Volume 2 — ITALY. (continued 2)

Most Italian towns were in ancient times situated on hills, but were then not surrounded with walls any more than the Epirot towns, but localities were chosen where a hill was naturally inaccessible, or it was made inaccessible by artificial means. The hill Moriah, on which king Solomon built the temple, was originally such a hill, and it still preserves its square form amid its ruins. The ancients at most drew a wall around the base of the hill, which was either a Cyclopean or an Etruscan (i.e., a regular) wall, so as to render it inaccessible;⁠[8] at the top of the hill there was no wall, at most a small bulwark, but in most cases even this did not exist. A sloping road (clivus) with two towers at the foot led up the hill, and along it ran a portico, or two walls, usually built in a zigzag. At the top there was another gate which could be closed, and which was generally flanked by two towers, so that the access might be closed both at the foot and at the top. Such was in general the character of the Latin towns, more or less perfect, and built regularly or irregularly according to the nature of the locality; and of this kind must have been the small Latin and Sabine towns out of which arose the eternal city. These places stood quite isolated, and each had its own arx, which perfectly explains Virgil’s expression Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces; these were the strong places in Rome itself, which are so often mentioned by Livy and Dionysius. Rome, therefore, had not one arx, but seven. These seven arces were then connected by means of the agger, which extended from the Colline to the Esquiline gate. In some parts of this circumference the ancient fortification remained; for example, the Quirinal (which was so high that it was necessary to make a flight of steps, which was transferred in the fourteenth century to Araceli⁠[9]⁠) had one very precipitous side, which required no fortification; but from it to the Capitoline a wall was built. Thence the fortification proceeded to the corner of the Aventine. This course of the ancient walls has been mistaken by all antiquarians, except a few belonging to the sixteenth century; I discovered its real course from the nature of the circumstances; I lived in the neighbourhood, and found the remains, for on the one side of the street there runs a ridge of ruins. This wall alone prevented the Tiber from overflowing the Forum, while outside the gate the inundations were very great; when, therefore, in the seventh century the wall was neglected, the Forum and the adjoining districts, as far as the porta Carmentalis, were completely inundated. In ancient Rome, this could not have happened. The Aventine is still high enough to show, that properly it required no wall, and its precipitous side towards the river may still be seen; but from that point again a wall runs towards the Caelius, for the most part behind the ditch which is now called Marrana, but anciently (Pliny) bore the name of fossa Quiritium. Coming from the Campagna this ditch runs along the foot of the Caelius, traverses the valley of the Murcia towards the river, and in the Circus it appears as a Euripus. Of the wall from the Aventine to the Caelius traces likewise still exist in the ridge of ruins in the lanes of that district. This fortification, then, closed the valley between the Caelius and Palatine. The Caelius was probably surrounded by a wall, for its sides cannot have been steep enough to protect it. The wall then proceeded through the valley towards the Esquiline gate, and was thus carried to the point where it joined the agger. This circumference of the city amounted to somewhat more than five English miles, and is known under the name of the wall of Servius Tullius (recinto di Servio Tullio, murus Servii regis, in Pliny). The wall did not run round the whole city, for along the Quirinal and the Capitoline there was no real wall. The insula Tiberina is in the reach of the river, which in the west of the city forms the Campus Martius, a perfect plain outside the ancient city. At present this plain is covered with scattered hillocks which have been formed by rubbish deposited there; there were also a few marshes, but not as many as Brocchi asserts.

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.

