Chapter III: Part 3

The _Marrana_ is a ditch running from Alba to Rome, respecting which antiquarians are strangely mistaken, and about which the most singular conjectures have been propounded. It is supposed that it is not mentioned in the works of the ancients; while some think that it is the _aqua damnata_, an aqueduct, and others that it is the _aqua crabra_, a beautiful spring, which, however, has its source near Tusculum, and is for the most part consumed there. But the Marrana is nothing but a ditch: in the vale of Grotta ferrata there existed in ancient times a lake, which had two outlets for its waters, one channel being cut through to the Anio, and the other a tunnel cut through the rock. I am sorry to say that I have not seen it myself, but I have read of it in the work, “De aquis et aquaeductibus,” by Fabretti, a scholar of the seventeenth century; his work is very excellent, and I only regret that I did not read it until I had left Rome; it contains a number of original investigations, for the author did not, like many others, confine himself to studying antiquities from books. Fabretti discovered the _Fossa Cluilia_ at the foot of a hill near Frascati, on which are situated the Centroni. They were pointed out to me by an aged peasant, for, wherever it was possible, I tried to make the acquaintance of country people, who very often know something about the ruins which we find mentioned in old books. It has for a long time been the misfortune of foreigners at Rome, not to see more than what is noticed in books. There are, for example, three pillars, remnants of a portico, in a cellar not far from the place in which I lived; and I was apprised of their existence by an old man who was a scholar. Another likewise very interesting ruin exists in a vault under the Capitol; to judge from the style of architecture, it cannot be of a more recent date than the age of Augustus; I have, unfortunately, not seen it myself, but a friend has sent me a description of it. Fabretti calls the tunnel of which I spoke before, an _opus priscae magnificentiae_. This is the _Fossa Cluilia_, by means of which the valley was drained; it is a work of Alban origin; its continuation towards Rome was called _Fossa Quiritium_, and is the present Marrana. From this fact we may, at the risk of not going wrong more than a hundred paces, fix the spot on which the ancients conceived the combat between the Horatii and Curiatii to have taken place: respecting this point also the most erroneous notions have prevailed. By the same means, we are enabled accurately to point out the boundary line of Latium, and the spot where the Romans thought Coriolanus to have been encamped. These facts have occurred to no one, because nobody remembered that, before Appius Claudius made the via Appia, the via Latina was the only road in that direction. The Fossa Quiritium was regarded as the work of Ancus Martius; it runs between the Aventine and Palatine into the Velabrum, and terminates in the cloacae.

In most maps the walls of Rome are seen continued in the form of a triangle beyond the Tiber towards the Janiculus; the walls forming σκέλη proceeding from the Capitol and the Aventine. But this is altogether a mistake. In the age of Augustus, suburbs certainly did exist beyond the Tiber, and I have reasons for supposing that they existed there even at the period of the republic, at least in the seventh century. But it is a mistake to continue the walls so far, for the Romans had long ceased heeding the walls in extending their city. The following circumstance is a proof of this: Rome had only a single bridge across the Tiber, viz. the Pons Sublicius. Now it is said, that the Fabii went out by the Porta Carmentalis, and then proceeded across the bridge into the Etruscan territory. They passed through the Porta Carmentalis because they dwelt on the Quirinal; if they had lived on the Aventine, they would have passed through the Porta Flumentana. The bridge, therefore, evidently lay outside the walls, for otherwise they would have had to pass through two gates, and two gates would have become _nefastae_. Moreover, Varro, “De Lingua Latina,” says, that the carceres of the Circus Maximus were close to the wall of the city,[10] which in his sense is perfectly correct; for the _carceres_ cannot have been more than a stone’s throw from the wall which ran from the Capitoline to the Aventine.

The city was spacious even within the circumference given to it by Servius, but it ever increased, and suburbs sprang up around it. The first trace of such a suburb occurs in the second Punic war. If we possessed the second decad of Livy, we should perhaps find that it existed even at an earlier period. The account of a great conflagration, which occurred during the Hannibalian war, shows that a large and beautiful suburb existed in the district between the Capitoline, Aventine, the Circus Maximus, and the river, that is, in the region of the _Forum olitorium, extra portam Flumentanam_.

