what confirms what has been already said respecting the forum and its environs; except that the usurers sub Veteribus show that the bankers' shops were not confined to the N. side of the forum. What the canalis was in the middle of the forum is not clear, but it was perhaps a drain. The passage is, in some places, probably corrupt, as appears from the two obscure lines respecting the mariti Ditis, the second of which is inexplicable, though they probably contain some allusion to the Sacellum Ditis which we have mentioned as adjoining the temple of Saturn. Mommsen, however (l. c. p. 297), would read "dites damnosos marito," &c., taking these "dites" to be the rich usurers who resorted to the basilica and lent young men money for the purpose of corrupting city wives. But what has tended to throw doubts upon the whole passage is the mention of the basilica, since, according to the testimony of Cicero (Brut. 15), Plautus died in the very year of Cato's censorship. Yet the basilica is also alluded to in another passage of Plautus before quoted; so that we can hardly imagine but that it must have existed in his lifetime. If we could place the basilica in Cato's aedileship instead of his censorship, every difficulty would vanish; but for such a view we can produce no authority.

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

The Basilica Porcia was soon followed by others. The next in the order of time was the BASILICA FULVIA, founded in the censorship of M. Aemilius Lepidus, and M. Fulvius Nobilior, B. C. 179. This was also "post Argentarias Novas" (Liv. xl. 51), and must therefore have been very close to the Basilica Porcis. From the two censors it was sometimes called Basilica Aemilia et Fulvia. (Varr. L.L. vi. § 4, Müll.) All the subsequent embellishments and restorations appear, however, to have proceeded from the Gens Aemilia. M. Aemilius Lepidus, consul with Q. Lutatius in B. C. 78, adorned it with bronze shields bearing the effigies of his ancestors. (Plin. XXXV. 4.) It appears to have been entirely rebuilt by L. Aemilius Paullus, when aedile, B. C. 53. This seems to have been the restoration alluded to by Cicero (ad Att. iv. 16), from which passage -if the punctuation and text are correct, for it is almost a locus desperatus-it also appears that Paullus was at the same time constructing another new and magnificent basilica. Hence a difficulty arises respecting the situation of the latter, which we are unable to solve, since only one BASILICA PAULLI is mentioned by ancient authors; and Plutarch (Caes. 29) says expressly that Paullus expended the large sum of money which he had received from Caesar as a bribe in building on the forum, in place of the Basilica Fulvia, a new one which bore his own name. (Cf. Appian, B. C. ii. 26.) It is certain at

least that we must not assume with Becker (Handb. p. 303) that the latter was but a poor affair in comparison with the new one because it was built with the ancient columns. It is plain that in the words "nihil gratius illo monumento, nihil gloriosius," Cicero is alluding to the restoration of the ancient basilica, since he goes on to mention it as one which used to be extolled by Atticus, which would not have been possible of a new building; and the employment of the ancient columns only added to its beauty. The building thus restored, however, was not destined to stand long. It seems to have been rebuilt less then twenty years afterwards by Paullus Aemilius Lepidus (Dion Cass. xlix. 42); and in about another twenty years this second restoration was destroyed by a fire. It was again rebuilt in the name of the same Paullus, but at the expense of Augustus and other friends (Id. liv. 24), and received further embellishments in. the reign of Tiberius, A. D. 22. (Tac. Ann. iii. 72.) It was in this last phase that Pliny saw it when he admired its magnificence and its columns of Phrygian inarble (xxxvi. 24).

BASILICA AEMILIA. (From a Coin.)

The third building of this kind was the BASILICA SEMPRONIA, erected by T. Sempronius Gracchus in his censorship, B.C. 169. For this purpose he purchased the house of Scipio Africanus, together with some adjoining butchers' shops, behind the Tabernae Veteres, and near the statue of Vertumnus, which, as we have said, stood near the forum at the end of the Vicus Tuscus. (Liv. xliv. 16.) This, therefore, was the first basilica erected on the S. side of the forum. We hear no further mention of it, and therefore it seems probable that it altogether disappeared, and that its site between the Vicus Tuscus and Vicus Jugarius was subsequently occupied in the imperial times by the Basilica Julia.