The Curia Hostilia was situated on the πρόπους of the Palatine, just opposite the narrow side of the rostra. Its name is no doubt derived from Tullus Hostilius, who is certainly an historical personage; but we ought not to assert that he reigned from A.U. 78 till 110, for no one can know when he lived. This Curia existed down to the time of Cicero, when the populace led on by Sext. Clodius, carried into it the body of P. Clodius, who had been killed by Milo, and, in burning the corpse, reduced the building to ashes. Even Sulla had made some alterations in the district around the rostra, but we do not know in what they consisted. The Curia was not restored on the ancient site, but farther to the right; Caesar commenced the new building, and Augustus completed it: this is the Curia Julia, near which the new rostra were constructed. The three splendid Corinthian columns which are still standing, belong to this Curia Julia; they stand parallel to the ridge of the Palatine and the line of the Capitoline, and are generally considered to have belonged to the temple of Jupiter Stator, while Fea believes them to be remnants of the temple of Castor. This latter hypothesis is impossible, for we read in Suetonius⁠[22] that the arch of Caligula extended over the temple of Castor as far as the Capitol: but this is impossible, if the three columns belonged to the temple of Castor. They belong, I repeat it, to the Curia Julia; and this accounts for the fact that the rostra are found close by, and that the Capitoline Fasti, which formed one wall in that Curia, were found among its ruins. There can be no doubt that the very ancient plan of Rome,⁠[23] which formed the floor of the church S. Cosma e Damiano, likewise belonged to it: there could not be a better place for it than one of the walls in the Curia Julia. The idea of Pirro Ligorio, that the Fasti were set up in an arch, is as improbable as many others of his views; attempts have been made to justify him, but he has evidently been guilty of many falsehoods. Notwithstanding this, however, his papers ought not to be neglected; they are preserved partly in the Vatican and partly among the manuscripts at Turin.⁠[24] Rome, accordingly, had two Curiae, the Hostilia and Julia, which, however, did not exist at any time simultaneously; but the two rostra, the vetera and the nova or Julia, both existed at the same time. The nova rostra were built on the site of the ancient Curia.

The whole of the Forum was surrounded by a portico, which had been built either in the time of the kings or at the commencement of the republic; the columns were undoubtedly Etruscan, that is, old Doric, and the whole was made of peperino, covered with stucco, and not high. The booths (tabernae or mensae argentariorum), the stalls of money-changers or bankers, were set up in this portico to be protected against the weather. The armour taken from an enemy after a glorious victory was hung upon the pillars, whence the expression postes ornare tropaeis in one of the fragments of Ennius. Whether these trophies were carefully preserved, is unknown; but the old ones probably made room for new ones, though many a splendid memorial may have been seen there for a long time. In the Forum, below the Capitol, but beyond the clivus, were the temples of Saturn and Concord; further, when you look southward, having the Capitoline on the right and the Palatine on the left, you have on your right-hand side the temple of Castor, which was dedicated by the dictator A. Postumius; near it was the well of Juturna, in which the Dioscuri, after the battle of lake Regillus, washed their horses; next to it was the temple of Vesta, of which remains would certainly be found, if excavations were made; distinct mention of it is made in books written as late as the fifteenth century. On the opposite side was situated the Regia and the Atrium Vestae, which ought not to be confounded with the temple of that goddess. Rome contained many Atria, that is, open square spaces surrounded by houses and a portico, under which people walked in rainy weather. Such was the Atrium Libertatis, a kind of bourse; the most correct Latin name for a bourse or exchange accordingly would be atrium negotiatorum or mercatorum. The Atrium Vestae must have been like the cloisters of a monastery, the cells of the Vestals being built around a square; the priestesses moreover were buried beside the Atrium, as they had the privilege of being buried within the city. This circumstance has caused great confusion in the antiquities of Rome, for when in the sixteenth century the church of S. Maria Liberatrice was erected on the left-hand side of the Atrium Vestae, and a number of tomb-stones of Vestal virgins were found there, it was inferred at once that this must be the site of the temple of Vesta. But this is opposed to all the statements of the ancients. I think it was one of my friends who had the happy idea that the temple ought not to be sought near the Atrium; I had previously said, that I could not believe the temple to have been there, and that, from all accounts, I must infer that it stood on the opposite side, not far from the lacus Curtius.

