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.