The

The LAUTUMIAE, of which we have had occasion to speak when treating of the Basilica Porcia, was not merely the name of a district near the forum, but also of a prison which appears to have been constructed during the Republican period. Lautumiae are first mentioned after the Second Punic War, and it seems very probuble, as Varro says (L. L. v. § 151, Müll.), that the name was derived from the prison at Syracuse; though we can hardly accept his second suggestion, that the etymology is to be traced at Rome, as well as in the Sicilian city, to the circumstance that stone quarries formerly existed at the spot. The older topographers, down to the time of Bunsen, assumed that Lautumiae was only another appellation for the Carcer Mamertinus, a misconception perhaps occasioned by the abruptness with which Varro (l. c.) passes from his account of the Tullianum to that of the Lautumiae. We read of the latter as a place for the custody of hostages and prisoners of war in Livy (xxxii. 26, xxxvii. 3); a purpose to which neither the size nor the dungeon-like con

struction of the carcer would have adapted it. That the Lautumiae was of considerable size may also be inferred from the circumstance that when the consul Q. Metellus Celer was imprisoned there by the tribune L. Flavius, Metellus attempted to assemble the senate in it. (Dion Cass. xxxvii. 50.) Its distinctness from the Carcer Mamertinus is also shown by Seneca (Controv. 27, p. 303, Bipont).

An important alteration in the arrangement of the forum, to which we have before alluded, was the removal of the TRIBUNAL PRAETORIS from the comitium to the eastern end of the forum by the tribune L. Scribonius Libo, apparently in B. C. 149. It now stood near the Puteal, a place so called from its being open at the top like a well, and consecrated in ancient times either from the whetstone of the augur Navius having been buried there, or from its having been struck by lightning. It was repaired and re-dedicated by Libo; whence it was afterwards called PUTEAL LIBONIS, and PuTEAL SCRIBONIANUM. After this period, its vicinity to the judgment-seat rendered it a noted object at Rome, and we find it frequently alluded to in the classics. (Hor. Ep. i. 19. 8, Sat. ii. 6. 35; Cic. p.

PUTEAL LIBONIS OR SCRIBONIANUM.

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

In the year B.C. 121 the TEMPLE OF CONCORD was built by the consul L. Opimius on the Clivus Capitolinus just above the senaculum (Varr. L. L. v. § 156, Müll.); but, as we have already had occasion to discuss the history of this temple when treating of the Capitol and of the senaculum, we need not revert to it here. At the same time, or a little afterwards, he also erected the BASILICA OPIMIA, which is mentioned by Varro in close connection with the temple of Concord, and must therefore have stood on its northern side, since on no other would there have been space for it. Of this basilica we hear but very little, and it seems not improbable

that its name may have been afterwards changed to that of "Basilica Argentaria," perhaps on account of the silversmiths' and bankers' shops having been removed thither from the tabernae on the forum. That a Basilica Argentaria, about the origin of which nobody can give any account, existed just at this spot is certain, since it is mentioned by the Notitia, in the 8th Regio, when proceeding from the forum of Trajan, as follows: "Cohortem sextam Vigilum, Basilicam Argentariam, Templum Concordiae, Umbilicum Romae," &c. The present Salita di Marforio, which runs close to this spot, was called in the middle ages "Clivus Argentarius;" and a whole plot of buildings in this quarter, terminating, ac cording to the Mirabilia (Montf. Diar. Ital. p. 293), with the temple of Vespasian, which, as we shall see in the sequel, stood next to the temple Concord, bore the name of "Insula Argentaria" (Becker, Handb. p. 413, seq.).