The Forum contained yet another class of buildings; it certainly was a market-place as well as a place for assembling; but in ancient times it was also the place for the administration of justice. In like manner, our own ancestors met under the open sky, and the estates of Lüneburg, as late as 1660, assembled in a forest, because decrees formed in a covered building were considered invalid. Such also was the case at Rome, all business was transacted in the open air. This is the native and natural custom of Italy: man there feels the necessity of living and doing his work under the free canopy of heaven; every artizan, if the weather permits it, works in front of his house where he has his shop. There still exist at Rome a great many houses built in exactly the same style as in the most ancient times. These shops have no windows, but are closed by means of a large door; and in bad weather the people take refuge within and work by candle-light; when the weather becomes fine again, they resume their seats in the door or in the street. Such also was the case with the ancients. Those who worked with their minds, had similar arrangements: during the night they remained in their rooms, but in the day-time they walked out into the open air, to some public place where they dictated or wrote. The air at Rome is very good, if we consider the dress of the ancients, which consisted of wool, over which they wore the toga; the climate is more healthy than ours, and old age there commences later than with us. Justice, as I said before, was administered in the Forum in the open air; but as this was not without its disadvantages, it became necessary to devise some protection against them. When the Romans had become acquainted with Greece, they were much pleased with the στοὰ βασίλειος at Athens, and the idea of building basilicae suggested itself to them. The Stoa at Athens was probably a portico composed of several rows (we do not know how long these rows were), and afforded both sufficient light and protection in bad weather. When, therefore, an active intercourse between Rome and Greece had arisen, the Romans built such basilicae as courts of justice. They are by no means imitations of royal palaces of the East. Later Greeks, e.g., Agathias, always translate the word basilicae, whether at Rome or at Constantinople, by στοὰ βασίλειος. We must conceive that originally they were mere rows of columns supporting a roof, and without side-walls. They generally had six rows of columns in front, so that there were five entrances. Afterwards the two extreme rows, the first and sixth, were changed into walls; the back part also was walled up, and the tribunal for the presiding praetor was set up in a crescent formed in this back wall. This is the origin of the closed buildings called basilicae. As they were well adapted for public meetings, they became, ever since the time of Constantine, the regular types of Christian churches. What was the construction of churches before the time of Constantine, is a question which we cannot answer; we do not possess the slightest allusion to it. An immense number of fables are current respecting churches said to have been built by Constantine, but the only one which he really did build, is still known; it is the church of the Lateran, justly called princeps ecclesiarum urbis et orbis. The day on which that church was consecrated by Constantine, is quite certain, and is celebrated every year, I believe about the end of November. The import of this festival of the consecration of the Church has at Rome itself been completely forgotten, and there is not one canon of the Lateran who knows it. I have learned it from an old Flemish gentleman, who, among much that was strange, also possessed a good deal of interesting information. The form of the basilicae, as I have described it, is very ancient, and in the Christian churches it is quite simple: all have five gates, and in the interior, four rows of columns, the two inner ones high, and the outer ones lower. This change, however, was not a matter of necessity. From this form I recognised the basilica C. et L. Caesarum, Julia, or Caesaris in what is commonly called the temple of Concord.

In the course of time the Forum became quite filled with basilicae, monuments, statues, and the like; it contained three or four basilicae, the Opimia, Porcia, Paulli, etc. Caesar set up a number of statues, so that during the latter period of the republic there was little space left for public assemblies, which, however, even without this, were rarely held; the idea of a free space must in the end have been entirely forgotten, and the comitium alone preserved this character. About sixty years ago, the pavement of the Comitium consisting of slabs of the most beautiful yellow Numidian marble, was discovered, but it was broken to pieces and sold in a disgraceful manner. In later times all the edifices were rebuilt, and the portico was restored with far more splendour (we know this from Orosius) and floored with magnificent stones, while the roof was of bronze and no doubt gilt.

This may suffice in regard to the Forum Romanum or Maximum. The word Forum originally, as is stated by the ancient lexicographers, signified “hollow ground;” but afterwards it assumed the same meaning as ἀγορά, and thus presupposes an open space. In later times the meaning underwent so strange a change, that the Fora, e.g., the Forum Ulpium or Trajani, were not open spaces at all, but places wholly covered with buildings. Of the same kind were the Fora of Nerva and Domitian. The same must be supposed to have been the case even with the Forum of Caesar; in regard to that of Augustus, it may appear doubtful, as to whether a portion of it was not an open space. This change arose from the fact, that the idea of a free space, in the case of the Forum Maximum, was entirely lost sight of, and a Forum was regarded as a place containing courts of justice.

