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.