In the same year the forum was adorned with the triumphal arch called FORNIX FABIUS or FABIANUS, erected by Q. Fabius Allobrogicus in commemoration of his triumph over the Allobroges. This was one of the earliest, though not precisely the first, of this species of monuments at Rome, it having been preceded by the three arches erected by L. Stertinius after his Spanish victories, of which two were situated in the Forum Boarium and one in the Circus Maximus. (Liv. xxxiii. 27.) We may here remark that fornix is the classical name for such arches; and that the term arcus, which, however, is used by Seneca of this very arch (Const. Sap. 1), did not come into general use till a late period. The situation of this arch is indicated by several passages in Roman authors. We have already cited one from Cicero (p. Planc. 7), and in another he says that Memmius, when coming down to the forum (that is, of course, down the Sacra Via), was accustomed to bow his head when passing through it ("Ita sibi ipsum magnum videri Meanmium, ut in forum descendens caput ad fornicem Fabii demitteret," de Orat. ii. 66). Its site is still more clearly marked by the Pseudo-Asconius (ad Cic. Verr. i. 7) as being close to the Regia, and by Porphyrio (ad Hor. Epist. i. 19. 8) as near the Puteal Libonis.

The few other works about the forum during the remainder of the Republican period were merely restorations or alterations. Sulla when dictator seems to have made some changes in the curia (Plin. xxxiv. 12), and in B. c. 51, after its destruction in the Clodian riots, it was rebuilt by his sou Faustus. (Dion Cass. xl. 50.) Caesar, however, caused it to be pulled down in B. c. 45, under pretence of having vowed a temple to Felicitas, but in reality to efface. the name of Sulla. (Id. xliv. 5.) The reconstruction of the Basilica Fulvia, or rather the superseding of it by the Basilica Paulli, bas been already mentioned.

It now only remains to notice two other objects connected with the Republican Forum, the origin of which cannot be assigned to any definite period. These were the SCHOLA XANTHA and the JANI. The former, which lay back considerably behind the temple of Saturn and near the top of the Clivus Capitolinus, consisted of a row of arched chambers, of which three are still visible. They appear from inscriptions to have been the offices of the scribes, copyists, and praecones of the aediles, and seem to be alluded to by Cicero. (Philipp. ii. 7, p. Sest. 12.) Another nw was discovered in 1835, at the side of the temple of

Vespasian and against the wall of the Tabularium, with a handsome though now ruined portico before them, from which there was an entrance into each separate chamber. From the fragments of the architrave an inscription could still be deciphered that it was dedicated to the twelve Dei Consentes. (Canina, Foro Rom. p. 207, Bullet. d. Inst. 1835.) This discovery tallies remarkably with the following passage in Varro: "Et quoniam (ut aiunt) Dei facientes adjuvant, prius invocabo eos; nec ut Homerus et Ennius, Musas, sed XII. deos consentis; neque tamen eos urbanos, quorum imagines ad forum auratae stant, sex mares et feminae totidem, sed illos XII. deos, qui maxime agricolarum duces sunt" (R. R. i. 1). We may, however, infer that the inscription was posterior to the time of Varro, probably after some restoration of the building; since in | his De Lingua Latina (viii. § 71) he asks: "Item quaerunt, si sit analogia, cur appellant omnes aedes Deum Consentum et non Deorum Consentium?" whereas in the inscription in question we find it written "Consentium." We may further remark that the former of these passages would sanction the including of the whole Clivus Capitolinus under the appellation of "forum."

With respect to the Jani on the forum, it seems rather problematical whether there were three of them. There appear to have been two Jani before the Basilica Paulli, to which the money-lenders chiefly resorted. (Schol. ad Hor. Ep. i. 1. 54.) But when Horace (Sat. ii 3. 18) says.

66.

postquam omnis res mea Janum

Ad medium fracta est,"

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

The Forum under the Empire. -The important alterations made by Julius Caesar in the disposition of the forum were the foundation of its subsequent appearance under the Empire. These changes were not mere caprices, but adaptations suited to the altered state of political society and to Caesar's own political views. But the dagger of the assassin terminated his life before they could be carried out, and most of them were left to be completed by his successor Augustus. One of the most important of these designs of Caesar's was the building of a new curia or senate-house, which was Such a building would be the badge of the senate's servitude and the symbol of his own despotic power.

to bear his name.