As, therefore, the ancient Forum was already filled with basilicae, Caesar, wishing to build a handsome one, erected it in a separate locality, which he purchased by the side of the Forum. This is the Forum Caesaris, which was not an open space at all, but a basilica with the temple of Venus Genitrix. It was situated at the foot of the Palatine, by the side of the Forum Maximum, its southern part turning towards the Vicus Tuscus, opposite the temple of Castor, as I have ascertained beyond a doubt. I cannot give you the proofs, because I have neither maps nor plans at hand.

The next Forum planned in the same manner is that of Augustus, except that a portion of it was probably an open space. It was situated at some distance from the Roman Forum, beyond the Via Sacra and, perhaps, a few more streets. Hirt, who is himself not rich in ideas, but in Roman topography has often successfully revived those of earlier writers (such as Palladio and Serlio), has demonstrated the site of this Forum. He is not a learned man, but has a well practised eye in observing antiquities; none of his own original views are good, but among the things he finds in earlier authors, he can well distinguish what is correct from what is not, a thing which learned men often cannot. The Forum of Augustus contained the temple of Mars Ultor, where the standards of Crassus, recovered from the Parthians, were set up, and also a magnificent basilica; there also stood—it was a noble conception—the statues of the most illustrious Romans, which had formerly stood in the market-place and in the orchestra of the theatre, with the tituli gestorum. A fragment of the latter is still extant fastened in a wall of the Vatican; but it is not even possible to see whose name is mentioned in it. The writing certainly belongs to the age of Augustus, as every one can see who has an eye for such things. I cannot be mistaken in such a matter, I can immediately see whether an inscription was cut before the time of Caesar or in the age of Augustus. Such things make a residence at Rome so pleasing, when on seeing monuments one can immediately determine to what period they belong. The inscriptions, however, are still extant in copies, as for instance, at Pesaro. About a Roman mile from Tivoli, I found an overturned pedestal of a statue of Plancus, with an inscription, which had been quite rudely cut by a common mason, probably an ignorant slave. I was not able to convince a native of Tivoli, who even wrote on the antiquities of his own town, that such inscriptions are genuine.

The Forum Augusti is now foolishly called Forum Nervae, probably because it is situated near the latter; while down to the seventeenth century its ruins were regarded as part of the Forum Trajani. The Forum Nervae was very easy to be recognised by a temple built by Nerva and dedicated by Trajan, but the ruins of it were formerly believed to belong to the temple of Mars Ultor. Among these ruins there were six or eight columns, which unfortunately were lying on the ground, in consequence of which they were cut in pieces by Pope Paul V., who made use of the beautiful marble in building an aqueduct (Acqua Paola). This circumstance was so quickly forgotten that Nardini, who wrote only about forty or fifty years later, was perfectly ignorant of a temple having ever stood there, and that after him no modern ever even thought of it. All that was known of this temple of Nerva, was transferred to that of Mars Ultor. I discovered this fact from the work of Gamucci, an author of the sixteenth century, who gives a minute account of it, and representations of the ruins in woodcuts. I saw that three columns of exquisite beauty, which were generally referred to the temple of Mars Ultor, could be no other than those which he assigned to the Forum of Trajan. I also found copper-plate engravings of the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and made out quite clearly, that those columns were not what they were believed to be, and that the space of the Forum Nervae was covered with houses by Cardinal Alessandrini, under Paul V.

By the side of the Forum Augusti, another was built by Domitian, which was called Forum Nervae or Palladium, because he erected a temple of Pallas in it; architraves and disfigured columns (colonnacce) of it still exist. The Palladium is also seen represented in reliefs. But Domitian’s name, as I have already observed, being detested by posterity, it afterwards obtained the name of Forum Nervae, for Nerva dedicated the temple of which the building had been commenced by Domitian.

