صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

was

names in the Anonymus; and a comparison of two passages of Procopius (B. G. i. 19, Ib. p. 96) would appear to lead us to the same result. In the former of these Procopius speaks of the part of the city attacked by the Goths as comprising five gates (múλα), and extending from the Flaminian to the Praenestine. That he did not reckon the Pinciana as one of these seems probable, from the care with which, in the second passage referred to, he distinguishes it as a Tuxís, or minor gate. Supposing the closed gate near the Praetorian camp to have been omitted for the same reason, we have just the five required, viz., Flaminia, Salaria, Nomentana, Tiburtina (Porta S. Lorenzo), and Praenestina (Maggiore). On this supposition both these ancient ways (the Tiburtina and Praenestina) must have issued originally from the Esquiline gate of the Servian walls. Now we know positively from Strabo that the Via Praenestina did so, as did also a third road, the Via Labicana, which led to the town of that name, and afterwards rejoined the Via Latina at the station called Ad Pictas (v. p. 237). Strabo, on the other hand, does not mention from what gate the road to Tibur issued in his time. Niebuhr has therefore followed Fabretti and Piale in assuming that the latter ori

864). When it obtained its present name cannot be determined; its ancient one was undoubtedly derived from the Via Flaminia, which it spanned. In the time of Procopius, and indeed long before, the wall to the east had bent outwards from the effects of the pressure of the Pincian hill, whence it I was called murus fractus or inclinatus, just as it is now called muro torto. (Procop. B. G. i. 23.) The next gate, proceeding always to the right, the PORTA PINCIANA, before mentioned, which was already walled up in the time of the Anonymous of Einsiedlen. It of course derived its name from the hill on which it stood. Belisarius had a house near this gate (Anastas. Silverio, pp. 104, 106); and either from this circumstance, or from the exploits performed before it by Belisarius, it is supposed to have been also called Belisaria, a name which actually occurs in one or two passages of Procopius (B. G. i. 18, 22; cf. Nibby, Mura, &c. p. 248). But the Salaria seems to have a better claim to this second appellation as the gate which Belisarius himself defended; | though it is more probable that there was no such name at all, and that Beλioapia in the passages cited is only a corruption of Zaλapía. (Becker, de Muris, p. 115; Urlichs in Class. Mus. vol. iii.ginally proceeded from the Porta Viminalis, which, p. 196.)

Respecting the two gates lying between the Porta Pinciana and the Praetorian camp there can be no doubt, as they stood over, and derived their names from, the Via Salaria and Via Nomentana. In earlier times both these roads issued from the Porta Collina of the Servian wall; but their divergence of course rendered two gates necessary in a wall drawn with a longer radius. The PORTA SALARIA Still subsists with the same name, although it has undergone a restoration. Pius IV. destroyed the PORTA NOMENTANA, and built in its stead the present Porta Pia. The inscription on the latter testifies the destruction of the ancient gate, the place of which is marked with a tablet bearing the date of 1564. A little to the SE. of this gate are the walls of the Castra Praetoria, projecting considerably beyond the rest of the line, as Aurelian included the camp in his fortification. The PORTA DECUMANA, though walled up, is still visible, as well as the PRINCIPALES on the sides.

The gates on the eastern tract of the Aurelian walls have occasioned considerable perplexity. On this side of the city four roads are mentioned, the Tiburtina, Collatina, Praenestina, and Labicana, and two gates, the PORTA TIBURTINA and PRAENESTINA. But besides these gates, which are commonly thought to correspond with the modern ones of S. Lorenzo and Porta Maggiore, there is a gate close to the Praetorian camp, about the size of the Pinciana, and resembling the Honorian gates in its architecture, which has been walled up from time immemorial, and is hence called PORTA CLAUSA, or Porta Chiusa. The difficulty lies in determining which were the ancient Tiburtina and Praenestina. The whole question has been so lucidly stated by Mr. Bunbury that we cannot do better than borrow his words: "It has been generally assumed that the two gates known in modern times as the Porta S. Lorenzo and the Porta Maggiore are the same as were originally called respectively the Porta Tiburtina and Praenestina, and that the roads bearing the same appellations led from them directly to the important towns from which they derived their name. It is admitted on all hands that they appear under these

