(Liv. xlv. 39), thus establishing the identity of the gate to at least that period.

But to return to Becker's explanation of the passage of Josephus. Admitting Plutarch's account of the triumphs of Paullus and Lucullus, namely, that they passed through the Circus Flaminius, yet what does this prove? how is it connected with the Porta Triumphalis ? Those generals may have marshalled their processions in the Campus and passed through the Circus Flaminius in their way to the Porta Triumphalis. The procession would have been equally visible in the Circus as in the streets of Rome, just as the Lord Mayor's show may, or might, be seen at Westminster as well as in the city. It is possible indeed that in the case of Ves pasian there was no procession till he arrived at the gate; but it does not necessarily follow that the same line was always precisely observed. In truth we may perceive a difference between the expressions of Josephus and those of Plutarch. The former says that Vespasian went dià Tv Seάrpwv; whilst Plutarch says, of Paullus, that the people assembled ἐν τοῖς ἱππικοῖς θεάτροις, ἃ Κίρκους καλοῦσιν; | of Lucullus, that he adorned 7òv Þλaμíveιov inπóSpoμov. Here the circi are precisely designated as hippodromes; but Josephus uses the general term Searρwv, which may include theatres of all kinds. Now we will suggest a more probable route than that given by Becker, according to which the pageant must have crossed the forum twice. After coming out at the further end of the circus, Vespasian turned down to the left, between the Palatine and Caelian, the modern Via di S. Gregorio. This would bring him out opposite his own magnificent amphitheatre, the Colosseum, then in course of construction. Even if it had not risen much above its foundations, still its ample area by means of scaffoldings, would have accoinmodated a vast number of spectators; and as to Vespasian personally, it would have imparted no small relish to his triumph to pass through so magnificent a work of his own creation. Hence his road lay plain and direct over the Summa Sacra Via to the forum and Capitol.

Now, taking all these things into consideration, we will venture to suggest a very slight change in the text of Josephus, a change not so great as some of those often proposed by Becker upon much smaller occasions, and which will release us from a great deal of perplexity. The alteration is that of an N into a II, a very slight one in the uncial character; and, by reading ἀπεχώρει for ἀνεχώρει, we would make Vespasian depart from the Porticus Octaviae towards the gate which had always been used for triumphs, instead of retracing his steps towards one of which nobody can give any account. But whatever may be thought of the individual case of Vespasian, still we hold it to be incontestable that the ancient Porta Triumphalis, against which the sole objection seems to be that it was near two other gates, is to be sought in that part of the Servian wall between the P. Carmentalis and the P. Flumentana. The objection just alluded to would indeed have some force, if we could assume, with Becker (Handb. p. 154), that the Porta Triumphalis, just like an ordinary one, lay always open for common traffic. But it is surprising how anybody could come to that conclusion after reading the passages which Becker has himself cited from Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dion Cassius, or that in Cicero's oration against Piso before quoted. The first of these authors relates that after the death of Augustus

the senate voted, or proposed to vote, that, as an extraordinary mark of honour, his funeral should pass through the triumphal gate, preceded by the statue of Victory which stood in the curia: "Ut censuerint quidamn funus triumphali porta ducendum, praecedente Victoria, quae est in Curia" (Aug. 100; cf. Tac. Ann. i. 8); and Dion says (lvi. 42) that this was actually done, and the body burned in the Campus Martius. Now if the Porta Triumphalis had been an ordinary gate and common thoroughfare, what honour would there have been in passing through it? or how should the spectator have discovered that any distinction had been conferred? Wherefore Preller (Regionen, p. 240) has rightly come to the conclusion that it was usually kept shut.

