صور الصفحة
[graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

&c., which are often used without any precise signification.

With these preliminary remarks we shall proceed to examine the question as to which summit was occupied by the Cnpitnline temple. And as scveral arguments have been adduced by Becker (Ilandb. pp. 387—395) in favour ofthe SW. summit, which he deems to be of such force and cogeney 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 Helical-nassus (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 westem point. He forces a passage through the Carmental gate, which lay on this side, ascends the height, and seizes the fortress (ippoiipiov). Hence he presses forwards still further to the neighbouring citadel, of which he also gains possession. This narrative alone sufiices 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 ilerdonius, 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. Dinnyaius does not say that Herdonius landed at the spot where the Capitol lies, and where the hill is only a stads from the river, but. that he landed at that part of Rome where the Cupilolt'nc hill is, at the distance of not quite a stade from the river. Secondly, Becker assumes that ¢potipiov 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 oraculnr command (Ka-ra'. 'N 3€o¢arov); 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 dipodpmv, which according to Becker was the Capitol; so that he must have passed through the Yicus .lugarius, 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 (iepal abhor Toii Kam'rovltiov); and that he regarded it as seated upon an eminence, is plain from the EXPI’CfiiOTI that Herdonius made his men ascend through it (dvagiedoax Thu domain). The text. of Dionysius is manifestly corrupt or interpolated ; which further appears from the fact that when he was describing the real Garment-oi gate



(i. 32), he used the adjective form Kan/1ve: (rapd Tai‘s Kapaev-rlo't Iii/\ais), whilst in the present instance he is made to use the form Kappe'vrivor. Herdonius must have landed belowthe 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 Canncntal 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 PhiIologus i. p. 85, note), that Dionysius, or rather perhaps his transcribers or editors, has here confounded the Porta Carmentnlis 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 Port; l‘andana, as we have already said, was still in existence in the time of Varro (L. L. v. §42, Miill.), and was in fact. the entrance to the ancient fort or castellum — the 4>poiipiov of Dionysius — which guarded the approach to the Capitoline hill, of course on its B. side, or towards the forum, where alone it was accessible. Thus Solinus: “ Iidem (Herculis comitcs) et montcm Capitolinum Saturnium nominnrunt, Castelli quoqnc, quod exeitaverunt, portam Saturniam appellaverunt, quae postmodum l'andana 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 castmm in imo elivo Capitolino incolebant" (p. 322, Milli.) This, then, was the ¢pov§piov 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 adjoincd,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 llerdonius, then, instead of being “ alone decisive," and which Becker (li'arnung, 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 l’orta Cnrmentalis, 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 Ara? 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 sautum in Capitolium ev'adit." (Liv. v. 46.) “ Galli, scu vestigio notato humano, seu sua sponte auimadverso ad Carmentis saxorum adscensu aequo -—iu summum evasere" (Ib.47). Now, it is plain, that in the fonner of these passages Livy means the Cspitoline hill, and not the Capitol strictly so called; since, in regard to asmall space, like the Capitol Proper, it would be a useless and absurd distinction, if it lay, and was known to lie, next the river, to say that Cominius mounted it "where it was nearest to the river. “ Cominius in Capitolium evadit." is here equivalent to " Romulus in Capitolium cscendit,” in a passage before cited. (Liv. i. 10.) Hence, to mark the spot more precisely, the historian inserts “ ad Cavtnentis" in the following chapter. There is nothing in the other authorities cited in Becker's note (no. 750) which yields a conclusion either one way or the other. We might, with far superior justice, quote the following passage of Cicero, which we have adduced on another occasion, to prove that the attempt of the Gauls was on theAmc or citadel: “ Atque at its. munita Arx circumjectn nrduo et quasi circumciso saxo niteretur, ‘nt etium in illa tempestatc horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intucta permanserit " (De Rep. ii. 6). But, though we hold that the attempt was really on the Arx, we are nevertheless of opinion that Cicero here uses the word only in its general sense, and thus as applicable to the whole hill, just as Livy uses Capitoh'um in the preceding passage. Hence, Mr. Bunbury (Class. Mus. vol. iv. p. 430) and M. Preller (l. c.) havejustly regarded this narrative as att‘ording no evidence at all, although they are adherents of the German theory. We may further observe, that the house of lllanlius was on the Ara; and though this circumstance, taken by itself, presents nothing decisive. yet, in the case of so sudden a surprise, it adds probability to the view that the Arx was on the southern summit.

