placuit "), that a wall was built from the fortress on the top of the hill down to the river, but the construction of conjungi in this passage may be a zeugma. It seems strange that Ancus should have built a wall on the right bank of the Tiber when there was yet none on the left bank; and it is remarkable that Dionysius (iii. 45), in describing the fortification of the Janiculum, makes no mention of a wall, nor do we hear of any gates on this side except that of the fortress itself. The existence of a wall, moreover, seems hardly consistent with the accounts which we have already given from the same author of the defenceless state of the city on that side. Niebuhr (Hist. i. p. 396) rejected the notion of a wall, as utterly erroneous, but unfortunately neglected to give the proofs by which he had arrived at this conclusion. The passage from Appian (Kλaúdiov d' ̓́Αππιον χιλίαρχον τειχοφυλακοῦντα της Ρώμης τὸν λόφον τὸν καλούμενον Ἰάνουκλον εὖ ποτε πα θόντα ὑφ ̓ ἑαυτοῦ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀναμνήσας & Μάριος, ἐς τὴν πόλιν ἐσῆλθεν, ὑπανοιχθείσης αὐτῷ Túλns, B. C. i. 68) which Becker (p. 182, note) seems to regard as decisive proves little or nothing for the earlier periods of the city; and, even had there been a wall, the passing it would not have afforded an entrance into the city, properly so called.

II. WALLS ANd Gates of AURELIAN AND

HONORIUS.

In the repairs of the wall by Honorius all the gates of Aurelian vanished; hence it is impossible to say with confidence that any part of Aurelian's wall remains; and we must consider it as represented by that of Honorius. Procopius (B. G. iii. 24) asserts that Totila destroyed all the gates; but this is disproved by the inscriptions still existing over the Porta S. Lorenzo, as well as over the closed arch of the Porta Maggiore; and till the time of Pope Urban VIII. the same inscription might be read over the Ostiensis (P. S. Paolo) and the ancient Portuensis. It can hardly be imagined that these inscriptions should have been preserved over restored gates. The only notice respecting any of the gates of Aurelian on which we can confidently rely is the account given by Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii. 4. § 14) of the carrying of the Egyptian obelisk, which Constantius II. erected in the Circus Maximus, through the PORTA OSTIENSIS. It may be assumed, however, that their situation was not altered in the new works of Honorius. far the greater part of these gates exist at the present day, though some of them are now walled up, and in most cases the ancient name has been changed for a modern one. Hence the problem is not so much to discover the sites of the ancient gates as the ancient names of those still existing; and these do not admit of much doubt, with the exception of the gates on the eastern side of the city.

By

Procopius, the principal authority respecting the gates in the Aurelian (or Honorian) wall, enuinerates 14 principal ones, or wúla, and mentions some smaller ones by the name of Tuxides (B. G. | i. 19). The distinction, however, between these two appellations is not very clear. To judge from their present appearance, it was not determined by the size of the gates; and we find the Pinciana indifferently called muλís and wúλn. (Urlichs, Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 196.) The conjecture of Nibby (Mura, fc. p. 317) may perhaps be correct, that the Túλai were probably those which led to the great highways. The unknown writer called the Anonymus Einsiedlensis, who flourished about the beginning of

|

the ninth century, also mentions 14 gates, and includes the Pinciana among them; but his account is not clear.

Unlike Servius, Aurelian did not consider the Tiber a sufficient protection; and his walls were extended along its banks from places opposite to the spots where the walls which he built from the Janiculum began on the further shore. The wall which skirted the Campus Martius is considered to have commenced not far from the Palazzo Farnese, from remains of walls on the right bank, supposed to have belonged to those of the Janiculum; but all traces of walls on the left bank have vanished beneath the buildings of the new town. It would appear that the wails on the right and left banks were connected by means of a bridge on the site of the present Ponte Sisto- which thus contributed to form part of the defences; since the arches being secured by means of chains drawn before them, or by other contrivances, would prevent an enemy from passing through them in boats into the interior of the city : and it is in this manner that Procopius describes Belisarius as warding off the attacks of the Goths (B. G. i. 19).

