Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/753

 ROMA. fomm which exist even to the present day ; he im- proved the Circus Slaximus, phinned the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter, and erected the first por- ticoes and tabernae around the forum (Liv. i. 35, 38 ; Dionys. iii. 67 — 69 ; Tac. Hist. iii. 72) ; in short, he must be regarded as the founder of the sub- sequent architectural splendour of Kome. The additional space included by Servius Tullius in the line of wall which he completed is variously stated in different authors. Dionysius (iv. 13) and Strabo (v. p. 234) relate that he added the Viininal and Esquiline hills: Livy states that the hills which lie added were the Quiriiia! and Viniinal, and that he enlarged or improved the Esquiline (" auget Esqui- lias," i. 44); while Victor ( Vir. III. 7) mentions that he added all three. It is possible that Livy means all that back or eastern portion of the Quiiinal and Esquiline which run together into one common ridge, and which was fortified by the agger of Servius Tullius; and in this way we may account for his expression of " auget Esquilias," which alludes to this extension of the hill, and the consequent amal- gamation of its previously separate tongues, the Op- pius and Cispius. Hence there is but little real con- tradiction in these apparently divergent statements. Though the elder Tarquin may di.spute with Servius the honour of having built the walls of Rome, yet the construction of the agger is unanimously ascribed to Servius, with the single exception of Pliny (iii. 9), who attributes it to Tarquin the Proud. The custom, however, has prevailed of ascribing not only this, but the walls also, to Servius. A description of the>e walls and of their gates, and an inquiry into tiie circumference of the Servian city, will be found in the second part of this article; but there are two other points, in some degree connected with one another, which require investigation here, namely, the Regiones of Servius and the Septimontium. Regions of Servius. — Servius divided the city into iom jMlllical districts or regions, which, however, were not commensurate with its extent. Their num- ber seems to have been connected with that of the city tribes; but there are many particulars concerning them which cannot be explained. Our knowledge of them is chiefly derived from Varro {L. L. § 45, seq., Miill.), from whom we learn that they were : I. the Suburcma, the limits of which cannot be pre- cisely determined, but which embraced the Caelian hill, the valley of the Colosseum, and part of the Sacra Via, that western portion of the southern tongue of the Esquiline (Jlons Oppius) known as the Carinae, the Ceruliensis, — which seems to have been the valley or part of the valley between the Esquiline and Cae- lian, — and the Subura, or valley north of the Oppius. II. The Esquili7ui, or Esquiliae, which comprehended the smaller or N. tongue of the Esquiline (ilons Cispius) and its eastern back or ridge, as far as the rampart or affger of Servius, and perhaps also the eastern back of the Oppius. III. The Collina, so calU'd from its embracing the Quirinal and Viminal hills, which, as we have before said, were called colles, in c<intradistinction to the other hills called iiumtes. Tl)e intervening valleys were, of course, included. IV. The Palutina or Palatlum, embraced that hill with its two spurs or offshoots, Velia and tJermalus. When we compare these regions with the map of Rome we are immediately stiuck with some remark- able omissions. Tiius, the Capitoline hill, with the valley to the E. (forum), and valley to the S. (Ve- labrum and Forum Boarium), together with the ROMA. r33 Aventine, are entirely excluded. Various conjec- tures have been proposed to account for these omis- sions. Some have imagined that the Capitol was excluded because the division of Servius regarded only the plebeian tribes, and that the Capitol was inhabited solely by patricians. Becker {Handb. p. 386) rightly rejects this hypothesis; but another, which he prefers to it, seems liardly better founded, namely, that the hill, as being the citadel, was oc- cupied with public buildings to the exclusion of all private ones, or, at all events, as being common to all, coirld not be incorporated with any one region. But this would have been a better reason for the exclusion of the Quirinal, which was at that time the proper capitol of the city ; nor does it seem to be a flict that private buildings were excluded from the Capitol. Various reasons have also been assigned for the exclusion of the Aventine ; the principal of which are, the unfavourable auguries which had appeared upon it to Remus, and the circumstance of its con- taining a temple of Diana, which was common to all the Latin nation, and therefore prevented the hill from being made a portion of the city. But if we attentively read the account given by Varro of the Servian Regions (L. L. v. §§ 41 — 54, Miill.), we shall perceive that the division was entirely guided by the distribution of the Argive chapels, in- stituted probably by Numa; though Varro does not ex- plain why they should have had this influence. Thus, after giving an account of the Capitoline and Aven- tine, he proceeds to say (§ 45): "Reliqua urbis loca olim discreta, quom Argeorum sacraria in septem et XX. partis urbis sunt disposita. Argeos dittos pu- tant a principibus qui cum Hercule Argivo venere Romam et in Saturnia subsederunt. E quis prima est scripta Regio Suburana, secunda Exquilina, tertia Collina, quarta Palatina." He then proceeds to enumerate the sacraria or chapels in each regio, mentioning six in each, or twenty-four in all, though he had called them twenty-seven in the passage just quoted. The obvious meaning of this passage is, that "the other parts of the city were formerly separated (i. e. from the Capitoline and Aventine) at the time when the Argive chapels were distributed into twenty- seven parts of the city." It would hardly, perhaps, be necessary to state this, had not .some eminent scholars put a different interpretation on the passage. Thus Bunsen (^Beschreihung der Sfadt Rom, vol. i. p. 147), whose general view of the matter seems to be approved of by Becker (Ilandb. p. 127, note 183), takes Varro's meaning to be, that the reinaining parts of the city did not originally form each a separate di.strict, like the Capitol and Aventine, but were divided into smaller parts, with different names. This view has been already condemned by Wiiller (^ad loc), and indeed its improbability is striking ; but it requires a somewhat minute examination of the pa.ssage to show that it is altogether untenable. Livy also mentions these chapels as follows : "Multa alia saciificia locaque sacris faciendis, quae Argeos pontifices vocant, dcdicavit (Numa)." (i. 21.) Now Bunsen is of opinion that the statements of Livy and Varro are inconsistent, and that whilst the former under the name of Aryei means jduees, the latter alludes to men. In conformiiy with ihis view lie proceeds to construe the passage in Varro as fol- lows : " The name of Argices is derived from the cliiefs who came with the Argive Ikrcides to Rome and settled in Saturnia. Of these purts of the city we find first described (viz. in the Sacris Argeorum)