[ocr errors]

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 at imminentia foro templa pmetervet-Li erigunt nciem per adversum collom usque ad primas Capitolinae arcis fol-cs. Erant antiquitus portions in lstere clivi,dextrae subeuntibus: in quarum tectum egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruehant. chue illis manus nisi gladiis armatae; ct. arcessere tormenta nut missilia tela longum videbatur. Faces in prominentem porticum jecere et sequebantur ignem; ambustasque Capitolii fores pcnetrasscnt, ni Sabinus rcvulsas undiquo statuas, decora majorum in ipso aditu vice muri objecisset. Tum diversos Capitolii uditus invadunt, juxta lucum asyli, et qua Tarpeis rapes centum gradibus aditur. Itnprovisa utraque vis : propior atque acrior per asylum ingruebat. Nee sisti poterant scandcntr-s per conjuncta acdificia, quae, at in mnlta pace, in altum edits solum Capitolii aequabant. Hic umbigitur, ignem tectis oppugnatores injecerint, an obsessi, quae crebrior fama est, quo nitentcs ac progress-0s dcpellerent. Inde lapsus ignis in porticus appositas aedibus: mox sustincntes fastigium aquilae vetere ligno traxerunt flammam alueruntque. Sic Capitolium Cllttsis foribus indefensum et indirepium 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 foribua. indefcnsum ct indireptum confiagrnvit.” Such a state of things is inconceivable, if, as Becker says, the attack was directed solely against the Capitol. That part of the bill was evidently deserted, and

left to its fate; the besieged had concenth themselves upon the Arx, which thus became the point of attack. By that unfortunate ambiguity in the use of the Word Capitolium, which we have before pointed out, we find Tacitus representing the gates of the Capitolium as having been burnt (“ ambustas que Capitolii fores ") which, if Capitolium meant the same thing in the last sentence, would be a direct contradiction, as the gates are there represented as shut. But in the first passage he means the gates of the fortification which enclosed the whole summit of the hill; and in the second passage he means the gates of the temple. The meaning of Tacitus is abo evident in another manner; for if the Vitellians were attacking the templo itself, and burning its gates, they must, have already gained a footing on the height, and would consequently have had no occasion to seek access by other routes—by the steps of the Rupes Tarpeia, and by the Lucas Asyli. Becker proceeds: “ Tacitus calls this (i.e. the height with the temple), inditi'erently Capitolina Arx and Cnpitolium." This is quite a mistake. The Arx Capitnlina may pussiny mean the whole nunmil of the hill; but if it is to be restricted to one of the two eminences, it means the Arx proper rather than the Capitol. “ The attacking party, it. appears, first made a lodgment on the Clivus Capitolinus. Here the portico on the right points distinctly to the SW. height. Had the portico been to the right of a person ascending in the contrary direction, it would have been separated from the besieged by the street, who could not therefore have defended themselves from its roof." If we thought that this argument had any value we might adopt it as our own: for we also believe that the attack was directed against the SW. height, but with this ditl'crence, that the Arx was on this height, and not the Capitol. But, in fact, there was only one principal ascent or clivus,-—that lcad~ ing towards the western height; and the only thing worth remarking in Becker‘s observations is that he should have thought there might be another Clivus Capitolinus leading in the opposite direction. We may remark, by the way, that the portico here mentioned was probably that erected by the greatgrandson of Ca. Scipio. (Yell. Pat. ii. 3.) “ As the attack is here fruitless, the \‘itellians abandon it, and make another attempt at two ditferent approaches (" diversos aditus"); at the Lucas Asyli, that is, on the side where at present the broad steps lead from the Palazzo de' Conservatori to Monte Caprino, and again where the Centum Gradus led to the Rupes Tarpeia. Whether these Ccntum Gradua are to be placed by the church of Sta Maria delhz Consolazione, or more westward, it is not necessary to determine here, since that they led to the Caffarclli'height is undisputed. On the side of the asylum (Palazzo de' Conservatori') the danger was more pressing. “here the steps now lead to Monte Cnprino, and on the whole side of the hill, were houses which reached to its summit. These were set on fire, and the flames then caught the adjoining portico, and lastly the temple.”