It is natural that in a city like Rome, which had already become the capital of a great empire, the empty spaces within the walls were gradually filled up, and that the ancient _luci_, especially about the Esquiline, were more and more cleared away and filled up with buildings. The extension of large cities generally takes the direction of the principal streets: when, for example, cities like Paris and London extend, the newly-built houses follow the lines of the main streets, and are continued outside the gates; the streets thus become lengthened, and are intersected by cross roads. But this system had at Rome to contend with a difficulty, which is generally overlooked. It was customary with the ancients, not only at Rome but also in the Greek cities, to build sepulchres outside the gates on both sides of the road. The ruins of Pompeii show this distinctly. It was accordingly impossible to continue the buildings there, without destroying the tombs. The sepulchral monuments at Rome were subsequently destroyed by barbarism and fanaticism; as most of them were of marble and other costly stones, they were demolished for the sake of plunder. The district of the tombs has now a frightful appearance: the via Appia looks like a corpse, and no one visits it. During summer, when one might be inclined to go there, the country is covered with corn-fields, and in winter herds of cattle graze there; and the herdsmen are generally accompanied by large dogs which attack strangers with great fury; Goethe was in danger of losing his life in that district. The herdsmen are suspected of sometimes causing strangers to be torn to pieces in order to be able to rob them, whence it is necessary to arm one’s self when visiting the district. From an eminence in the neighbourhood you can see the course of the ancient road to a considerable distance, and along it you see nothing but tombs in ruins. Some of them, as we know from Boissard’s description, were entire as late as the sixteenth century; but the Romans have demolished and carried away every thing, and not a stone of any value has been left. The whole of this road was a succession of tombs, it was a real necropolis like that of Alexandria. Hence Rome was always extended between two diverging roads, and gardens were thus formed between the open country and the fields. In ancient Rome you must well distinguish between _horti_ and _villae_; at present we make no distinction, and the name _villa_ is applied to a house in a garden, even within the walls of a city; but in ancient times a villa was always at a considerable distance from the city. _Horti_, on the other hand, still called _orti_, originally signified mere orchards in the vicinity of the city. Such _horti_ were bought by the wealthy at the time when the city became too confined, and having purchased many of them together they built palaces with suitable pleasure grounds in those districts between the great high roads. Thus Scipio, in the work “De Re Publica,” is said to have made up his mind to be _in hortis_. I have discovered the _horti Aemilii_, which were situated on the border of the Campus Martius. Such studies and inquiries make a residence at Rome extremely attractive. In the first year I could not see my way clearly, but afterwards, when I had once discovered the thread, I became quite at home there. Had it not been for my family and the education of my children, whom I was anxious to have brought up in the German way, I could never have resolved to quit Rome, because ancient Rome became daily more clear and vivid before my mind, while modern Rome disappeared more and more from my view; the climate also agreed very well with me. The large palaces, to return to my subject, were situated outside the ancient walls. It is a most erroneous opinion that the palace of Maecenas was situated on the spot afterwards occupied by the Thermae of Titus; for it was outside the wall in the Campus Esquilinus.

The city now became extended in various ways. Industrious artizans established themselves by the river-side, and also on the other side of it (_trans Tiberim_). That this latter district was inhabited as a distinct quarter as early as the time of Augustus, is evident from the fact, that he made it a separate region; and this is at the same time a proof that it was thickly peopled. For although most other regions were of nearly equal extent, this one was comparatively small, which arose from the circumstance, that the great mass and the condition of its inhabitants required a more watchful vigilance of the police. This is the reason why that region was smaller than those in other parts. For opposite reasons, another region near the Porta Capena, in which the population was more dispersed, and which contained more palaces, was made unusually large. Suburbs existed as early as the Punic wars, and in the time of Marius and Sulla, the whole city was surrounded with suburbs; the ancient walls were then forgotten, and it seems that, for the purpose of removing all impediments of communication, even the gates were taken off their hinges. Along the river there was no obstacle, hence buildings were erected there under the Capitoline and Palatine.[11] It is commonly imagined that the whole district at the reach of the Tiber was called Campus Martius, but the Campus occupied only a part of it. At the foot of the Quirinal, too, buildings were erected, and all these enlargements may have narrowed the Campus Martius. In other parts the gardens were isolated, not forming a connected quarter. One suburb was situated at the distance of a Roman mile from the city, on the Appian road; it was even outside the Aurelian wall, which is still standing, and was called _ad Martis_.

When the city had become thus enlarged, there followed the conflagration of Nero, the effects of which have not yet been made clear, but I hope some time to be able to give a satisfactory account of it. The Palatine, a part of Caelius and the district about the Circus were, perhaps, completely reduced to ashes; so also the Via Flaminia on the west of the Capitol; but other parts were less injured.

