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.
These are the most essential points in the structure of an amphitheatre.
Many things connected with the arrangements, however, still remain
obscure, and the lower part of the Colosseum has not yet been
sufficiently excavated. It is, for example, still uncertain in what
manner it was contrived to introduce the wild beasts into the arena. All
the explanations which have been proposed are unsatisfactory. Excavations
have indeed been made, but have been discontinued partly from a fear of
weakening the building, which point certainly is not to be overlooked,
on account of the many earthquakes, and partly on account of erroneous
suppositions, because people could not understand that the arena was
moveable. Another reason why the excavations are not continued, is
the belief that at one time there was an altar in the arena, and that
accordingly the ground is sacred through the blood of the martyrs. Such
perverse notions are obstacles to the discovery of truth.
Another amphitheatre, the _amphitheatrum castrense_, was close to the
wall; Procopius calls it _Vivarium_.