The most magnificent of all the Fora was the Forum Ulpium, between the Capitoline and Quirinal, a whole complex of buildings, the splendour of which was unequalled by anything; as is seen even from the trifling remains which have escaped destruction during the middle ages. Its centre was adorned with the column of Trajan which made the destructiveness of the barbarians quail. By barbarians, I do not mean the Germans, for Goths and Vandals did not destroy buildings, but I allude to the feudalism of the middle ages, when all strong buildings were occupied as fortresses. Thus the senator Brancaleone knew no more expeditious way than to raze to the ground one hundred and forty ancient edifices, because they had been used as fortresses: such things happened at the time of the emperor Frederick II.⁠[25]⁠, and if it were not for this barbarism the buildings might be still standing. The marble was used as lime, as was done even at the time when I lived in Rome, for an ancient street was then broken down for the convenience of a high road, and specimens of the most beautiful architecture were burnt down at Ostia into lime.

In regard to the name Forum Ulpium, you must remember that adjectives of gentile names were taken, without change, from the primary adjective form, provided they applied to architectural works, whence Forum Ulpium and not Ulpianum, Curia Julia and not Juliana; when applied to writings and other works, however, the adjectives take the ending anus, as orationes Tullianae. Near the gigantic column of Trajan there were two basilicae of immense magnitude, and also two other large buildings, one of which, at least, contained a library. Statues of the most illustrious men were then set up in these basilicae, as they had formerly been in the Forum Augusti; this was the greatest honour that could be shown to a man, and the custom was preserved down to the latest times of the empire; the statues of Merobaudes, Sidonius Apollinaris, Claudian, and others, were found among the ruins of those basilicae. I recommend you to read Sidonius Apollinaris; I will not set up my authority in this matter as of much value, but J. M. Gesner calls Sidonius Apollinaris a vir magnus, although he is an incorrect writer. But he is a man of such genius and talent, that his equal is not easily to be met with in the course of centuries. He has something that reminds one of modern French authors; but in regard to his mind, he is thoroughly an ancient of the time when the night of barbarism was threatening to sink down upon mankind.

These are the real Fora. There can be no doubt, that the basilica of Antoninus Pius stood in the Piazza Colonna, where the façade of the columns is still preserved. What a pity that everything is now so much destroyed! for as late as the sixteenth century, there still existed in that place the pedestals of a number of allegorical statues representing the Roman provinces; some of them have been recovered though not recognised, but most of them have disappeared. I have not seen one of them, and have read only the notice that some have been found. Provincial coins of Antoninus Pius also exist showing on the one side the emperor’s head, and on the other the name of a province, as Gallia, Bithynia, etc. That locality therefore seems to have been the Forum Aurelium, which, however, is not mentioned in the Regionaria, because it was outside the city.

Besides these, Rome had yet a different kind of Fora, which were real market-places, for those I have hitherto mentioned are only the splendid ones. Two of these market-places belong to the period of ancient Rome, viz., the Forum Boarium towards the Circus, and the Forum Olitorium between the Capitoline and the Tiber, in the neighbourhood of the theatre of Marcellus, where I lived for six years. The Forum Boarium was no doubt a cattle market, where live cattle were sold, although we have no distinct statement to prove this; the Forum Olitorium was of course a vegetable market. Meat, however, was not sold in the Forum Boarium, but in the macellum which contained the butchers’ stalls. In Greece, butchers’ shops were unknown; people there ate so little meat, that it was never bought or sold in the market at Athens; for they ate meat only when they themselves killed an animal, that is, when they sacrificed. On such an occasion an entertainment was given on account of the meat, whence θύειν is synonymous with “to give an entertainment.” Otherwise both the rich and poor at Athens lived as frugally as the modern Greeks on anchovies, the tunny fish, salt fish, salad, fruit, and olives; many a man in easy circumstances ate nothing all day except some olives with bread and without sitting down to a regular meal. This is the λιτὴ τράπεζα Ἀττικὴ mentioned by Athenaeus as opposed to Macedonian luxury. The Roman mode of living, on the other hand, was very like our own; the Romans took a great deal of meat, especially ham, like the German peasantry, bacon and other salt meat; they did not require a sacrifice to feast their friends. One of their principal dishes was a kind of porridge made of spelt; it is a very excellent dish and affords most healthy nourishment. For children, I know nothing better than this porridge with milk, on which I have brought up my own. There can be no doubt that oxen were sold in the Forum Boarium, though there is a statement that it derived its name from a brazen bull which stood there.