In Pliny (iii. 9), we meet with the strange expression: _Moenia ejus collegere ambitu Imperatoribus Censoribusque Vespasianis, anno conditae DCCCXXVII. pass. XIIIMCC._, an expression which proves in a striking manner that an accurate knowledge of language and etymology cannot be dispensed with, even in matters which we observe with our own eyes. It has been unjustly inferred from this passage, that in the reign of Vespasian Rome was provided with walls, and those, too, of a much wider circumference than those of Servius. This arose from ignorance of the fact that, according to the most ancient Roman usage, _moenia_ always signifies “buildings.” In like manner, Virgil’s expression, _Dividimus muros et moenia pandimus urbis_, contains no tautology, as was well-known to the ancient grammarians, for the meaning is: “we break the walls, and thereby lay open the buildings of the city.” So also Florus, who sometimes follows the ancient usage, says: _hic igitur et moenia muro amplexus_. We must accordingly understand the passage of Pliny as comprising the whole complex of Rome, as it was measured in the time of Vespasian, which, of course, is a variable magnitude. As it is generally understood, the expression would be as absurd, as if I were to say: the walls of the city of Cologne, in 1828, were of such or such an extent, having, of course, had the same circumference two hundred years ago. Rome had long since been extended beyond the ancient walls, which were now, in fact, in the midst of the city; the towers had been taken down, and people built houses there, the interdicts against building on the pomoerium being no longer attended to. In like manner the foundations of the ancient walls of London may still be discerned among the houses. From Frontinus’ work on Aqueducts, we see how, though the police was excellent, abuses had crept in, although not as many as at present, because the lower administration was not carried on in so servile a manner; when an experienced man was entrusted with the superintendence, things went on fairly, but if not, every one took the greatest liberty. Such was the case at Rome, until Frontinus came forward as a reformer. The disorder was then so great that any one built a house wherever he pleased, without asking whether he had a right to do so or not; and hence the city ever continued to extend. I have made a series of observations on the origin of particular buildings, in order to see approximately, how the city became enlarged under the several emperors. In the reign of Augustus, the Campus Martius was principally chosen for the erection of large buildings: there Agrippa built his Thermae and the Pantheon, and Augustus his Mausoleum; for the Campus was no longer the plain for reviewing the citizens, nor were the mock-comitia of the centuries held there any longer, but it was confined to a small plain near the river, as may be seen from Pliny’s panegyric on Trajan. This part of the Campus, according to a regulation of Agrippa, was watered throughout the summer, and hence always presented a green lawn. The summer is at Rome much more terrible than winter, for the grass is scorched to its very roots; in September it is green, but in July and the dreadful month of August, all the foliage is scorched and covered with dust, so that it presents the most melancholy appearance, and the grounds, like the fields, are, nearly as in Egypt, a picture of death.—In the time of Trajan the Romans built in the same way as is now done in London, where people do not only enlarge the town, but spare no expenses in embellishing it. Enormous works were undertaken in the interior, merely to gain ground. To make room for the Forum of Trajan, a part of the Quirinal was taken down, and many houses were demolished to gain the magnificent space, so that it cost many millions before the foundations could be laid. Antonine erected in the Campus Martius his basilica, his column, and other edifices. Rome was, in fact, ever increasing down to the third century. Even in the time of Alexander Severus, although there existed men of great intelligence, very few seem to have suspected that the nation was in a state of decay, and that a destructive storm was approaching. Dangers in which the empire might have perished did not become visible until the reign of Decius, when the German tribes, the Goths, Alemanni, and Longobards (Juthungi) crossed the boundaries of the empire. They penetrated as far as the river Po, and as Marius had conquered the Cimbri, so Aurelian defeated those tribes in the north of the Po, and saved Italy. Aurelian now found it necessary to surround the city with a new wall, which was essentially the same as the present one. He did not comprise all the suburbs within its circumference, but was guided by the course of the hills; the whole of the _Collis hortulorum_, however, and the mighty ravine in the neighbourhood were drawn into it and fortified. This wall was exceedingly strong: in the east he was obliged, as Servius had done before, to raise it to a great height.

This was the circumference of Rome, until Leo IV. drew the Vatican into the city and surrounded it with a wall. In the sixteenth century the Vatican was connected with Trastevere by means of the Lungara; and thus arose the present circumference, a fact which cannot be denied, although it has been inferred that the wall was fifteen Roman miles in circumference.[12] The present walls are altogether restorations, and probably no part of them belongs to Aurelian. Under the later emperors they again fell into decay; previous to the siege by the Goths, Honorius ordered them to be cleared of the heaps of rubbish which had accumulated by the side of them, and to be restored (_egestis immensibus ruderibus_). Afterwards one third of the wall was demolished by Totilas. Very few of the gates belonging to the time of Honorius now exist, as is clear from the inscriptions; they can be clearly distinguished from those which were built in the sixth century under Gregory the Great, who restored them in every way, for the purpose of protecting the city against the Lombards.

The walls of Servius and Aurelian, although the facts were known, were by no means properly distinguished by the antiquarians and commentators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was only in the eighteenth century that a correct notion was formed of the course of the walls of Rome, and the great D’Anville in this matter also showed his keen judgment and ready tact, although his outline, too, is not quite correct. The more ancient the antiquarians are, the less do they distinguish between the two walls; they sought the Esquiline and Colline gates in the line of the present wall, though they must have known that this did not accord with all the rest; but where a difficulty occurred they helped themselves by accommodation. At present the matter has been made pretty clear; Nibby’s work on the Roman walls contains for the most part correct views.

I will now proceed to enumerate the gates, as they are extremely important in the earliest history of Rome. It is said that the most ancient Rome on the Palatine had three gates; but this must be understood to refer to the extent of Rome comprising the plain round the Palatine, where a suburb was separated by means of a trench and palisades. These gates are not the same in all authors; the _Porta Mugonia_ alone, near the temple in the Via Nova, is historical; it is mentioned by Solinus, and Tarquinius Priscus is said to have dwelt there. You must not, therefore, seek for these gates on the hill, but below Cermalus.

