"Cominius in Capitolium | left to its fate; the besieged had concentrated them.
selves 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 mean-
ing of Tacitus is also evident in another man-
ner; for if the Vitellians were attacking the tem-
ple 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 Lucus Asyli. Becker proceeds: "Ta-
citus calls this (i. e. the height with the temple),
indifferently Capitolina Arx and Capitolium." This
is quite a mistake. The Arx Capitolina may possibly
mean the whole summit 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 at-
tacking 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 sepa-
rated 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 difference, that the Arx was on this
height, and not the Capitol. But, in fact, there
was only one principal ascent or clivus,-that lead-
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 great-
grandson of Cn. Scipio. (Vell. Pat. ii. 3.)
"As the
attack is here fruitless, the Vitellians abandon it,
and make another attempt at two different ap-
proaches ("diversos aditus "); at the Lucus Asyli,
that is, on the side where at present the broad steps
lead from the Palazzo de' Conservatori to Monte Ca-
prino, and again where the Centum Gradus led to
the Rupes Tarpeia. Whether these Centum Gradus
are to be placed by the church of Sta Maria della
Consolazione, or more westward, it is not necessary
to determine here, since that they led to the Caf-
farelli height is undisputed. On the side of the
asylum (Palazzo de' Conservatori) the danger was
more pressing. Where the steps now lead to Monte
Caprino, 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."

was nearest to the river.
evadit" is here equivalent to "Romulus in Capi-
tolium escendit," in a passage before cited. (Liv.
i. 10.) Hence, to mark the spot more precisely,
the historian inserts "ad Carmentis" in the follow-
ing chapter. There is nothing in the other autho-
rities 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 occa-
sion, to prove that the attempt of the Gauls was on
the Arx or citadel: " Atque ut ita munita Arx cir-
cumjectu arduo et quasi circumciso saxo niteretur,
ut etiam in illa tempestate horribili Gallici adventus
incolumis atque intacta 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 Capitolium in the preceding passage. Hence,
Mr. Bunbury (Class. Mus. vol. iv. p. 430) and M.
Preller (1. c.) have justly regarded this narrative as
affording no evidence at all, although they are ad-
herents of the German theory. We may further
observe, that the house of Manlius was on the Arx;
and though this circumstance, taken by itself, pre-
sents 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.

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 et imminentia foro templa praetervecti erigunt aciem per adversum collem usque ad primas Capitolinae arcis fores. Erant antiquitus porticus in latere clivi, dextrae subeuntibus: in quarum tectum egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruebant. Neque illis manus nisi gladiis armatae; et arcessere tormenta aut missilia tela longum videbatur. Faces in prominentem porticum jecere et sequebantur ignem; ambustasque Capitolii fores penetrassent, ni Sabinus revulsas undique statuas, decora majorum in ipso aditu vice muri objecisset. Tum diversos Capitolii aditus invadunt, juxta lucum asyli, et qua Tarpeia rupes centum gradibus aditur. Improvisa utraque vis: propior atque acrior per asylum ingruebat. Nec sisti poterant scandentes per conjuncta aedificia, quae, ut in multa pace, in altum edita solum Capitolii aequabant. Hic ambigitur, ignem tectis oppugnatores injecerint, an obsessi, quae crebrior fama est, quo nitentes ac progressos depellerent. Inde lapsus ignis in porticus appositas aedibus: mox sustinentes fastigium aquilae vetere ligno traxerunt flammam alueruntque. Sic Capitolium clausis foribus indefensum et indireptum 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 foribus, indefensum et indireptum conflagravit." Such a state of things is inconceivable, if, as Becker says, the attack was directed solely against the Capitol. That part of the hill was evidently deserted, and

Our chief objection to this account is, its impossibility. If the Lucus Asyli corresponded to the steps of the present Palazzo de' Conservatori, which is seated in the depression between the two summits, or present Piazza del Campidoglio, then the besiegers must have forced the passage of the Clivus Capitolinus, whereas Tacitus expressly says that they were repulsed. Being repulsed they must have retreated

We might, therefore, by substituting Caffarelli for Araceli, retort the triumphant remark with which | Becker closes his explanation of this passage: "To him, therefore, who would seek the temple of Jupiter on the height of Caffarelli, the description of Ta-mius after the sedition and death of Gracchus. Apcitus is in every respect inexplicable."