There are a few other names in Roman topography which may be easily mistaken. One of them is vicus. Many years ago, before I had gone to Rome, a gentleman engaged in archaeological studies said to me, that it was utterly impossible to define what vicus meant. If by this he meant to say, that a vast deal had been written about it without making the matter clearer, he was quite right. But the cause of this was the base of a statue belonging to the period of the first emperors.⁠[26] Each region of Augustus was subdivided into vici, which means nothing else but a quarter or district under the superintendence of its own police officer. Even at a much earlier time the regions of Servius Tullius had been similarly subdivided, in the city into vici, and in the country into pagi, and each had its own magister. The word vicus may be rendered by the German Wik, or Wich; in ancient times, many towns in lower Saxony were divided into Wiks. Now as it happened by accident that sometimes a single street constituted such a vicus, and as of course the houses on both sides of the street belonged to it, such a street was naturally called a vicus, as, for example, the vicus Sceleratus. The vicus Patricius and the vicus Cornelius, on the other hand, are obviously larger districts in the regio Collina and Esquilina. I think (I may be mistaken, but I believe I am right) that in the Regionaria every region of Augustus was regularly divided into seven vici. Many a street at Rome is called vico to this day, and a narrow lane is called vicolo, which, however, is only a secondary meaning.

The word platea is likewise one of those which may mislead, and of which only vague notions are current. The general opinion, I believe, is, that platea signifies a broad street on account of its derivation from the Greek πλατεῖα; but it is something else; it is what we call place or piazza. In the early times of Rome the name does not seem to have been used; it occurs only at a later period, when an intercourse was established with Greece. We have to understand by it a wide open space, such as we have in front of many large buildings; but not a market-place. The authority which has enabled me to establish this as the real meaning of the word, shows how necessary it is for an historical philologer not to limit his reading: for I know it from several passages of St. Augustin’s work, “De Civitate Dei.” St. Augustin, one of the greatest minds, ought to be recommended on account of his intellect, and independently of any historical information which his works may furnish; his genius is a mighty one, and was extremely developed in that agitated period, which forms the boundary line between the ancient and modern world. In his account of the conquest of Rome by the Goths, which he gives merely in passing, there are passages from which it is quite evident that platea is a space such as I have described before. These are generally speaking, the only open spaces which Rome, after its rebuilding since the middle ages, now possesses, as, for example, the Piazza di Spagna below the Collis Hortulorum; a large place of the size of the market-place of Bonn is scarcely to be found at Rome.

The first aqueduct was built by Appius Caecus during the second Samnite war; it was very low, and for the most part under ground. It led to the Aventine, and was intended to provide a supply of good water to the districts between that hill and the Tiber, which had scarcely any water but that of the river. Water is still derived in one place, and I believe even in two, from this aqueduct, without most people being aware of it. It was built under ground, because the enemies sometimes advanced to the very neighbourhood of Rome, and might, therefore, easily have cut off the supply of water. Afterwards the number of aqueducts at Rome rose to fourteen. Fresh water is a real blessing to the inhabitants of the south; one must have lived there in order to comprehend that these aqueducts were not a matter of luxury. The Aqua Marcia led to the Capitol; of the Aqua Virgo (now Acqua di Trevi) a large specus is still visible. The greatest aqueduct was that of the emperor Claudius, which was preserved as late as the eighth century of the Christian era; it might easily have been restored; its arches were taken down gradually after the restoration of Rome in the sixteenth century, because people wanted the bricks to build their houses.