Our chief objection to this account is, its impossibility. If the Lucas Asyli corresponded to the steps of the present Pale-mo de’ Conservator-i, which is seated in the depression between the two summits, or present Piano del Campidoglio, then the bmiegcrs must have forced the passage of the Clivns Capito_ linus, 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 Lucas Asyli on another ; on both which sides they again attempted to mount. The Palazzo de‘ Consnwatori, though not the highest point. of the hill, is above the clivus. Becker,“ 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 V itellians 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 rmched 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, ng, p. 43), may be rctorted by those who hold that the attack was directed against the Arx. The precise spot of the Lucas Asyli cannot be indicated ; but from Livy's description of it, it was evidently somewhere on the descent of the hill (“locum qui uuuc septus descendmtibm inter duos lucos est, asylum aperit," i. 8). It is probable, as l‘reller supposes (I’bilol. p. 99), that the “aditus jnxta 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 Cnpitoline.

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 thefront of the temple. This follows from Tacitus' account of the portico and the eagles which supported thefash'yium or pedinient, 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 Cnfl'urelli fur Araceli, retort the triumphant remark with which Baker closes his explanation of this passage: “To him, therefore, who would seek the temple of Jupiter on the height of Cufl'arelli, the description of Tm citus 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 Taipeius." 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 bill was called Mons Tsrpeius. The passagm cited by Becker in note 755 (Liv. i. 55; Dionys. iii. 69) mean nothing more than this ; indeed, the latter expressly states it (6: [Adepos] rd'rc Phi “Mei-re Taps-Mos, vim 6i KarrrrwAiues). 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 Rupcs Tarpeia. And than F estus in a mutilated fragment, —


not however so mutilated but that the sense is plain —“Noluerunt funestum locum [cum altera parte] Capitoli oonjungi" (p. 343), where Miiller remarks, “ non multum ab Ursini supplemento discedere licebit."

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 ; Plat. Cam. 36 ; Dion Cass. Fr. 3], &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 June Moneta and the Ara. Ovid's words are as follows:—

“ Candida, te niveo posuit lux proxima temple Qua fert sublimes alta Moneta gradus; Nunc beno prospicies Lutiam, Concordia, turbam," 8.1:.

This is very obscure; but we do not see how it can be inferred from this passage that there were steps from one temple to the other. We should rather take it to mean that the temple of Concord was placed close to that of Moneta, which latter was approached by a flight of lofty steps. Nor do we think it very difficult to point out what these steps were. The temple of Juno was on the Arx; that is, according to our view, on the SW. summit; and the lofty steps were no other than the Centum Gradus for ascending the Rupes Tarpcia, as described by Tacitus in the passage we have just been discussing. Had there been another flight of steps leading up to the top of the Capitoline hill, the Vitellians would certainly have preferred them to clambcring over the tops of houses. But it will be objected that according to this view the temple of Concord is placed upon the Arx, for which there is no authority, instead of on the forum or clivus, for which there is authority. Now this is exactly the point at which we wish to arrive. There were several temples of Concord, but only two of any renown, namely, that dedicated by Furius Cumillns, n. c. 367, and redcdicated by Tiberius after his German triumph, which is the one of which Ovid speaks; and another dedicated by the consul Opimius after the sedition and death of Gracchus. Appian says that the latter temple was in the forum: 1'] 63 Bouhh Kai vulva 'O/aovufas a.th 1v d'yopi 1rpoo’éraEev hci‘pa: (BC. i. 26). But in ordinary. language the clivus formed part; of the forum; and it would be impossible to point out any place in the forum, strictly so called, which it could have occupied. It is undoubtedly the same temple alluded to by Varro in the following [mssugcz “ Senaculum supra Giaecostasim ubi aedisConcordiac et basilica Opimia” (L.L. v. p. 156, ltliill.); from which we may infer that Opimius built at the same time a basilica, which adjoined the temple. Becker (Ilandb. p. 309) denied the existence of this basilica; but by the time be published his ll'amung he had grown wiser, and quoted in the Appendix (p. 58) the following passage from Cicero (p. Seat. 67): “L. Opimius cujus monumentum celeberrimum in foro, scpulcrutn desertissimum in littore Dyrrnchino est relictum ;" maintaining, however, that this passage related to Opimius‘ temple of Concord. But Urlichs (lfiim. Top. p. 26), after pointing out that the epithet oeleberrl'mum, “ very much frequented," suited better with a basilica than with a temple, producel two ancient inscriptions from Marini’s Alti de’ Fro» telli Areal; (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 Varre, then, the Aedis Concordias and baslica of Opimius were close to the senaculum; and the situation of the senaculun: is pointed out by Festus between the Capitol and forum: “ Unum (Senaculum) ubi nunc est aedis Concordiae, inter Capitolium et Forum " (p. 347, MiilL). This description corresponds exactly with the site where the present remains of a temple of Concord are unanimously agreed to exist: remains, however, which are supposed to be those of the temple founded by Camillus, and not of that founded by Opimins. 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 Opirnius? 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: ‘W¢iflm0 'rfir ,uév 'Onovr'as ispbv, t'bo'rrsp nil'fia'ro d dedvhs, sir Thu dryopdv Kai (is 19):! {KKAnoiav firmer! ‘I'l ruis 'ye'yswlnévorr iopr'lo'aaGai (Camill. 42). Now drpopdar 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 :—

“ Nuuc bcne prospicies Latiam, Concordia, turbam.”

