&c., which are often used without any precise signification. 66 With these preliminary remarks we shall proceed to examine the question as to which summit was occupied by the Capitoline temple. And as several arguments have been adduced by Becker (Handb. pp. 387-395) in favour of the SW. summit, which he deems to be of such force and cogency as completely to decide" the question, it will be necessary to examine them seriatim, before we proceed to state our own opinion. They are chiefly drawn from narratives of attempts to surprise or storm the Capitol, and the first on the list is the well-known story of Herdonius, as related by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (x. 14): "Herdonius," says Becker, "lands by night at the spot where the Capitol lies, and where the hill is not the distance of a stadium from the river, and therefore manifestly opposite to its western point. He forces a passage through the Carmental gate, which lay on this side, ascends the height, and seizes the fortress (ppoúpiov). Hence he presses forwards still farther to the neighbouring citadel, of which he also gains possession. This narrative alone suffices to decide the question, since the Capitol is expressly mentioned as being next to the river, and the Carmental gate near it: and since the band of Herdonius, after taking possession of the western height, proceeds to the adjoining citadel" (p. 388). In this interpretation of the narrative some things are omitted which are necessary to the proper understanding of it, and others are inserted which are by no means to be found there. Dionysius does not say that Herdonius landed at the spot where the Capitol lies, and where the hill is only a stade from the river, but that he landed at that part of Rome where the Capitoline hill is, at the distance of not quite a stade from the river. Secondly, Becker assumes that poúptov is the Capitol, or, as he calls it, by begging the whole question, "the western height." But his greatest misrepresentation arises from omitting to state that Dionysius, as his text stands, describes the Carmental gate as left open in pursuance of some divine or oracular command (kará Séoparov); whereas Becker's words ("er dringt durch das Carmentalische Thor ") would lead the reader to believe that the passage was forced by Herdonius. Now it has been shown that the Porta Carmentalis was one of the city gates; and it is impossible to believe that the Romans were so besotted, or rather in such a state of idiotcy, that, after building a huge stone wall round their city at great expense and trouble, they should leave one of their gates open, and that too without a guard upon it; thus rendering all their elaborate defences useless and abortive. We have said without a guard, because it appears from the narrative that the first obstacle encountered by Herdonius was the opoúpiov, which according to Becker was the Capitol; so that he must have passed through the Vicus Jugarius, over the forum, and ascended the Clivus Capitolinus without interruption. It is evident, however, that Dionysius could not have intended the Carmental gate, since he makes it an entrance not to the city but to the Capitol (ἱεραὶ πύλαι τοῦ Καπιτωλίου); and that he regarded it as seated upon an eminence, is plain from the expression that Herdonius made his men ascend through it (àvası6áoas тhy dúvaμiv). The text of Dionysius is manifestly corrupt or interpolated; which further appears from the fact that | (i. 32), he used the adjective form Kapuevris (πapà ταῖς Καρμεντίσι πύλαις), whilst in the present instance he is made to use the form Kapuévivos. Herdonius must have landed below the line of wall running from the Capitoline to the river, where, as the wall was not continued along its banks, he would have met with no obstruction. And this was evidently the reason why he brought down his men in boats; for if the Carmental gate had been always left open it would have been better for him to have marched overland, and thus to have avoided the protracted and hazardous operation of landing his men. It is clear, as Preller has pointed out (Schneidewin's Philologus i. p. 85, note), that Dionysius, or rather perhaps his transcribers or editors, has here confounded the Porta Carmentalis with the Porta Pandana, which, as we have before seen, was seated on the Capitoline hill, and always left open, for there could hardly have been two gates of this description. The Porta Pandana, as we