Between the Capitoline and the Aventine, along the banks of the river, the wall, as we have shown, was discontinued, but it was recommenced at the spot where the latter hill approaches the Tiber. This may be shown from the well-ascertained position of the PORTA TRIGEMINA, which, as we learn from a passage in Frontinus, lay just under the Clivus Publicius, at the northernmost point of the hill ("incipit distribui Appia (aqua) imo Publicio Clivo ad Portam Trigeminam," Aq. 3); and the Clivus Publicius, as we know from a passage in Livy respecting the procession of the virgins before alluded to, formed the ascent to the Aventine from the Forum Boarium ("inde vico Tusco Velabroque per Boarium forum in clivum Publicium atque aedem Junonis Reginae perrectum," xxvii. 37). There are some difficulties connected with the question of this gate, from its being mentioned in conjunction with the Pons Sublicius; but there will be occasion to discuss the situation of that bridge in a separate section; and we shall only remark here that the narratives alluded to seem to show that it was at no great distance from the gate. It is probable that the latter derived its name from its having three Jani or arch

ways.

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

The line of wall from this point to the Caelian hill cannot be determined with any certainty. Round the Aventine itself it doubtless followed the configuration of the hill; but its course from the S. point of the Aventine has been variously laid down. Hence the question arises whether it included the nameless height on which the churches of S. Sabina

of the agger. But besides these, Strabo (Ib. p. 234) mentions another lying between them, the PORTA VIMINALIS; which is also recorded by Festus (p.376) and by Frontinus (4q. 19). It must have lain behind the SE. angle of the baths of Diocletian, where an ancient road leads to the rampart, which, if prolonged, would run to the PORTA CLAUSA of the walls of Aurelian, just under the southern side of the Castra Praetoria. It is clear from the words of Strabo, in the passage just cited (vrò μéσq dè T XwμATI TPÍTη Zoti núλn duúvuμos To Ovïjuvaλí Aópe), that there were only three gates in the agger, though some topographers have contrived to find room for two or three more in this short space, the whole length of the agger being but 6 or 7 stadia (Strab. I. c.; Dionys. ix. 68), or about of a mile. Its breadth was 50 feet, and below it lay a ditch 100 feet broad and 30 feet deep. Remains of this immense work are still visible near the baths of Diocletian and in the grounds of the Villa Negroni, especially at the spot where the statue of Roma now stands.

Survey under Vespasian and Circumference of the City. In the preceding account of the gates in the Servian wall we have enumerated twenty, including the Porta Triumphalis. Some topographers have adopted a still greater number. When we consider that there were only nine or ten main roads leading out of ancient Rome, and that seven of these issued from the three gates Capena, Esquilina, and Collina alone, it follows that five or six gates would have sufficed for the main entrances, and that the remainder must have been unimportant ones, destined only to afford the means of convenient communication with the surrounding country. Of those enumerated only the Collina, Viminalis, Esquilina, Caelimontana, Capena, Trigemina, Carmentalis, and Ratumena seem to have been of any great importance. Nevertheless it appears from a passage in Pliny (iii. 9) that in his time there must have been a great number of smaller ones, the origin and use of which we shall endeavour to account for presently. As the passage, though unfortunately somewhat obscure, is of considerable importance in Roman topography, we shall here quote it at length: "Urbem tres portas habentem Romulus reliquit, aut (ut plurimas tradentibus credamus) quatuor. Moenia ejus collegere ambitu Imperatoribus Censoribusque Vespasianis anno conditae DCCCXXVII. pass. XIIIм.CC. Complexa montes septem, ipsa dividitur in regiones quatuordecim, compita Larium CCLXV. Ejusdem spatium, mensura currente a milliario in capite Romani fori statuto, ad singulas portas, quae sunt hodie numero triginta septem, ita ut duodecim semel numerentur, praetereanturque ex veteribus septem, quae esse desierunt, efficit passuum per directum XXXM.DCCLXV. Ad extrema vero tectorum cum castris Praetoriis ab eodem milliario per vicos omnium viarum mensura colligit paulo amplius septuaginta millia passuum." Now there seems to be no reason for doubting the correctness of this account. Pliny could have had no reason for exaggeration, against which, in the account of the Romulean gates, he carefully guards himself. Again, he seems to have taken the substance of it from the official report of a regular survey made in his own time and in the reign of Vespasian. The only room for suspicion therefore seems to be that his text may have been corrupted, and that instead of thirty-seven as the number of the gates we should insert some smaller one. But an examination of his figures does