The northernmost gate is the _Porta Collina_, near the Quirinal, where the mound of Servius Tullius began. Before it there is a field, and then comes the valley across which you pass through the gardens of Sallust towards Monte Pincio. Here, on the road to the Porta Salara[13], we must conceive the point where Hannibal rode up to the walls of Rome, and hurled his spear into the city, and where Sulla defeated the Samnites. The _Porta Esquilina_ was at the other end of the Servian agger, and between them was the _Porta Viminalis_. Ficoroni has very successfully made out the site of the Porta Esquilina behind the church of S. Maria Maggiore. After the Esquiline gate there follows the _Caelimontana_, the site of which cannot be accurately determined; but that the arch on the Caelius with an inscription by Dolabella[14], is not a Roman gate, is obvious to any one who has a notion of the structure of a Roman gate. Then comes the _Porta Capena_, in the valley below the Caelius. Piranesi, an intelligent and clever man, discovered it about fifty years ago by well conducted excavations; but the spot has been covered over again, and not even a mark has been put there. Then follows the _Porta Naevia_ near the Aventine, whether on the side towards the Caelius, or at the southern extremity, on the spot where now the bulwark of Paul III. exists, cannot be ascertained. This gate is the largest. In order to discover any thing more definite about it, it would be necessary to make excavations, and it would have made me extremely happy, if I had been allowed to do so. But gladly as I would have done it, even at my own expense, I had to struggle with too great difficulties, especially caused by Monsignor Fea, who always had some objection, when a proposal was made, although he had no certain conviction of his own. He generally thwarted my attempts. When once by accident he consented to Count Funchal making excavations on the Capitol, the thing sought for was found. He never would be wrong, though he is otherwise an honest man, and has the reputation of great disinterestedness; but he is arrogant, confident, and impertinent; he becomes enraged, and never allows a matter to be inquired into, and to prevent it he would even have recourse to intrigues and tricks. Thus, although I wished to make excavations at my own expense, and although I offered to take nothing for myself, and to surrender every thing to the Papal government—I only wished to copy what I might find—still I could not obtain permission. And this was done, in order that new discoveries might not overthrow the current theories. But I understand that things are now going on better.

In that district there are two gates, the _Raudusculana_, probably at the southern extremity, and the _Naevia_. Then came the _Porta Trigemina_, below the Aventine, between it and the Tiber, just as the Capena was below the Caelius. Whence the Trigemina derived its name I will mention after the enumeration of the gates, when I shall have to speak of their construction. The _Porta Flumentana_ was between the Circus and the river. The last important gate, the _Porta Carmentalis_, was between the Capitol and the Quirinal. Thus we again reach the Collina by the long line of the Quirinal.

These are the more important gates of Rome, but there were several others besides. I have given you a list of them, because they are generally stated erroneously from the Naevia onwards. I cannot here attempt to prove my statements, for it would be impossible for you to appreciate or examine the arguments, but you will give me credit, that I have said nothing but what, according to my full conviction, is correct, and I can speak to you with that confidence as if I had seen the objects only a moment ago. Independently of the large gates, there must have been some smaller door-ways, especially in the long line between the Porta Carmentalis and Collina, but in some other parts also, in which cases a flight of steps must have led down the hills. These smaller means of egress came more and more into use at the time when the fortifications had become unnecessary, and when Rome was enlarged beyond the walls. During the period of the republic, the Romans had no excise duties, which were not introduced until the time of the emperors; hence I see no reason why such means of egress should have been forbidden.

The peculiarity of the Roman gates is, that they had two arches by the side of each other, as is the case in the Porta Nigra at Treves, for there can be no doubt that the Porta Nigra was a Roman gate, with a basilica on each side of it. Each of these two arches was called _Janus_, the one _Janus dexter_, and the other _Janus sinister_; by the former people left the town, and by the latter they entered it; and every person kept to the right in order to avoid crowding and collision. The Porta Trigemina must have had a threefold Janus, though I cannot conjecture for what reason; it is possible that the third was destined for vehicles, or that it was a mere ornament. Strange opinions are current about this gate, as, for example, that the Horatii and Curiatii passed through it; but this is impossible, they must have gone out by the Porta Capena.

Over the Capena there ran an aqueduct, which in the reign of Domitian must have been damaged, whence Juvenal and Martial speak of _madida Capena_.

The Porta Carmentalis can be regarded as a gate of the Capitol only in an improper sense; it was connected only with the continuation of the _clivus Capitolinus_.

The circumference of the walls of Servius Tullius thus contained ten gates. Some of them derived their names from the hills; the Collina from the Collis Quirinalis, which was pre-eminently called _the_ Collis, the Capena probably owed its name to the fact of its leading to Capua, or to the _lucus Capenas_, the grove of the Camenae; the Naevia to the Silva Naevia, the Carmentalis to a sanctuary of Carmentis in the neighbourhood, the Raudusculana to the fact of its being covered with brass, and the Flumentana to the river.