These expressions, then, like Ovid's allusion to the “ sublimes gradus” of Moneta, point to the Ar: as the site of the temple. It is remarkable that Lucan (Pliers. i. 195) employs the same word when describing the temple of Jupiter Tonans, erected by Augustus, also situated upon the Ara, or Rupee Tarpeia:—" 0 magnae qui moenia prospicis urbis Tarpeia do 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 Fortnna, likewise places the Jupiter Tonans on the Tarpeian rock:—

“ Tu quae Tarpeio colcris vicina Tonanti Vowrum vindex semper Fortuna meorum," 8w.

Suetonius (Aug. c. 29 and 91). Pliny (xxxvi. 6) and the Man. Aacyrnnum, place it “in Capitolio," meaning the Cnpitoline 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,—5n Ipu'mp ol timer-re: 1: 1e Kam'ru'miov dunk/xerox! (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 loam from Livy and Ovid :-


“ Arce quoqne in summa Junoni templa Monetae Ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo ; Ante domus Manli fuerant" (I'hst. 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 adjoincd one another on or near the clivns. It is no objection to this view that there was another small temple of Concord on the Area, which had been vowed by the practor Munlius in Gaul during a sedition of the soldiers. The vow had been almost overlooked, but after a lapse of two years it was recollected, and the temple erected in discharge of it. (Liv. xxii. 33.) It seems, therefore, to have been a small affair, and might very well have coesisicd on the Ar: with another and more splendid temple.

But to return to Becker's arguments. The next proof adduced is Caligula‘s bridge. “Caligula,'I he says, as Bunsen has remarked, “caused a bridge to be thrown from the Palatine hill over the temple of Augustus (and probably the Basilica Julia) to tho Capitoline temple, which is altogether inconceivable if the latter was on the height of Araceli, as in that case the bridge must have been conducted over the forum" (p. 393). But here Becker goes further than his author, who merely says that Caligula threw a bridge from the Palatine hill to the Capitoline: “Super tcmplum Divi Augusti ponte transmisso, Palatium Capitoliumque conjunxit." (Suet. Cal. 22.) Becker correctly renders Palatium by tho “ Palatine hill," but when he comes to the other hill he converts it into a temple. Suetonius offers a. parallel case of the use of these words in a passage to which we had occasion to allude just now, respecting the temple of Jupiter Tonans : “ Templum Apollinis in Palatio (extruxit), acdem Tonantis Jovis in Capitolio" (Aug. 29) ; where, if Becker’s view was right, we might by analogy translate,—“ be erected a temple of Apollo in the palace."

The next proof is that a large piece of rock fell down from theCapitol (" ex Cnpitolio") into the Vicus J ugarius (Liv. xxxv. 21); and as the Vicus J ugarius ran under the S. summit, this shows that the Capitoline temple was upon it. But pieces of rock fall down from hills, not from buildings, and, therefore. Capitolium here only means the hill. In like manner when Livy says (xxxviii. 28), “substructionem super Aequimelium in Capitulio (censorcs locaverunt)," it is plain that he must mean the hill ; and consequently this passage is another proof of this use of the word. The Aequimelium was in or by the Vicus J ugarius, and could not, therefore, have been on the Capitol properlyso called, even if the latter had been on the SW. height. Becker wrongly translates this passage,——“ a substruction of the Capitol over the Aeqnimelinm" (p. 393.) Then comes the passage respecting the statue of Jupiter being turned. towards the east, that it might. behold the forum and curia; which Becker maintains to be impossible of astatue erected on the height ofAracels'. Those who have seen the ground will not be inclined to coincide in this opinion. The statue stood on I column (Dion Gas. xxxvii. 9; Cic. Din. i. 12; cf. Id. Cat. iii. 8), and most probably in front of the temple—it could hardly have been placed behind it; and, therefore, if the temple was on the S. height, the statue must have been at the extremity of it; a site which certainly would not afford a I very good view of the forum. Next the direction

« السابقةمتابعة »