Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/748

 728 ROMA. Novam Viam (liabitavit)." The site of the tem- ple of Jupiter Stator near the Summa Sacra Via is sufficiently certain without adopting the proof adduced by Becker from the equestrian statue of Cloelia, the history of which he completely misunder- stands. The passace from Pliny (xxxiv. 13) which he quotes (note 156) relates to another and appa- rently a rival statue of Valeria, the daughter of Publicola, who disputed with Cluelia the honour of having swum the Tiber, and escaped from the cus- tody of Porsena. Indeed, the two rival legends seem to have created some confusion among the ancients themselves ; and it was a disputed point in the time of Plutarch whether the existing statue was that of Cloelia or Valeria. (^Popl. 19.) Becker confounds these two statues, and asserts (note 155) that Pliny, as well as Dionysius, speaks of the statue of Cloelia as no longer existing in his time. But Pliny, on the contrary, in the very chapter quoted, mentions it as still in being : " Cloeliae etiam statua est equestris." It was the statue of Valeria that had disappeared, if indeed it had ever existed except in the account of Annius Fetialis. Pliny, therefore, must sliare the cas- tigation bestowed by Becker on Plutarch and Servius for their careless topograpliy : whose assertion as to the existence of the statue in their time he will not believe, though the latter says he had seen it with his own eyes (^ad Acn. viii. 646). The only ground which Becker has for so peremptorily contradicting these three respectable authorities is a passage in Dionysius (v. 35); who, however, only says that when he was at Home the statue no longer stood in its place (toutt)!' 7iiJ.e7s fxiv oiiK en Keifx.evrjv eSpo^ei'), and that on inquiry lie was told that it had been destroyed (ri((/a.vla6ri^ in a fire that had raged among the surrounding houses. But Dionysius may have heen misinformed; or perhaps r]<pav'iadr] is to be taken in its literal sense, and the statue was only removed for a while out of sight. We may assume, therefore, that it had been restored to its original position in the period which elapsed between Dionysius and Pliny, and that it continued to adorn the Sunnna Sacra Via fur some centuries after the time of the former writer. The preceding passages abundantly establish the site of the Porta Mugionis at that sjwt of the Pala- tine which faces the Summa Sacra Via, or present arch of Titus; nor does it seem necessary, by way of further proof, to resort to the far-fetched argument adduced by Becker from the nature of the ground (^Ilandb. p. 113), namely, that this is the only spot on the NK. face of the hill which offers a natural ascent, by the road {Via Polvei-iera) leading up to the Convent of S. Bonaventura. That road, indeed, has all the appearance of being an artificial rather than a natural ascent, and may have been made centuries after the time of Romulus. Unfortunately, too, for Becker's round assertion on this subject {Ilandb. p. 109), that we must ah initio embrace as an incontrovertible principle that gates are to be sought only where the hill offers natural ascents, we find that the only other known gate, the Porta Ro- manula, was, on his own showing, accessible only by means of steps. For the situation of this gate Varro is again our principal authority. We have seen in the passage before quoted from that author that it opened into the Nova Via, near the Sacellum Vo- lupiae, by means of steps. Varro again alludes to it in the following passage : " Hoc sacrificium (to Acca Larentia) fit in Velabro, qua in Novam Viam ROJIA. exitur, ut aiunt quidam, ad sepulcrum Accae, ut quod ibi prnpe faciunt Diis Manibus Servilibus sacer- dotes; qui uterque locus extra urbem antiquam fuit non longe a Porta Romanula, de qua in priore libro dixi." {L. L. vi. § 24, Mull.) The site of the Sacellum Volupiae cannot be determined; but the Velabi-um is one of the most certain spots in Roman topograpliy, and is still indicated by the church which bears its name, S. Giorgio in Velabro. We learn from both these passages of Varro — for Sea- liger's emendation of Nova Via for Novalia in the former is incontestable — the exact site of the Porta Romanula ; for as the sacrifice alluded to was per- formed in the Velabrum near the spot where the Nova Via entered it, and as the P. Romanula was not far from this place, it follows that it must have been at the lower end of the street or in the infima Nova Via. Varro's account is confirmed by Festus (p. 262, Miill.), who, however, calls the gate Romana instead oi Romanula: " Sed porta Romana instituta est a Romulo iiifimo clivo Victoriae, qui locus gra- dibus in quadram formatus est : appellata autem Romana a Sabinis praecipue, quod ea proximus adi- tus erat Romam." Here the same steps are alluded to that are mentioned by Varro. The Clivus Vic- toriae was that part of the NW. declivity of the Palatine which overhung the Nova Via. It was so named either from a temple of Victory seated on the top of the hill (" in aedem Victoriae, quae est in Pa- latio, pertulere deam," Liv. xxix. 14), or more pro- bably — as this temple was not dedicated by L. Po- stumius till b. c. 295 — from an ancient grove, sacred to Victory, on this side of the Palatine, near the Lupercal (Dionys. i. 32), the tradition of which, though the grove itself had long disappeared, pro- bably led to the temple being founded there. 'J'he Romulean city must undoubtedly have had at least a third gate, both from the testimony of Pliny and because it cannot be supposed that its re- maining two sides were without an exit; but there is no authority to decide where it lay. Becker thinks that it was seated at thesouthernmost point of the hill; but this, though probable enough, is nothingmore than a ciinjecture. The Porta Janualis, the third gate men- tioned by Varro, was most probably as old as the time of Romulus, though it certainly never belonged to the Palatine city. Its situation and true nature will be discussed presently. We find, however, a gate called Ferentina mentioned by Plutarch {Rum. 20), who relates that Romulus, after the murder of Tatius, which was followed by visible signs of the divine anger, purified Rome and Laurentum by rites which still continued to be observed at that gate. We also find an account in Festus (p. 213) of a Porta Piacula- ris, which was so called " propter aliqua piacula quae ibidem fiebaiit ;" and some have assumed {v. Miiller, ad Fest. I c.) that these two gates were identical. It is well known that the Roman gates had sometimes two names; and this seems especially probable in the case of those which had some reli- gious ceremony connected with them. Becker {Ilandb. p. 177) rejects, however, with something like indignation the idea that such a gate could have belonged to the Romulean city, and would there- fore either place it in the Lucus Ferentinae, or alter the text of Plutarch, his usual expedient. Alto- gether, however, it does not seem quite so improbable that it may have been the third and missing gate of Romulus, since its name indicates its site near the S. extremity of the I'alatine, just where we are iu want of cue.