The larger circumference of the wall of Aurelian extended as far as the banks of the Tiber, where now no wall exists, because the Borgo and the Castel Angelo are united with the city. On the left bank the foundations of the wall are still the same, though the walls themselves have at different times been entirely restored. Not a stone of the ancient wall now remains, and if there should be any, they belong to the restoration of Honorius. Totilas demolished the greater part of it; afterwards it was repeatedly destroyed and restored again.[15]

The gates of the wall of Aurelian were called after the streets from which they led. In former times a large road led from the Porta Collina northward, and branched off into two, the _Via Salaria_ and the _Via Nomentana_; the Via Tiburtina, afterwards called _Valeria_, issued from the Porta Viminalis; and another issued from the Porta Esquilina, which branched off into the _Via Praenestina_ and the _Via Labicana_. The _Via Appia_ and _Via Latina_ began at the Capena, and a road branching off from the Appia was called _Campana_.[16] The _Via Ardeatina_ proceeded from the Porta Raudusculana, while the _Via Ostiensis_ issued from the Porta Naevia or Trigemina, for these two must have been near each other. The _Via Portuensis_ was on the other side of the river, and the _Via Cassia_ ran over the hill; from the bridge _Pons Aelius_, a street ran close by the mausoleum of Hadrian, which probably bore the name of _Via Aelia_; but the matter is obscure. The _Via Flaminia_ proceeded straightway from the Porta Carmentalis to Ariminum.

Not one of these roads was blocked up by the wall of Aurelian, and wherever gates were made in the latter, they received their names from the streets into which they led. Thus we find the Porta Flaminia, Porta Pinciana (a secondary gate near the Collina, leading probably to a less important way, not a high-road, a gate being necessary for the palace), P. Salaria, P. Nomentana, and then two Portae Tiburtinae, because there were two roads leading to Tibur; one of these gates seems to have had no particular name of its own, though it may have been called P. Valeria. Next came the P. Praenestina and Labicana, both in one building, though distinct; P. Metronia (probably named after a palace), P. Latina, P. Asinaria (P. S. Giovanni), P. Appia, P. Ardeatina, P. Ostiensis, beyond the river P. Portuensis, P. Septimiana or Aurelia, between the Janiculus and the river, probably named after the Thermae of Septimius Severus; and at the bridge (Pons Aelius) the P. Aelia. With the exception of the Pincia and Metronia, you still find almost the same gates leading to the same roads. This circumference of Rome is mentioned by Procopius in his account of the siege of the city. In the sixth century a change took place in the nomenclature, many gates receiving new names from the nearest important churches: thus the P. Asinaria was at a very early date called P. S. Giovanni; the P. Appia, P. S. Sebastiani, from a basilica; the P. Ostiensis, S. Pauli; P. Aurelia, S. Pancratii; the P. S. Lorenzo (Praenestina) also received its name from the basilica S. Laurentii. The P. Salaria and Nomentana retained their names until the sixteenth century.

I cannot enter so fully into the topography of Rome as to show you how the streets of Rome were continued throughout Italy and the whole Roman empire. But, as architectural structures, the Roman high-roads are the most magnificent remains of antiquity. They consist of polished polygons of basalt: the foundation was formed of large stones, more than a cubit deep; over them was laid a stratum of mortar made of lime and puzzolano. Upon this a kind of excellent bricks were broken in large pieces, and laid in strata, over which again a cement was poured, which completely hardened into stone. Upon this substratum the blocks of basalt were placed, the lower surface of which was cut perfectly smooth. The polygons were very large, but different in circumference; they are so well fitted together, that in many parts the point of a pen-knife cannot be pressed between them; they were cut with great care, and must have been polished in a peculiar manner. A line is seen between two stones, but there is no interstice. Even if accidentally the water penetrated from above, the lower part was perfectly waterproof. It is well known that roads are mainly injured by water. Whoever has seen those ancient roads, despises the wretched structures of modern times; but if we were to build them now in the same manner, we should be obliged to sacrifice their external beauty and cover them with sand, because horses shod with iron would not be able to run on the surface, which is as smooth as a mirror. The horses of the ancients were not shod, and mules had either a kind of wooden shoes or soles of matting. Near and at Tivoli large parts of such roads exist in a state of preservation so perfect, as if they had been made only a year ago; but no vehicles now go over them. In comparison with ourselves, the ancients used carriages very rarely, and burdens were mostly carried by mules. On each side of the road there was a pavement for foot-passengers, and at intervals stones were set up, to enable men to get upon their horses, as stirrups were unknown.

In regard to the interior of Rome, it is erroneous to speak only of hills, for in later times they constituted only the smallest part of the city; a great portion being situated in valleys and another in plains. But I will first speak of the hills.

The real centre of the later city consisted of the _Capitoline Hill_, which, though not of great circumference, is properly composed of two hills, a southern one towards the Forum, and a northern one; between them a considerable depression of the ground is still visible. This depression, however, was far greater in ancient times than it is now, and in it there was a portico open on both sides, but at present its back is filled up with rubbish, especially from the ruins of the Capitoline temple, which, like many other buildings, has been purposely and barbarously destroyed. There was a _clivus_ leading up the Capitoline hill from the Forum, which, as in the case of all the Roman hills, formed an inclined plain ascending gradually. The names of the _clivi_ of all the other hills, however, are not known. On the Quirinal I do not find a _clivus_, but it had a _semita_. The meaning of this latter term is not correctly given in our dictionaries: the _semita_ does not differ so much from a carriage road by being less in breadth, but it is altogether a way which no vehicles can pass, either from its want of breadth, or from its construction in other respects, and which therefore is available only to foot-passengers and mules; _semitae_ were ways like the one still existing in the Vatican palace, by which the pope can ride on a mule into his own apartment. In Germany there is nothing comparable to it; the Italian name is _cordonata_, and it must be conceived as a strongly, though not inconveniently, inclined plain, with high stones at certain intervals for the purpose of stopping, so that the second step begins lower than the point at which the first left off.[17] Semitae are also found at gates, especially of Cyclopean towns, as at Ferentino. Before the time of Trajan there is no trace of a clivus leading up the Quirinal; on the Esquiline I can prove its existence; the Palatine had two clivi, the Aventine one, etc.