as we have seen, stood in the middle of the agger
of Servius, and that it passed through the walls of
Aurelian by means of a gate now blocked up, but
still extant, just at the angle where those walls join
on to the Castra Praetoria.
Assuming this to have been the original Tiburtina,
Niebuhr (followed by MM. Bunsen and Urlichs)
considers the Porta S. Lorenzo to have been the
Praenestina, and the Porta Maggiore to have been
the Labicana; but that when the gate adjoining the
Praetorian camp was blocked up, the road to Tivoli
was transferred to the Porta S. Lorenzo, and that
to Praeneste to the gate next in order, which thus
acquired the name of Praenestina instead of its
foriner one of Labicana (Beschreibung, i. p. 657, seq).
To this suggestion there appear to be two principal
objections brought forward by M. Becker, neither of
which M. Urlichs has answered: the first, that, sup-
posing the Via Tiburtina to have been so transferred,
which taken alone might be probable enough, there
is no apparent reason why the Via Praenestina
should have been also shifted, instead of the two
thenceforth issuing together from the same gate,
and diverging immediately afterwards; and secondly,
that there is no authority for the existence of such
a gate called the Labicana at all. The passage of
Strabo, already cited, concerning the Via Labicana,
certainly seems to imply that that road in his time
separated from the Praenestina immediately after
leaving the Esquiline gate; but there is no impro-
bability in the suggestion of M. Becker, that its
course was altered at the time of the construction of
the new walls, whether under Aurelian or Honorius,
in order to avoid an unnecessary increase of the
number of gates. Many such changes in the di-
rection of the principal roads may have taken place
at that time, of which we have no account, and on
which it is impossible to speculate. Westphal, in
his Römische Campagne (p. 78), has adopted nearly
the same view of the case: but he considers the Via
Labicana to have originally had a gate assigned to
it, which was afterwards walled up, and the road
carried out of the same gate with the Via Praenes-
tina. The only real difficulty in the ordinary view
of the subject, supported by M. Becker, appears to

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 instauratos 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 Forta 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

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

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, fc. 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.

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.

1

In

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. 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 τὸ Καπιτώλιον in the same manner: Ρώμυλος μὲν τὸ Παλάτιον κατέχων — Τάτιος dè тd KaπITúλiov. (Dionys. ii. 50.) Hence we deduce as a first general rule that the term Capitolium is sometimes used of the whole hill.

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

|

Secondly, it may be shown that the whole hill, when characterised generally as the Roman citadel, was also called Arx: "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 used generally

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]

12.) On this point also it would be easy to multiply examples, if it were necessary.

to signify the whole hill, they are nevertheless frequently employed in a stricter sense to denote respectively one of its summits, or rather, the temple The preceding passages, which have been purof Jupiter Capitolinus and the opposite summit; and posely selected from prose writers, suffice to show in this manner they are often found mentioned as how loosely the terms Arx and Capitolium were em two separate localities opposed to one another: "Deployed; and if we were to investigate the language arce capta Capitolioque occupato- nuntii veniunt." (Liv. iii. 18.) "Est autem etiam aedes Vejovis Romae inter arcem et Capitolium." (Gell. N. A. v.

of the poets, we should find the question still further embarrassed by the introduction of the ancient names of the hill, such as Mons Tarpeius, Rupes Tarpeia,

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

66

|

(i. 32), he used the adjective form Kapuevris (Tapà 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 Phi

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 Halicarnas-lologus i. p. 85, note), that Dionysius, or rather persus (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 opoúpiov 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 TI DéopаTOV); 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 oppoúpiov, 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 (iepaì múλaι TOû KATIтwλíov); and that he regarded it as seated upon an eminence, is plain from the expression that Herdonius made his men ascend through it (avasisáσas Thν dúvaμiv). The text of Dionysius is manifestly corrupt or interpolated; which further appears from the fact that when he was describing the real Carmental gate

haps 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 poúptor 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 opoúptov 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 river, to say that Cominius mounted it "where it

« السابقةمتابعة »