have already said, was still in existence in the time of Varro (L. L. v. § 42, Müll.), and was in fact the entrance to the ancient fort or castellum - the poúptov of Dionysius-which guarded the approach to the Capitoline hill, of course on its E. side, or towards the forum, where alone it was accessible. Thus Solinus: "Iidem (Herculis comites) et montem Capitolinum Saturnium nominarunt, Castelli quoque, quod excitaverunt, portam Saturniam appellaverunt, quae postmodum Pandana vocitata est" (i. 13). We also learn from Festus, who mentions the same castrum, or fort, that it was situated in the lower part of the Clivus Capitolinus. "Saturnii quoque dicebantur, qui castrum in imo clivo Capitolino incolebant" (p. 322, Müll.). This, then, was the poipiov first captured by Herdonius, and not, as Becker supposes, the Capitol: and hence, as that writer says, he pressed on to the western height, which, however, was not the Capitol but the Arx. When Dionysius says of the latter that it adjoined, or was connected with, the Capitolium, this was intended for his Greek readers, who would otherwise have supposed, from the fashion of their own cities, that the Arx or Acropolis formed quite a separate hill. The story of Herdonius, then, instead of being "alone decisive," and which Becker (Warnung, pp. 43, 44) called upon Braun and Preller to explain, before they ventured to say a word more on the subject, proves absolutely nothing at all; and we pass on to the next, that of Pontius Cominius and the Gauls. "The messenger climbs the rock at the spot nearest the river, by the Porta Carmentalis, where the Gauls, who had observed his footsteps, afterwards make the same attempt. It is from this spot that Manlius casts them down" (p. 389). This is a fair representation of the matter; but the question remains, when the messenger had clomb the rock was he in the Capitol or in the Arx? The passages quoted as decisive in favour of the former are the following: "Inde (Cominius) qua proximum fuit a ripa, per praeruptum eoque neglectum hostium custodiae saxum in Capitolium evadit.” (Liv. v. 46.) "Galli, seu vestigio notato humano, seu sua sponte animadverso ad Carmentis saxorum adscensu aequo - in summum evasere" (Ib. 47). Now, it is plain, that in the former of these passages Livy means the Capitoline hill, and not the Capitol strictly so called; since, in regard to a small space, like the Capitol Proper, it would be a useless and absurd distinction, if it lay, and was known to lie, next the was nearest to the river. "The at "Cominius in Capitolium | left to its fate; the besieged had concentrated them- We now proceed to the next illustration, which is drawn from the account given by Tacitus of the attack of the Vitellians on the Capitol. Becker's interpretation of this passage is so full of errors, that we must follow him sentence by sentence, giving, first of all, the original description of Tacitus. It runs as follows: "Cito agmine forum et imminentia foro templa praetervecti erigunt aciem per adversum collein usque ad primas Capitolinae arcis fores. Erant antiquitus porticus in latere clivi, dextrae subeuntibus: in quarum tectum egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruebant. Neque illis manus nisi gladiis armatae; et arcessere tormenta aut missilia tela longum videbatur. Faces in prominentem porticum jecere et sequebantur ignem; ambustasque Capitolii fores penetrassent, ni Sabinus revulsas undique statuas, decora majorum in ipso aditu vice muri objecisset. Tum diversos Capitolii aditus invadunt, juxta lucum asyli, et qua Tarpeia rupes centum gradibus aditur. Improvisa utraque vis: propior atque acrior per asylum ingruebat. Nec sisti poterant scandentes per conjuncta aedificia, quae, ut in multa pace, in altum edita solum Capitolii aequabant. Hic ambigitur, ignem tectis oppugnatores injecerint, an obsessi, quae crebrior fama est, quo nitentes ac progressos depellerent. Inde lapsus ignis in porticus appositas aedibus: mox sustinentes fastigium aquilae vetere ligno traxerunt flammam alueruntque. Sic Capitolium clausis foribus indefensum et indireptum conflagravit." (Hist. iii. 71.) "The attack," says Becker, "is directed solely against the Capitol; that is, the height containing the temple, which latter is burnt on the occasion (p. 390). This is so far from being the case, that the words of Tacitus would rather show that the attack was directed against the Arx. The temple is represented as having been