not tend to show that they are incorrect. The survey seems to have been made with a view to the three following objects: 1. To ascertain the actual circumference of the city, including all the suburbs which had spread beyond the walls of Servius. It is well known that moenia signifies the buildings of a city as well as the walls (" muro moenia amplexus est," Flor. i. 4, &c.), and therefore this phrase, which has sometimes caused embarrassment, need not detain us. Now the result of this first measurement gave 13,200 passus, or 133 Roman miles-a number to which there is nothing to object, as it very well agrees with the circumference of the subsequent Aurelian walls. 2. The second object seems to have been to ascertain the actual measure of the line of street within the old Servian walls. The utility of this proceeding we do not immediately recognise. It may have been adopted out of mere curiosity; or more probably it may have been connected with questions respecting certain privileges, or certain taxes, which varied according as a house was situated within or without the walls. Now the sum of the measurements of all these streets, when put together as if they had formed a straight line ("per directum"), amounted to 30,765 passus, or 30 Roman miles and about Such we take to be the meaning of "per directum;" though some critics hold it to mean that the distance from the milliarium to these gates was measured in a straight line, as the crow flies, without taking into the calculation the windings of the streets. But in that case it would surely have been put earlier in the sentence -"mensura currente per directum ad singulas portas." This, however, would have been of little consequence except for the distinction drawn by Becker (Handb. p. 185, note 279), who thinks that the measurement proceeds on two different principles, namely per directum, or as the crow flies, from the milliarium to the Servian gates, and, on the contrary, by all the windings of the streets from the same spot to the furthest buildings outside the walls. Such a method, as he observes, would afford no true ground of comparison, and therefore we can hardly think that it was adopted, or that such was Pliny's meaning. Becker was led to this conclusion because he thought that " per vicos omnium viarum" stands contrasted with " per directum;" but this contrast does not seem necessarily to follow. By viae here Pliny seems to mean all the roads leading out of the thirty-seven gates; and by "ad extrema tectorum per vicos omnium viarum" is signified merely that the measure was further extended to the end of the streets which lined the commencements of these roads. Such appears to us to be the meaning of this certainly somewhat obscure passage. Pliny's account may be checked, roughly indeed, but still with a sufficient approach to accuracy to guarantee the correctness of his text. If a circumference of 13 miles yielded 70 miles of street, and if there were 30 miles of street within the Servian walls, then the circumference of the latter would be to the former as 3 to 7, and would measure rather more than 5 miles. Now this agrees pretty well with the accounts which we have of the size of the Servian city. Becker, following the account of Thucydides (ii. 13), but without allowing for that part of the walls of Athens described as unguarded, with the whole circuit of which walls Dionysius (iv. 13, and ix. 68) compares those of ancient Rome, sets the latlatter down at 43 stadia, or 5 miles. On Nolli's great plan of Rome they are given at a mea

surement equal to 10,230 English yards (Burgess, Topography aud Antiquities of Rome, vol. i. p. 458), which agrees as nearly as possible with the number above given of 5 miles. Nibby, who made a laborious but perhaps not very accurate attempt to ascertain the point by walking round the presumed line of the ancient walls, arrived at a considerably larger result, or nearly 8 miles. (Mura, &c. p. 90.)