Rome was essentially different from large modern cities which always contain main streets running from one end to the other; such a street cannot be shown to have existed at Rome, which altogether had but few great streets. All the houses built on the same hill formed, as it were, a small town by themselves with little, and probably extremely irregular, streets, and thus every hill was isolated. It was only the plains and valleys that contained some large streets. The _Esquiliae_ were not a separate street, and the _Carinae_ near the Esquiline also were a quarter of the city rather than a street; the _Subura_ beyond the Esquiliae was a real street, and so also the _Via Sacra_ up to a certain point, but it was not a main street.

The intermontium of the Capitoline hill contained the _asylum_. The southern half of the Capitol, towards both the Tiber and the Forum, formed the _Tarpeian Rock_, which did not, as is commonly believed, consist of one side only. A French scholar, Dureau de la Malle, several years ago wrote an excellent essay on this subject, entitled “Mémoire sur la position de la roche Tarpéienne, lu à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres.” The same scholar is the author of a very able translation of Tacitus; he has been at Rome, and his work furnishes evidence of very correct observations and sound judgment. The Tarpeian rock was cut quite precipitous, a circumstance which at present is not visible everywhere, because houses of six and seven stories in height were built there, which, when demolished in the time of destruction, formed heaps of rubbish as high as two-thirds of the rock, and upon this rubbish houses were afterwards erected. In one part of the rock there was a flight of one hundred steps, which was visible as late as the twelfth century.

The exact site of the Capitoline temple is a much disputed question among antiquarians; it is strange that no ruins of it are remaining. The old opinion which was generally adopted until the time of Nardini, is the true one: Fulvius, Marliani, and Donati all agreed in stating that the temple was situated on the southern part of the hill; but Nardini perverts the whole matter by placing it on the north side on the site now occupied by the church and convent of Araceli; the northern part formed the _arx_, as is clear from the history of the Gallic war; it was a very steep height, not a fortress, but only a strong point, and was occupied by houses of private citizens.

The Capitoline temple was built by the kings and completed by the first consuls; it was then consumed by fire in the time of Sulla, but was restored and consecrated by Catulus. It was burnt down a second time under Vitellius, after which Vespasian rebuilt it with great splendour. Twelve years later, fire again broke out in an unaccountable manner, and Domitian restored it a third time. The immense splendour lavished upon it was probably the principal cause of its subsequent total destruction; it is scarcely possible to form any idea of its costly ornaments: the gates were of bronze covered with thick and solid plates of wrought gold. This gilding alone is said to have cost more than two millions sterling. Even the tiles which Genseric carried away were gilt.[18]

All ancient temples consist of two main parts, the cella and the space in front of the cella. The latter might be constructed in different ways, it might be sheltered by a roof, or exposed to the open air, in which case it was enclosed by four walls or a portico all around. We generally imagine the altar to have been in the temple itself; in the ancient Christian churches (_basilicae_) it always stood in the _apsis_, but in the temples it did not belong to the cella of the gods, but to the space in front of it. The cella was generally open, but could be closed; it was usually very small. The Roman temples often were of extremely small dimensions, and at present I scarcely know a chapel of an equally small size, not even in Italy, where there are some incredibly little chapels; for there were temples of which the cella was only seven or eight feet in diameter. The cella contained the statue of the god (τὸ ἕδος), and for this reason it was necessary to have the altar outside in the centre of the space in front of the cella, which was either exposed to the open air, or could easily be aired, because the statue, in consequence of the burnt sacrifices, might have become disfigured by smoke or otherwise, and because the bones and the like might easily have created foul air in the cella and thus produced injurious effects. In the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter, the cella was divided into three sacella, separated by walls, for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. But this cella was only the smallest part of the building; the larger was the space before it, where the ordinary donaria were hung up, except the more precious gifts, which were kept in the favissae, or large catacombs under the temple in the lautumiae. It is possible that they might still be discovered; a few traces of them are visible in the garden of duke Caffarelli. In the twelfth century, under Pope Anacletus II., large ruins still existed; but a church was erected upon them, which bore the name _S. Salvatoris in maximis_ (supply _ruinis_), but has been destroyed long ago. Such names must always be attended to, for they often lead to important discoveries. The heaps of rubbish lying below by the side of the river, belong no doubt to the temple, and if excavations were made, many valuable treasures might be discovered. I often proposed in vain to dig in the favissae, but as I have given some impulse, I hope people will be roused from their indifference.[19]

The hills not only had the same extent which they still have, but must have extended much further at the time when the valleys were more distinct. Thus a part of the Forum, properly speaking, belonged to the Capitoline hill. The _carcer_ was at the north-eastern extremity; its construction is ascribed to Ancus Marcius, the founder of the plebeian order; it seems to have been intended for the plebeians, for the patricians would probably not have tolerated the idea of such a thing.