Rome had two great Circuses which were destined for races, for these were the national games of the Romans from the earliest times. The most ancient, the ludi magni Romani, which were traced back to the time of Tarquinius Priscus, were established for the patrician burgesses; but besides these there existed, likewise, from very ancient times, ludi plebeii, a very remarkable instance of the manner in which in all Roman institutions the populus and the plebs stood by the side of each other. Down to the latest period, these two kinds of games were never held in the same place. In the early times the plebeians had no share whatever in the ludi Romani. In the Circus Maximus the places were assigned to the populus according to curiae, ad spectacula facienda,⁠[27] as scaffoldings are still erected on both sides of the Corso at the time of the races. The Circus Maximus may have had its present extent from the very first, for it could not be very small on account of the chariot races, but it was not as high as afterwards. A greater height became necessary when, instead of the small number of the populus and their clients, the whole Roman people took part in the spectacle; the plebeians may indeed not have been excluded in the early times, but they had no places assigned to them. This Circus between the Palatine and Aventine cannot have been laid out before the building of the Cloacae, and the carrying through of the Marrana, since previously the whole was a marsh. At present the sewers must be blocked up, for in digging to the depth of a few feet nothing but morass and marshy ground appears. The splendid obelisk which now stands before the church of the Lateran, was dug out there as late as the sixteenth century: and there can be no doubt that valuable treasures of art are still buried there. The Circus occupied the whole length of the valley, now la Via de’ Cerci. That form of it, of which we have a description, was planned and undertaken by Caesar, and probably completed by Augustus, for it is inconceivable that the short duration of Caesar’s dictatorship should have sufficed for it. It is said to have contained room for 300,000 men, the seats rising in terraces above one another as in the Colosseum. On the outside, it presented rows of porticoes one above the other, the lowest one being occupied by shops or stalls. In the middle ages, the Circus Maximus was used as a fortress.

The Circus Flaminius must have been the place for the plebeian games: the plebs met for its deliberations and elections on the place of the prata Flaminia even before the Circus was built, when after the abolition of the decemvirate the ancient order of things was restored; whence the locality appears to have been essentially plebeian. The traces of this Circus, which can still be recognised, are somewhat more numerous than those of the Circus Maximus, although here, too, every thing is built over; the ancient walls have been used as foundations only in cellars and a few houses, whence the houses there are built in a curve or crescent. In the middle ages, this Circus was used as a place for rope making, whence the church in that part is called S. Catarina de’ funari.

These two Circuses were destined for chariot races, as the Circus Agonalis was for Greek games or contests. This latter Circus was situated on the place now called Piazza Navona. It was built by Alexander Severus, in the form of a Greek Stadium, which was in reality not very different from that of a Roman Circus. All the houses there have the strong ancient walls for their foundations, whence the form of the Circus is preserved, whereas in the case of the Circus Flaminius it is lost, buildings having been erected right across it.

Theatres, in the Greek sense of the term, were not numerous at Rome. In early times there even existed a censorial interdict forbidding the erection of a permanent theatre for plays; and when about the end of the sixth century an attempt was made to break through this regulation, the censors ordered a theatre, which had been built, to be pulled down. This was a terrible piece of pedantry, and a scrupulous adherence to ancient customs for which there was no good reason at all. Plays, therefore, were performed before the people in the Circus or in the Forum on temporary stages, which were erected with the greatest extravagance; the aediles were obliged to give spectacles in order to gain popularity, and the actors had to be paid. Subsequently the first and almost only theatre was built by Augustus, and called after young Marcellus, his sister’s son. Pompey had indeed erected a theatre a few years before, but it does not appear to have been kept for the purpose for which it was built. About one-third of the theatre of Marcellus became the property of the house of Savelli, who made it a fortress; it was then pulled down and rebuilt as a palace. When the family of the Savelli became impoverished, the palace passed into the hands of the Orsini. I have lived in it for six years, and know every corner of it well: the Doric story below and the Ionic above still exist, but upon them enormous blocks of stone and rubbish are accumulated; the cellars still exist with their vaults and are inhabited. By the side of it there is an immense mound of rubbish, and close by my residence seventy-two steps led up to a garden, which is at the top. The house contains rooms built in the ancient fashion of about the end of the sixteenth century.

