baukunst der Römer (in his Handbuch der Architektur, vol. ii. Darmstadt, 1885), are worthy of special mention. The inscriptions of the city of Rome are collected in vol. vi. of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. For the other ancient sources, and for fuller reference to modern works (including collections of engravings), the bibliographies at the beginning of the works by Richter, Burn, and Middleton, cited above, may be consulted; and a review of the literature since 1887 by Hülsen will be found in the Mittheilungen, vols. iv., vi., vii., and viii.
1 * Very little is known of the architectural character of the early basilicas about the Forum. - Harry Thurston Peck. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers. 1898.
ROMA (Ρώμη, Strab. Ptol. et alii: Eth. Romanus), the chief town of Italy, and long the mistress of the ancient world.
PART I.--HISTORY OF THE CITY.
I. Traditions respecting the foundation of Rome 722
II. The city of Romulus 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
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 [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
PLAN OF THE ROMAN HILLS.
* 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.
o a. Velia.
o b. Germalus.
o c. Oppits.
o d. Cispius.
o e e. Tiberis Fl.
* 1. Prata Quinctia.
* 2. Prata Flaminia.
* 3. Subura.
* 4. Carinae.
* 5. Caeroliensis.
* 6. Velabrum.
* 7. Forum Boarium.
* 8. Vallis Murcia.
[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):--
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. [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 (?fe??? d? ?st? ped?a, t? µ?? p??? t?? ??µ?? s???pt??ta ?a? t? p???ste?a a?t??, t? d? p??? t?? ???atta?: t? µ?? ??? p??? t?? ???atta? ?tt?? ?st?? ???e???, t? d? ???a e?????? te ?a? pa?ap??s??? ???s??µ??a, 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.
PART I. HISTORY OF THE CITY.
I. TRADITIONS RESPECTING THE FOUNDATIONS OF ROME.
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 (??µ?) 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 [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
THE CAPITOLINE WOLF.
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 [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.)
II. THE CITY OF ROMULUS.
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 (pe?????fe? tet??????? s??µa t? ??f?, 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 [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.”
PLAN OF THE ROMULEAN CITY.
* A. Mons Palatinus.
* B. B. Mons Capitolinus.
* C. Collis Quirinalis.
* D. Mons Aventinus.
E. Forum Romanum.
o a. a. Velia.
o b. Inter duos Lucos.
o c. Germalus.
o d d. Clivus Capitolinus.
o e e e. Sacra Via.
o f. Summa Sacra Via.
o g g. Nova Via.
o 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.
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 (p?? d? t?? µe????? ta?t?? ??µ??, ?? ??t?se ??µ???? pe?? t?? Fa?st???? ????a? ?? ??e? ?a?at??, tet??????? ??t?s?? ??µ? pa?? ??µ?? ? ??µ??? ta?a??t???? t??t??, Dio Cass. Fr. Vales. 3, 5, p. 10, St.; cf. Tzetzes, ad Lycophr. 5.1232). But, as Becker observes (Handb. [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 (?t? t?? tet?a????? ?a???µ???? ??µ??, ?? ??e???? ?te???se?, ??t?? ?st??, 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 (??µ???? µ?? ????s?? ??? (?e??? ?d??sat?) pa?? ta?? ?a???µ??a?? ??????s? p??a??, a? f????s?? e?? t? ?a??t??? ?? t?? ?e??? ?d??, 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 [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 (ta?t?? ?µe?? µ?? ??? ?t? ?e?µ???? e???µe?), and that on inquiry he was told that it had been destroyed (?fa??s??) in a fire that had raged among the surrounding houses. But Dionysius may have been misinformed; pr perhaps ?fa??s?? 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. [2.729]
III. PROGRESS OF THE CITY TILL THE TIME OF SERVIUS TULLIUS.
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 ???????, a mountain of their own country. (Dionys. A. R. 1.34.) After the foundation of the Capitol [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 [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 [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 (te??? — a?t?s??d?a ?a? fa??a ta?? ???as?a?? ??ta, 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 [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 [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 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) William Smith, LLD, Ed.
Map of the Roman Empire - Places