shut up, and neither attacked nor defended: "clausis foribus, indefensum et indireptum conflagravit." Such state of things is inconceivable, if, as Becker says, the attack was directed solely against the Capitol. That part of the hill was evidently deserted, and a Our chief objection to this account is, its impossi bility. If the Lucus Asyli corresponded to the steps of the present Palazzo de' Conservatori, which is seated in the depression between the two summits, or present Piazza del Campidoglio, then the besiegers must have forced the passage of the Clivus Capitolinus, whereas Tacitus expressly says that they were repulsed. Being repulsed they must have retreated downwards, and renewed the attempt at lower points; at the foot of the Hundred Steps, for instance, on one side, and at the bottom of the Lucus Asyli on another; on both which sides they again attempted to mount. The Palazzo de' Conservatori, though not the highest point of the hill, is above the clivus. Becker, as we have shown, has adopted the strangely erroneous opinion that the "Capitolinae arcis fores" belonged to the Capitol itself (note 752), and that consequently the Vitellians were storming it from the Piazza del Campidoglio (note 754). But the portico from which they were driven back was on the clivus, and consequently they could not have reached the top of the hill, or piazza. The argument that the temple must have been on the SW. height, because the Vitellians attempted to storm it by mounting the Centum Gradus (Becker, Warnung, p. 43), may be retorted by those who hold that the attack was directed against the Arx. The precise spot of the Lucus Asyli cannot be indicated; but from Livy's description of it, it was evidently somewhere on the descent of the hill ("locum qui nunc septus descendentibus inter duos lucos est, asylum aperit," i. 8). It is probable, as Preller supposes (Philol. p. 99), that the "aditus juxta lucum Asyli" was on the NE. side of the hill near the present arch of Severus. The Clivus Asyli is a fiction; there was only one clivus on the Capitoline. We have only one more remark to make on this narrative. It is plain that the fire broke out near the Lucus Asyli, and then spreading from house to house, caught at last the front of the temple. This follows from Tacitus' account of the portico and the eagles which supported the fastigium or pediment, first catching fire. The back-front of the Capitoline temple was plain, apparently a mere wall; since Dionysius (iv. 61) does not say a single word about it, though he particularly describes the front as having a triple row of columns and the sides double rows. But as we know that the temple faced the south, such an accident could not have happened except it stood on the NE. height, or that of Araceli. We might, therefore, by substituting Caffarelli for Araceli, retort the triumphant remark with which Becker closes his explanation of this passage: "To him, therefore, who would seek the temple of Jupiter on the height of Caffarelli, the description of Tacitus is in every respect inexplicable." Becker's next argument in favour of the W. summit involves an equivocation. It is, "that the temple was built on that summit of the hill which bore the name of Mons Tarpeius." Now it is notorious and as we have already established it, we need not repeat it here--that before the building of the Capitol the whole hill was called Mons Tarpeius. The passages cited by Becker in note 755 (Liv. i. 55; Dionys. iii. 69) mean nothing more than this; indeed, the latter expressly states it (ós [Aópos] TÓTE μèv èkaλeîto Тaphios, vûv dè Καπιτωλίνος). Capitolium gradually became the name for the whole hill; but who can believe that the name of Tarpeia continued to be retained at that very portion of it where the Capitoline temple was built? The process was evidently as follows: the northern height, on which the temple was built, was at first alone called Capitolium. Gradually its superior importance gave name to the whole hill; yet a particular portion, the most remote from the temple, retained the primitive name of Rupes Tarpeia. And thus Festus in a mutilated fraginent, Becker then proceeds to argue that the temple of Juno Moneta was built on the site of the house of M. Manlius Capitolinus, which was on the Arx (Liv. v. 47; Plut. Cam. 36; Dion Cass. Fr. 31, &c.); and we learn from Ovid (Fast. i. 637) that there were steps leading from the temple of Concord, to that of Juno Moneta. Now