two ancient inscriptions from Marini's Atti de' Fratelli Arvali (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 Varro, then, the Aedis Concordiae and baslica of Opimius were close to the senaculum; and the situation of the senaculum. is pointed out by Festus between the Capitol and forum: "Unum (Senaculum) ubi nunc est aedis Concordiae, inter Capitolium et Forum" (p. 347, Müll.). 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 Opimius. 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 Opimius? 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: npioarтo τῆς μὲν Ὁμονίας ἱερὸν, ὥσπερ ηὔξατο ὁ Κάμιλλος, eis Thy ȧyopàv kaì els Thν ékкλnoíav &πоптоν è Tois Yeyevnμévols idpúσaoba (Camill. 42). Now àpopáw 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:

"Nunc bene prospicies Latiam, Concordia, turbam." These expressions, then, like Ovid's allusion to the "sublimes gradus" of Moneta, point to the Arx as the site of the temple. It is remarkable that Lucan (Phars. i. 195) employs the same word when describing the temple of Jupiter Tonans, erected by Augustus, also situated upon the Arx, or Rupes

Tarpeia:

16

O magnae qui moenia prospicis urbis Tarpeia de 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 Fortuna, likewise places the Jupiter Tonans on the Tarpeian rock:"Tu quae Tarpeio coleris vicina Tonanti

Votorum vindex semper Fortuna meorum," &c. Suetonius (Aug. c. 29 and 91), Pliny (xxxvi. 6) and the Mon. Ancyranum, place it in Capitolio," meaning the Capitoline 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,-8T πρώτῳ οἱ ἀνιόντες ἐς τὸ Καπιτώλιον ἐνετύγχανον | (liv. 4), which they no doubt would do, since the elivus 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 learn from Livy and Ovid :—

"Arce quoque in summa Junoni templa Monetae Ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo; Ante domus Manli fuerant" (Fast. 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 adjoined one another on or near the clivus. It is no objection to this view that there was another small temple of Concord on the Arx, which had been vowed by the praetor Manlius 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 coexisted on the Arx with another and more splendid temple.

But to return to Becker's arguments. The next proof adduced is Caligula's bridge. "Caligula," 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 the 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 templum Divi Augusti ponte transmisso, Palatium Capitoliumque conjunxit." (Suet. Cal. 22.) Becker correctly renders Palatium by the "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), aedem Tonantis Jovis in Capitolio" (Aug. 29); where, if Becker's view was right, we might by analogy translate,-"he erected a temple of Apollo in the palace."

down from the Capitol ("ex Capitolio") into the Vicus
The next proof is that a large piece of rock fell
Jugarius (Liv. xxxv. 21); and as the Vicus Jugarius

ran under the S. summit, this shows that the Capi-
toline temple was upon it. But pieces of rock fall
down from hills, not from buildings, and, therefore,
In like
Capitolium here only means the hill.
manner when Livy says (xxxviii. 28), "substruc-
tionem super Acquimelium in Capitolio (censores
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 Jugarius, and could not, therefore, have
been on the Capitol properly so called, even if the latter
had been on the SW. height. Becker wrongly trans-
lates this passage,—“ a substruction of the Capitol
over the Aequimelium" (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 a statue erected on the height of Araceli. Those
who have seen the ground will not be inclined to
coincide in this opinion. The statue stood on a
column (Dion Cass. xxxvii. 9; Cic. Div. 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
very good view of the forum. Next the direction

of the Clivus Capitolinus is adduced, which ran to
the Western height, and must have led directly to
the temple, whence it derived its name. But this
is a complete begging of the question, and the
clivus more probably derived its name from the
hill. If the direction of the clivus, however, proves
anything at all-and we are not disposed to lay
much stress upon it-it rather proves the reverse
of Becker's case.
The clivus was a continuation
of the Sacra Via, by which, as we shall have occa-
'sion to show when treating of that road, the augurs
descended from the Arx after taking the auguries,
and by which they carried up their new year's
offerings to king Tatius, who lived upon the Arx:
and hence in sacerdotal language the clivus itself
was called Sacra Via. (Varro, L.L. v. § 47, Müll.;
Festus, p. 290, id.). Lastly, "the confined height
of Araceli would not have afforded sufficient room
for the spacious temple of Jupiter, the Area Capi-
tolina, where meetings of the people were held, and
at the same time be able to display so many other
temples and monuments." There is some degree of
truth in this observation, so far at least as the Area
Capitolina is concerned. But when we come to
describe the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, an ac-
quaintance with which is necessary to the complete
understanding of the present question, though
Becker has chosen to omit it, "as lying out of the
plan of his book" (p 396), we shall endeavour to
show how this objection may be obviated. Mean-
while, having now discussed all Becker's arguments
in favour of the SW. summit as the site of the
Capitoline temple, it will be more convenient shortly
to review the whole question, and to adduce some
reasons which have led us to a directly contrary con-
clusion. In doing this we do not presume to think,
with Becker, that we have "completely decided"
the question. It is one, indeed, that will not admit
of complete demonstration; but we venture to hope
that the balance of probability may be shown to
predominate very considerably in favour of the NE.
height.