The former senate-house had been erected by one of the kings; the new one would be the gift of the first of the emperors. We have mentioned the destruction of the old curia by fire in the time of Sulla, and the rebuilding of it by his son Faustus; which structure Caesar caused to be pulled down under a pretence, never executed, of erecting on its site a temple of Felicitas.

The euria founded by Pompey near his theatre in the Campus Martius-the building in which Caesar was assassinated - seems to have been that com

monly in use; and Ovid (Met. xv. 801), in describing that event, calls it simply Curia:

neque enim locus ullus in urbe Ad facinus diramque placet, nisi Curia, caedem." We may suppose that when Caesar attained to supreme power he was not well pleased to see the

meetings of the senate held in a building dedicated by his great rival.

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

Respecting the site of the CURIA JULIA the most discordant opinions have prevailed. Yet if we accept the information of two writers who could not have been mistaken on such a subject, its position is not difficult to find. We learn from Pliny that it was erected on the comitium: "Idem (Augustus) in Curia quoque quam in Comitio consecrabat, duas tabulas impressit parieti" (xxxv. 10); and this site is confirmed by Dion Cassius: Tò Bovλευτήριον τὸ Ἰούλιον, ἀπ ̓ αὐτοῦ κληθὲν παρὰ τῷ Κομιτίῳ ἀνομασμένῳ ἀκοδόμουν, ὥσπερ ἐψήφιστο (xlvii. 19). It is impossible to find any other spot for it on the comitium than that where the old curia stood. Besides the author last quoted expressly informs us that in consequence of some prodigies that occurred in the year before Caesar's murder it had been resolved to rebuild the Curia Hostilia (kal dià τοῦτο τό τε βουλευτήριον τὸ Οστίλιον ἀνοικοδομηθῆναι ἐψηφίσθη, Ib. xlv. 17.) At the time when this decree was made Caesar was himself pontifex maximus; it would have been a flagrant breach of religion to neglect a solemn vow of this description; and we cannot therefore accept Becker's assertion that this vow was never accomplished. (Handb. p. 331, note 608.) We cannot doubt that the curia erected by Augustus was in pursuance of this decree, for Caesar did not live even to begin it ("Curiam et continens ei Chalcidicum feci," Mon. Ancyr); but though the senate-house was rebuilt, it was no longer named Hostilia, but, after its new to all this weight of testimony? Solely a passage in founder, Julia. Now what has Becker got to oppose Gellius, which, however, he misapprehends,-- in which it is said, on the authority of Varro, that the have been the case had it stood on the ancient spot new curia had to be inaugurated, which would not ("Tum adscripsit (Varro) de locis in quibus senatus nisi in loco per augures constituto, quod templum consultum fieri jure posset, docuitque confirmavitque, appellaretur, senatusconsultum factum esset, justum id non fuisse. Propterea et in Curia Hostilia et in Pompeia, et post in Julia, cum profana ea loca fuissent, templa esse per augures constituta," xiv. 7. § 7.) But Becker has here taken only a half view of these augural rites. As a temple could not be built without being first inaugurated, so neither could it be pulled down without being first exaugurated. This is evident from the accounts of the exauguration of the fanes in order to make room for the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. ("Et, ut libera a caeteris religionibus area esset tota Jovis templique ejus, quod inaedificaretur, exaugurare fana sacellaque statuit, quae aliquot ibi a Tatio rege, consecreta inaugurataque postea fuerant," Liv. i. 55, cf. v. 54; Dion. Halic. iii. 69.) When Caesar, therefore, pulled down the curia of Faustus he first had it exaugurated, by which the site again became a locus profanus, and would of temple was erected upon it. The curia in use in course require a fresh inauguration when a new the time of Propertius (v. 1. 11) must have been the Curia Julia; and the following lines seem to show that it had risen on the site of the ancient one: "Curia praetexto quae nunc nitet alta Senatu Pellitos habuit, rustica corda, Patres."