From this point, along the whole extent of the Campus Martius, and as far as the Porta Flaminia, the walls appear, with the exception of some small posterns mentioned by the Anonymous of Einsiedlen to have had only one gate, which is repeatedly mentioned by Procopius under the name of PORta Aurelia (B. G. i. c. 19, 22, 28); though he seems to have been acquainted with its later name of PORTA STI PETRI, by which it is called by the Anonymous (Ib. iii. 36). It stood on the left bank, opposite to the entrance of the Pons Aelius (Ponte di S. Angelo), leading to the mausoleum of Hadrian. The name of Aurelia is found only in Procopius, and is somewhat puzzling, since there was another gate of the same name in the Janiculum, spanning the Via Aurelia, which, however, is called by Procopius (Ib. i. 18) by its modern name of Pancratiana; whilst on the other hand the Anonymous appears strangely enough to know it only by its ancient appellation of Aurelia. The gate by the bridge, of which no trace now remains, may possibly have derived its name from a Nova Via Aurelia (Gruter, Inser. cccclvii. 6), which passed through it; but there is a sort of mystery hanging over it which it is not easy to clear up. (Becker, Handb. p. 196, and note.)

The next gate, proceeding northwards, was the PORTA FLAMINIA, which stood a little to the east of the present Porta del Popolo, erected by Pope Pius IV. in 1561. The ancient gate probably stood on the declivity of the Pincian (ἐν χώρᾳ κρημνώδει, Procop. B. G. i. 23), as the Goths did not attack it from its being difficult of access. Yet Anastasius (Vit. Gregor. II.) describes it as exposed to inundations of the Tiber; whence Nibby (Mura, &c. p. 304) conjectures that its site was altered between the time of Procopius and Anastasius, that is, between the sixth and ninth centuries. Nay, in a great inundation which happened towards the end of the eighth century, in the pontificate of Adrian I., the gate was carried away by the flood, which bore it as far as the arch of M. Aurelius, then called Tres Faccicellae, and situated in the Via Flaminia, where the street called della Vite now runs into the Corso. (Ib). The gate appears to have retained its ancient name of Flaminia as late as the 15th century, as appears from a life of Martin V. in Muratori (Script. Rer. Ital. t. iii. pt. ii. col

be that, if the Via Tiburtina always issued from the | Porta S. Lorenzo, we have no road to assign to the now closed gate adjoining the Praetorian camp, nor yet to the Porta Viminalis of the Servian walls, a circumstance certainly remarkable, as it seems unlikely that such an opening should have been made in the agger without absolute necessity. On the other hand, the absence of all mention of that gate prior to the time of Strabo would lead one to suspect that it was not one of the principal outlets of the city; and a passage from Ovid, quoted by M. Becker, certainly affords some presumption that the road from Tibur, in ancient times, actually entered the city by the Porta Esquilina (Fast. v. 684). This is, in fact, the most important, perhaps the only | important, point of the question; for if the change in the names had already taken place as early as the time of Procopius, which Niebuhr himself seems disposed to acknowledge, it is hardly worth while to inquire whether the gates had borne the same appellations during the short interval from Honorius to Justinian" (Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 369, seq.).

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

GS.

TOMB OF EURYSACES

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

Hence the wall follows for some distance the line of the Aqua Claudia, till it reaches its easternmost point; when, turning to the S. and W., and embracing the curve of what is commonly called the Amphitheatrum Castrense, it reaches the ancient PORTA ASINARIA, now replaced by the Porta di S. Giovanni, built a little to the E. of it in 1574, by Pope Gregory XIII. It derived its name from spanning the Via Asinaria (Festus, p. 282, Müll.), and is frequently mentioned by Procopius. (B. G. i. 14, iii. 20, &c.) In the middle ages it was called Lateranensis from the neighbouring palace of the Lateran.

After this gate we find another mentioned, which has entirely vanished. The earliest notice of it appears in an epistle of Gregory the Great (ix. 69), by whom it is called PORTA METRONIS; whilst by Martinus Polonus it is styled Porta Metroni or Metronii, and by the Anonymous, Metrovia. (Nibby, Mura, &c. p. 365.) It was probably at or near the point where the Marruna (Aqua Crabra) now flows into the town. (Nibby, l. c.; Piale, Porte Merid. p. 11.)