The idea of amphitheatres arose in Italy at an early period. Until then, all gymnastic games, and even the contests of gladiators and wild beasts (of which the humane Greeks knew nothing) were held in the same locality in which also the more national chariot-races and the Hellenic games took place, that is, in the Circus. But this was connected with great disadvantages and inconveniences: the form of the Circus was very well adapted to races, for in them it made no difference where a person sat, whether at the beginning or at the end of the course, for the starting as well as the arrival at the goal had its interest for the connoisseur. But when a contest took place on a definite spot, the immense length of the Circus rendered it a matter of importance as to where a person sat. The Circus can scarcely be said to have formed an ellipsis, it was in reality an irregular figure, which cannot be described with mathematical precision, the length being disproportionately great in comparison with the breadth. The idea then occurred to the Romans to supply in some measure the place of a Greek theatre by combining two theatres in the form of an ellipsis, so that persons could see round the whole building, a thing for which the Greeks had no occasion. This combination produced the amphitheatres, which were not built at Rome before the time of Caesar. That they are a late invention is clear from the fact, that, in all the provincial towns of Italy, they are, without exception, not within the walls, but outside of them. This observation has not yet been made by any one; and I believe I was led to it by Lami, the excellent dean of Florence, though I may have made it without any hint. At Rome, too, the amphitheatres were not within the ancient city; the amphitheatrum Flavium alone (the Colosseum, now called Coliseum), which was built by Vespasian, was situated close to the Velia, and required the purchase of a whole district. The amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus was situated by the river-side, where enormous ruins still exist, and where the family of the Cenci has a palace.

The amphitheatres, moreover, do not belong to the ancient kind of architecture, but show their late origin also by a somewhat different style. Imagine the amphitheatre intersected and composed of a large number of segments, which are broad at the periphery but narrow towards the interior, running in the direction of an acute angle: the interior is on all sides surrounded by these segments. Between them are steps, by which, from the interior, persons reached their seats; the steps are high, though not too much so, and lead to the different terraces. At present a person may get down even without these steps, but it is necessary to leap from bench to bench. Great as is the perfection of ancient buildings, yet their stairs were essentially bad, the steps being too narrow and too high, which arose from a desire to save space. The segments separated by the steps were called cunei; the interior, or the real scene, bore the name of arena. In some amphitheatres, the arena consisted of a permanent and solid floor, whereas in others, as, for example, in the Colosseum, the floor was not fixed: several walls traversed it in different directions, so that boards covered with sand could be laid upon them, in order to absorb the blood of the gladiators: hence the name arena. After an exhibition the boards were taken away, and renewed at the next. Sometimes water was let in or trees were planted in the ground, so that the place of the arena presented the appearance of a forest: in short, a thousand artifices were contrived. It is a circumstance which must be borne in mind, that the arena, at least in the Colosseum and probably in all the larger amphitheatres of all great cities also, was moveable. Next to the arena was the first place for persons of rank, and in front of this first row of seats there was a canal full of water and steep embankments to prevent the animals rushing among the spectators. In addition to this, iron spikes were planted before the first seat, so that even if a wild beast had leapt across the canal, it would have run itself through with the pointed irons. This first row of seats, which went all round, was called podium, a word which, besides this technical application, occurs only in the middle ages and in the languages derived from the Latin, in the sense of “a hill” (Italian, poggio; Catalonian, puig; Provençal, puy, as also in Puycerda, hill of Cerda). This row contained the seats of the emperor and the imperial family, of the nobles and the senators, for it was spacious enough to afford room for the whole senate. We can still with tolerable certainty determine the place containing the imperial box.