Note 44 — Chapter IV · PART I. THE AQUEDUCTS.

There are two other temples known to have been dedicated to Spes, and the one near the Porta Carmentalis is thus entered in the Notitia and Curiosum Urbis: “Fortunæ et Spei Templa Nova.” We know that there had been a great fire here, and that these temples were rebuilt, and therefore the Nova has reference only to the new structure. Besides, to be analogous, it should have been “Spes Nova,” or “Templum Spei Novæ.” According to Dionysius, another Temple of Spes was a mile or eight stadia from the City. (Dion. Hal., ix. 24.) “Having in the first battle, which was fought at the distance of eight stadia from the City, near the temple of Hope, overcome the enemy and beaten them out of the field, and after that fought them again near the gate called Collina,” &c. The Porta Maggiore, in the outer wall of enceinte, is just a mile from the Porta Esquilina, in the inner wall of the City, and the Arch of Gallienus. On the other hand, the line of the specus, with the foss-way by the side of it, must have been important ground for a battle. The modern theory that the whole of the eastern side of Rome was called after Spes, has no ancient authority. Another instance is on all accounts very puzzling. It is a passage in Lampridius, in the life of Heliogabalus: “Ipse secessit ad hortos Spei Veteris, quasi contra novum juvenem.” (Lampridius, Antoninus Heliogabalus, 13.) It would almost appear that there were some gardens called by the name of Spes, unless indeed in transcribing some such error should have been made as in the case of the transcriber of Frontinus, and “Spei” written for “Specus,” by a scribe to whom the former word was familiar but the latter not, who had mistaken Spc̄ for Spē. It is a strong passage in favour of the temple theory; but still there is strong evidence on the other side. This garden was that of the Sessorium, one side of which was enclosed by the arcade carrying the specus of the Claudian aqueduct.