The _Forum_ was situated below the Capitoline hill, between it and the Palatine. This is the real point from which the reform of the topography of Rome must proceed, for point by point can be established by the aid of the ancient authors. I there made the beginning of some happy discoveries, which, however, were not continued, because those who have it in their power to grant permission, are afraid lest their arbitrary assertions should be overturned. Materials are not wanting, and many have undertaken the task, but a singular misfortune seems to hang over these things. In the earlier times this part of Roman topography was sadly bungled, even by most excellent men, and Nardini proceeded in quite a wrong way. He is one of those who, with great industry but insufficient learning, produced very little; he did not understand Greek, but helped himself by means of Latin translations, whence he often commits the strangest blunders. Notwithstanding his great diligence, he has not only produced bad and perverse results, but has done positive harm by making posterity acquiesce in his conclusions, for, until our own days, it was the prevalent opinion that he had settled every point, and people were satisfied with having read Nardini. Hence his work has been translated into Latin and incorporated in the “Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanorum.” There were only few able men that were not misled by his authority, and ventured upon independent investigations after him, such as Ficoroni, though he entered only into special points. I knew at Rome a bookseller, a respectable and unassuming person, whose business was stopped for no other reason but because he had disregarded the authority of Nardini. Morelli, an excellent Italian, has written a treatise on the decay of scholarship in Italy, in which he makes a witty application of the scriptural expression, “Ablatum ab Israel, translatum ad gentes,” telling his countrymen, that they have to learn their own antiquities from foreigners, and that philology in Italy is at an end. This is not indeed quite true, but the Italians are not sure in their own minds, they are often influenced by a certain feeling of uneasiness, and do not possess calm confidence. An honest inquirer need not despond; he does not mind owning that he has been mistaken, for who is exempt from it! Whoever makes great pretensions without having corresponding abilities, becomes unfaithful to truth, and will endeavour to crush and calumniate others, in order to preserve for himself dictatorial influence. Such is the case of Fea. Roman topography, as I have said before, was brought by Nardini to a stand still which lasted more than a century and a half. Zoëga too has made inquiries into it: being a Dane he is almost a countryman of mine, and I do not undervalue his learning; but if his works were written at the present time, the true scholars of Germany would not be a little surprised, for he was entirely deficient in real grammatical knowledge. He directed his mind and attention to things about which a healthy philology does not concern itself, such as the Egyptian mysteries and the like. His reading was uncommonly extensive, but he had little scholarship, and owing to this he will be forgotten. He had examined the antiquities of Rome, and had read all the books upon them, but formed no sound conception of the ancient city. Nardini was quite aware that the Forum was the heart of Rome, both topographically and politically, but he unfortunately took an entirely wrong direction; instead of making the buildings succeed one another on the left, he makes them follow on the right, and puts in juxtaposition those which belong to different periods. Hence his confusion; his view of ancient Rome is altogether false. I have gained the right point of view in a peculiar way, and am quite certain of its correctness. I will relate the matter to you as an example of a thread in a labyrinth. Pliny states that, before sun-dials were known at Rome, the parts of the day, sunrise, noon, and sunset were cried out. But the Romans did not calculate according to the moment when the sun really set, but from the moment when the sun was no longer visible in the Forum. By this means it was determined as to whether an act had taken place at the right time or not, for the Romans were very exact in such trifles. Now in the Forum the sun became invisible about three minutes before the real sunset; the crier called out from the Curia, and at the different seasons of the year stated, when he had seen the sun. I have been on the spot innumerable times, and knew the district as well as I knew my own room; I sought the place where the Curia must have stood, and made experiments by watching the sun from that point at the different seasons of the year. By this means I obtained the advantage of certainty in regard to the whole side near the Palatine. Having once found the Curia Hostilia, I had at the same time the Comitium[20] and the Graecostasis. In a poem of Statius there occurs a description of the gigantic equestrian statue of Domitian, and the poet says that it looked towards the temple of Concord: the site of this statue I also succeeded in discovering. It then happened very fortunately that during an excavation an enormous cube was found, on which smaller cubes had been fastened bearing pillars: this was the identical pedestal of the equestrian statue of Domitian. It is clear, that its base consisted of bricks with a coating of marble; the masonry belongs to a period which a practised eye cannot mistake, and we may assert, that the great cubic block was built before the time of Severus, for afterwards the masonry became quite different. In the Monumentum Ancyranum of Augustus, the author, in speaking of a basilica, mentions that a temple of Castor was adjoining it; and this temple I discovered with the assistance of Statius. Its site is a subject of great difficulty, for according to the Monumentum Ancyranum, it was adjoining the basilica Julia, whereas it is commonly supposed to have been situated on the other side; but I knew from Ovid[21], that it was at the end of the Forum, and in this manner the whole Forum was made out.