as the former temple was situated under the height of Araceli, near the arch of Severus, this determines the question of the site of Juno Moneta and the Arx. Ovid's words are as follows: "Candida, te niveo posuit lux proxima templo This is very obscure; but we do not see how it can "Arce quoque in summa Junoni templa Monetae Ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo; Ante domus Manli fuerant" (Fast. vi. 183); and thus these two great works of the dictator stood, as was natural, close together, just as the temple of Concord and the basilica subsequently erected by Opimius also adjoined one another on or near the clivus. therefore, to have been a small affair, and might very well have coexisted on the Arx with another and more splendid temple. two ancient inscriptions from Marini's Atti de' Fratelli Arvali (p. 212); in which a basilica Opimia is recorded; and Becker, in his Antwort (p. 33), confessing that he had overlooked these inscriptions, retracted his doubts, and acknowledged the existence of a basilica. According to Varro, then, the Aedis Concordiae and baslica of Opimius were close to the senaculum; and the situation of the senaculum. is pointed out by Festus between the Capitol and that there was another small temple of Concord on It is no objection to this view forum: "Unum (Senaculum) ubi nunc est aedis the Arx, which had been vowed by the praetor Concordiae, inter Capitolium et Forum" (p. 347, Manlius in Gaul during a sedition of the soldiers. Müll.). This description corresponds exactly with the The vow had been almost overlooked, but after a site where the present remains of a temple of Con- lapse of two years it was recollected, and the temple cord are unanimously agreed to exist: remains, how-erected in discharge of it. (Liv. xxii. 33.) It seems, ever, which are supposed to be those of the temple founded by Camillus, and not of that founded by Opimius. According to this supposition there must have been two temples of Concord on the forum. But if these remains belong to that of Camillus, who shall point out those of the temple erected by Opimius? Where was its site? What its history? When was it demolished, and its place either left vacant or occupied by another building? Appian, as we have seen, expressly says that the temple built by Opimius was in the forum; where is the evidence that the temple of Camillus was also in the forum? There is positively none. Plutarch, the only direct evidence as to its site, says no such thing, but only that it looked down upon the forum: npioarτo τῆς μὲν Ὁμονίας ἱερὸν, ὥσπερ ηὔξατο ὁ Κάμιλλος, εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἄποπτον ἐπὶ Tois yeyernμévois i8púoaobai (Camill. 42). Now apopáw means to view from a distance, and especially from a height. It is equivalent to the Latin prospicere, the very term used by Ovid in describing the same temple: "Nunc bene prospicies Latiam, Concordia, turbam." These expressions, then, like Ovid's allusion to the "sublimes gradus" of Moneta, point to the Arx as the site of the temple. It is remarkable that Lucan (Phars. i. 195) employs the same word when describing the temple of Jupiter Tonans, erected by Augustus, also situated upon the Arx, or Rupes Tarpeia: O magnae qui moenia prospicis urbis Tarpeia de rupe Tonans." This temple, indeed, has also been placed on the clivus, on the authority of the pseudo-Victor, and against the express evidence of the best authorities. Thus an inscription in Gruter (lxxii. No. 5), consisting of some lines addressed to Fortuna, likewise places the Jupiter Tonans on the Tarpeian rock:"Tu quae Tarpeio coleris vicina Tonanti Votorum vindex semper Fortuna meorum," &c. Suetonius (Aug. c. 29 and 91), Pliny (xxxvi. 6) and the Mon. Ancyranum, place it "in Capitolio," meaning the Capitoline hill. It has been absurdly inferred that it was on the clivus, because Dion says that those who were going up to the great temple of Jupiter met with it first,-8T πρώτῳ οἱ ἀνιόντες ἐς τὸ Καπιτώλιον ἐνετύγχανον (liv. 4), which they no doubt would do, since the clivus led first to the western height. On these grounds, then, we are inclined to believe that the temple of Concord erected by Camillus stood on the Arx, and could not, therefore, have had any steps leading to the temple of Juno Moneta. The latter was likewise founded by Camillus, as we learn from Livy and Ovid : proof adduced is Caligula's bridge. down from the Capitol ("ex Capitolio") into the Vicus |