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

A little farther in the line of wall to the W. stands an arched gate of brick, ornamented with half columns, and having a heavy architrave. The Via Ardeatina (Fest. p. 282, Müll.) proceeded through it, which issued from the Porta Raudusculana of the Servian walls. (Nibby, p. 201, seq.) We do not find this gate named in any author, and it was probably walled up at a very early period. The last gate on this side is the PORTA OSTIENSIS, now called Porta di S. Paolo, from the celebrated basilica about a mile outside of it, now in course of reconstruction in the most splendid manner. The ancient name is mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii. 4), but that of S. Pauli appears as early as the sixth century. (Procop. B. G. iii. 36.) It had two arches, of which the second, though walled up, is still visible from the side of the town, though hidden from without by a tower built before it. Close to it is the pyramid, or tomb, of Cestius, one of the few monuments of the Republic. It is built into the wall. From this point the walls ran to the river, inclosing Monte Testaccio, and then northwards along its

banks, till they reached the point opposite to the walls of the Janiculum. Of this last portion only a few fragments are now visible.

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

III. THE CAPITOL.

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

contrary to this, was first brought into vogue by Nardini in the last century, and has since been held by most Italian scholars and topographers. It is not, however, so exclusively Italian but that it has been adopted by some distinguished German scholars, among whom may be named Göttling, and Braun, the present accomplished Secretary of the Archaeological Institute at Rome.

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

Preller, who, in an able paper published in Schneidewin's Philologus, vol. i., has taken a very moderate and candid view of the question, consoles himself and those who with him hold the German side, by remarking that no passage can be produced from an ancient and trustworthy writer in which Capitolium is used as the name of the whole hill. But if the question turns on this point-and to a great extent it certainly does such passages may be readily produced. To begin with Varro, who was both an ancient and a trustworthy writer. In a passage where he is expressly describing the hills of Rome, and which will therefore admit neither of misapprehension nor dispute, Varro says: "Septimontium nominatum ab tot montibus, quos postea urbs muris comprehendit. E quis Capitolium dictum, quod hic, quom fundamenta foderentur aedis Jovis, caput humanum dicitur inventum. Hic mons ante Tarpeius dictus," &c. (L.L. v. § 41, Müll.) Here Capitolium can signify nothing but the Capitoline hill, just as Palatium in § 53 signifies the Palatine. In like manner Tacitus, in his description of the Romulean pomoerium before cited: "Forumque Romanum et Capitolium non a Romulo sed a Tito Tatio additum urbi credidere" (Ann. xii. 24), where it would be absurd to restrict the meaning of Capitolium to the Capitol properly so called, for Tatius dwelt on the Arx. So Livy in his narrative of the exploit of Horatius Cocles: "Si transitum a tergo reliquissent, jam plus hostium in Palatio Capitolioque, quam in Janiculo, fore" (ii. 10), where its union with Palatium shows that the hill is meant; and the same historian, in describing Romulus consecrating the spolia opima to Jupiter Feretrius a couple of centuries before the Capitoline temple was founded, says, " in Capitolium escendit " (i. 10). The Greek writers use το Καπιτώλιον in the same manner: Ρώμυλος μὲν τὸ Παλάτιον κατέχων — Τάτιος dè Tò Kamiτúλov. (Dionys, ii. 50.) Hence we deduce as a first general rule that the term Capitolium is sometimes used of the whole hill.

Secondly, it may be shown that the whole hill, when characterised generally as the Roman citadel, was also called Arz: "Atque ut ita munita arx circumjectu arduo et quasi circumciso saxo niteretur, ut etiam in illa tempestate horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intacta permanserit." (Cic. Rep. ii. 6.) "Sp. Tarpeius Romanae praeerat arci." (Liv. i. 11.) But there is no need to multiply examples on this head, which is plain enough.

But, thirdly, we must observe that though the terms Capitolium and Arx are thus usod generally