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

Hence we would not tamper with the text of Pliny, as Nibby has done with very unfortunate success (Mura, fc. p. 213, seq.)—a remedy that should never be resorted to except in cases of the last necessity. Pliny's statement may be regarded as wholly without influence with respect to the original Servian gates, the number of which we should rather be inclined to reduce than to increase. We find, indeed, more names mentioned than those enumerated, but some of them were ancient or obsolete names; and, again, we must remember that "porta does not always signify a city gate. Of the former kind was the PORTA AGONENSIS, which, as we learn from Paulus Diaconus (p. 10), was another appellation for the Porta Collina. The same author (p. 255) also mentions a PORTA QUIRINALIS as a substantive gate; though possibly, like Agonensis, it was only a duplicate name for one of the gates on the Quirinal. The term "porta" was applied to any arched thoroughfare, and sometimes perhaps to the arch of an aqueduct when it spanned a street in the line of wall; in which case it was built in a superior manner, and had usually an inscription. Among internal thoroughfares called "portae" were the STERCORARIA on the Clivus Capitolinus, the LIBITINENSIS in the amphitheatre, the FENESTELLA, mentioned by Ovid (Fast. vi. 569) as that by which Fortuna visited Numa, &c. The last of these formed

the entrance to Numa's regia, as we learn from Plutarch (de Fort. Rom. 10). Among the arches of aqueducts to which the name of gate was applied, may perhaps be ranked that alluded to by Martial (iv. 18):

Qua vicina pluit Vipsanis porta columnis," &c. Respecting the gates called FERENTINA and PIACULARIS we have before offered a conjecture. [See p. 728.] The PORTA METIA rests solely on a false reading of Plautus. (Cas. ii. 6. 2, Pseud. i. 3.97.) On the other hand, a PORTA CATULARIA seems to have really existed, which is mentioned by Paulus Diaconus (p. 45; cf. Festus, p. 285) in connection with certain sacrifices of red-coloured dogs. This must be the sacrifice alluded to by Ovid (Fast. iv. 905), in which the entrails of a dog were offered by the flamen in the Lucus Robiginis. It is also mentioned in the Fasti Praenestini, vii. Kal. Mai, which date agrees with Ovid's: "Feriae Robigo Via Claudia, ad miliarium v., ne robigo frumentis noceat." But this is at variance first, with Ovid, who was returning to Rome by the Via Nomentana, not the Via Claudia, and, secondly, with itself, since the Via Claudia did not branch off from the Via Flaminia till the 10th milestone, and, consequently, no sacrifice could be performed on it at a distance of 5 miles from Rome. However this discrepancy is to be reconciled, it can hardly be supposed that one of the Roman gates derived its name from a trifling rustic sacrifice; unless, indeed, it was a duplicate one, used chiefly with reference to sacerdotal customs, as seems to have been sometimes the case, and in the present instance to denote the gate leading to the spot where the annual rite was performed. Paulus Diaconus also mentions (p. 37) a PORTA COLLATINA, which he affirms to have been so called after the city of Collatia, near Rome. But when we reflect that both the Via Tiburtina and the Via Praenestina issued from the Porta Esquilina, and that a road to Collatia must have run between them, the impossibility of a substantive Porta Collatina is at once apparent. The DUODECIM PORTAE are placed by Bunsen (Beschr. i. p. 633) in the wall of the Circus Maximus; but as it appears from Pliny (. c.) that they stood on the ancient line of wall, and as we have shown that this did not make part of the wall of the circus, this could not have been their situation. We do not see the force of Piale's celebrated discovery that the Duodecim Portae must have been a place at Rome, because Julius Obsequens says that a mule brought forth there; which it might very well have done at one of the gates. Becker's opinion (Handb. p. 180) that it was an arch, or arches, of the Aqua Appia seems as unfounded as that of Bunsen (vide Preller, Regionen, p. 193). It is mentioned by the Notitia in the 11th Regio, and therefore probably stood somewhere near the Aventine; but its exact site cannot be determined. It seems probable, as Preller remarks, that it may have derived its name from being a complex of twelve arched thoroughfares like the 'Evveάavor of the Pelasgicon at Athens.

Transtiberine Wall. Ancus Marcius, as we have related, fortified the JANICULUM, or hill on the right bank of the Tiber commanding the city. Some have concluded from Livy (i. 33: "Janiculum quoque adjectum, non inopia locorum, sed ne quando ea arx hostium esset. Id non muro solum, sed etiam ob commoditatem itineris ponte Sublicio tum primum in Tiberi facto conjungi urbi