Respecting the extent of the Roman Forum equally erroneous notions are current, because not only the district occupied by the ancient Forum, but the whole valley far and wide, up to the eminence from which the Via Sacra came down, has several times been covered with rubbish. This whole district is now called Campo Vaccino, and Andreas Fulvius and Bartholomaeus Marliani imagined that all this space, from the Capitol to the arch of Titus, was occupied by the Forum. People were the more tempted to assume this extent, as they entertained the most exaggerated notions about the population and magnitude of the city, as is the case, e.g., in Lipsius’ book, “De Magnitudine Urbis Romae.” He believes that Rome extended north as far as Civita Castellana, a distance of from thirty-five to forty English miles; for he imagined that the numbers of the census under the first emperors were those of the inhabitants of the city, whereas they embraced the whole body of citizens, and accordingly amounted to millions. Nothing can be more senseless than what Lipsius has written on this subject; the exaggerations are enormous: sometimes he was misled by appearances, but sometimes he has not even this excuse. The Forum, in comparison with the present Campo Vaccino, was small, and in all our maps it is pushed too far towards the Capitol. It was situated between the Tarpeian and the Palatine, but did not occupy the whole length of the Capitoline; the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus stood beside, and not in, the Forum.

The first question here is as to the distinction between the Forum and the _Comitium_. In the earliest times they were as different as the populus was from the plebs: the Comitium being the place of assembly for the curiae (patricians), and the Forum the original market-place, in which, however, the plebeians met for the purpose of voting. The Comitium has been the subject of endless discussions and controversies, but most of the opinions about it are quite foolish. Things went so far that Nardini gained immense applause from the _imperiti_ when he declared that the Comitium was the building of which three pillars are still standing: but these pillars belong to the Curia Julia. The Comitium was no building at all, it was nothing but an open place, and a part of the Forum in its wider sense. Both the Forum and the Comitium are parts of the same plain; at a later time the Comitium, in every-day language, was included in the word Forum, and there can be no doubt that the portico surrounding the Forum also inclosed the Comitium. The _rostra_ formed the separation between the two. It is difficult to give you an accurate idea of the rostra, for we have no word conveying an adequate notion. Imagine a _suggestum_ about twelve feet in breadth and at least thirty in length; imagine this to be of the height of a full-grown man, perhaps even somewhat higher, and on both sides steps leading up to it. I should never have been able to form a correct notion of it, had it not been for the fortunate accident, that just during my residence at Rome the new rostra were excavated. No person recognised it or understood what it was; I was not inclined to enter into a dispute, but only took my friend, De Serre, the greatest orator of the present time, to see the spot, where if he had lived in ancient times, he would have achieved as great a reputation as any other. The inner kernel only remains, which is constructed of beautiful bricks and cement. The outside was probably, or I may say certainly, covered with marble, and the beaks of the ships (_rostra navium Antiatum_ or _Antiatium_) were walled in in the front. So long as I had no correct notion of the rostra, I could not understand the meaning of the words _statuae in rostris positae_; it is only on such an extensive platform that they could be set up. Such a space is quite natural if we bear in mind the animated character of southern oratory, in which the speaker is in constant communication with those around him. One may still see this. There was at Rome a highly respectable monk who preached every Sunday, and during Lent, daily, in the Colosseum. He stood in the open air, and walked up and down as if he were conversing with his hearers. I think I never heard a sermon that made a deeper impression: sometimes he stood still, and sometimes he went from one to another of his hearers, without, however, calling any one by his name. It is this active communication with the audience that produced the _percussio laterum_; if a man, standing on a small platform, were to do this often, he would become ridiculous. At Athens, the case was different; the orators there did not move about so much, and the βῆμα seems to have been smaller; I have not indeed found any passage about it in the ancients, but I infer it from the locality; and according to the descriptions we have of it, it seems that it could not have been otherwise. Upon the rostra, at Rome, the statues stood _in loco aprico et conspicuo_. In the most ancient language, this platform was called _templum_, and the new name arose in 417, from the beaks of the ships, with which the front was adorned. I have often been on that spot, and often stood in the Roman Forum: who will describe the emotions that rise in one’s breast on a spot where Tiberius spoke upon Augustus, and other relations upon Germanicus (for these rostra are not the most ancient), where all the funeral orations upon the emperors were delivered, and where all great solemnities took place! And how wretched, how bare, and how stripped is that spot of all its splendour! Before you, you have Rome and its most ancient monuments, the career of Ancus Marcius; on the other side, the place once occupied by the temple of Concord, which Camillus built after having appeased the plebs: the lacus Servilius, where in the days of Sulla the heads of the proscribed were stuck up; the site of the temples of Castor and Vesta, and the Capitoline district: to such a place one can always return with a feeling of reverence; there one may imbibe the inspiration for writing the history of ancient times, and there one becomes familiar with it. The most ancient rostra were, no doubt, constructed of peperino. According to Plutarch, C. Gracchus transferred the real sovereignty to the people, by turning towards the Forum and the commonalty, instead of facing the Comitium where the patricians and the senate stood. Until then it had been customary for the orator, even when communicating something to the plebeians, to turn towards the patricians: but Gracchus turned round, and thus symbolically threw off the mask which he had worn until then. The present level of the Forum is about twenty-five or twenty-six feet higher than in ancient times.