The greater part of Becker's arguments, as we trust that we have shown, prove nothing at all, while the remainder, or those which prove something, may be turned against him. We must claim as our own the proof drawn from the storm of the Capitol by the Vitellians, as described by Tacitus, as well as that derived from Mons Tarpeius being the name of the SW. height, and that from the westerly direction of the Clivus Capitolinus. Another argument in favour of the NE. height may be drawn from Livy's account of the trial of Manlius Capitolinus, to which we have already adverted when treating of the Porta Flumentana [supra, p. 751], and need not here repeat. To these we shall add a few more drawn from probability.

Tatius dwelt on the Arx, where the temple of Juno Moneta afterwards stood. (Plut. Rom. 20; Solinus, i. 21.) "This," says Becker (p. 388), "is the height of Araceli, and always retained its name of Arx after the Capitol was built, since certain sacred customs were attached to the place and ap-| pellation." He is here alluding to the Arx being the auguraculum of which Festus says: "Auguraculum appellabant antiqui quam nos arcem dicimus, quod ibi augures publice auspicarentur" (p. 18, where Müller observes: "non tam arcem quam in arce fuisse arbitror auguraculum "). The templum, then, marked out from the Arx, from which the city auspices were taken, was defined by a peculiar and

66

66

appropriate form of words, which is given by Varro,
(L.L. vii. § 8, Müll.) It was bounded on the left
hand and on the right by a distant tree; the tract
between was the templum or tescum (country region)
in which the omens were observed. The augur who
inaugurated Numa led him to the Arx, seated him
on a stone, with his face turned towards the South,
and sat down on his left hand, capite velato, and
with his lituus. Then, looking forwards over the
city and country prospectu in urbem agrumque
capto"- he marked out the temple from east to
west, and determined in his mind the sign (signum)
to be observed as far as ever his eyes could reach:
quo longissime conspectum oculi ferebant." (Liv.
i. 18; cf. Cic. de Off. iii. 16.) The great extent of
the prospect required may be inferred from an anec-
dote related by Valerius Maximus (viii. 2. § 1),
where the augurs are represented as ordering Clau-
dius Centumalus to lower his lofty dwelling on the
Caelian, because it interfered with their view from
the Arx,-a passage, by the way, which shows
that the anguries were taken from the Arx till
at all events a late period of the Republic. Now,
supposing with Becker, that the Arx was on the
NE. summit, what sort of prospect would the
augurs have had? It is evident that a large portion
of their view would have been intercepted by the
huge temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The SW.
summit is the only portion of the hill which, in the
words of Livy, would afford a noble prospect, "in
urbem agrumque." It was doubtless this point to
which the augur conducted Numa, and which re-
mained ever afterwards the place appointed for taking
the auguries. Preller is of opinion that Augustus
removed them to a place called the Auguratorium
on the Palatine. (Philologus, i. p. 92.) But the
situation laid down for that building scarcely answers
to our ideas of a place adapted for taking the au-
guries, and it seems more probable that it was merely
a place of assembly for the college of augurs.

Another argument that has been adduced in favour of the SW. summit being the Arx, is drawn from its proximity to the river, and from its rocky and precipitous nature, which made it proper for a citadel. But on this we are not inclined to lay any great stress.

Other arguments in favour of the Italian view may be drawn from the nature of the temple itself; but in order to understand them it will first be necessary to give a description of the building. The most complete account of the TEMPLUM JOVIS CAPITOLINI is that given by Dionysius (iv. 61), from which we learn that it stood upon a high basis or platform, 8 plethra, or 800 Greek feet square, which is nearly the same in English measure. This would give about 200 feet for each side of the temple, for the length exceeded the breadth only by about 15 feet. These are the dimensions of the original construction; and when it was burnt down a generation before the time of Dionysius,- that is, as we learn from Tacitus (Hist. iii. 72), in the consulship of L. Scipio and Norbanus (B. C. 83),—it was rebuilt upon the same foundation. The materials employed in the second construction were, however, of a much richer description than those of the first. The front of the temple, which faced the south, had a portico consisting of three rows of columns, whilst on the flanks it had only two rows and as the back front is not said to have had any portico, we may conclude that there was nothing on this side but a plain wall. The interior contained three cells