Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/791

 ROMA. assault of the Vitellians, where be makes them stoiin tjie SW. height from the grove of the asylum, which he phices where the steps now lead up to the Palazzo de Conservatori. But, first, it is impossible to sup- pose that in the time of Vitellius the wliole of this large area was a grove. Suoh an account is incon- sistent with the buildings which we know to have been erected on it, as the Tabularium, and also with the probable assumption which we have ventured to propose, that a considerable part of it was occupied by the Area Capitolina. But, secondly, the account of Tacitus, as we have already pointed out, is quite incompatible with Becker's view. The Vitellians, being repulsed near the summit of the Clivus, retreat dowmoards, and attempt two other ascents, one of which was by the Lucus Asyli. And this agrees witii what we gather from Livy's description of the place : " Locum, qui nunc septus descendentlhus inter duos lucos est, asylum aperit '' (i. 8.) Whence we learn that the place called " inter duos lucos" contained the ancient asylum, the enclosure of which asylum was seen by those who descended the " inter duos lucos." Thirdly, the asylum must have been near the approach to it; and this, on Becker's own showing (//««(Z6. p. 415), was under the NE. summit, namely, between the career and temple of Concord and behind tiie arch of Sevenis. This ascent has been erroneously called Clivus Asyli, as there was only one clivus on the Capitoline hill. But it is quite impossible that an ascent on this side of the liill could have led to a LucusAsyli where XhaPalazzo de Cunservaturi now stands. It was near the asylum, as we have seen, that the fire broke out which de- stroyed the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus ; and the latter, consequently, must have been on the NE. summit. With lespeet to the asylum, we need only nOMA. Tl further remark, that it contained a small temple, but to what deity it was dedicated nobody could tell (vabv eTri Toinca KaTaaKevacTa.jj.ivos' Stoi 5e &pa Setoj/ -1) 5ai/j.ui'ci)v ovK ex"^ cracpes flneli', Dionvs. ii. 15); and he was therefore merely called the divinity of the asylum (•^eos acrvKaios, I'lut. Po?n.. 9). Another disputed point is the precise situation of the RuPES Taupeia, or that jtart of the summit whence criminals were hurled. The prevalent opinion among the older topographers was that it was either at that part of the hill which overhangs the Piazza Montanara, that is, at the extreme SW. point, or farther to the W., in a court in the Via di Tor de" Specchi, where a precipitous cliff, sufficiently high to cause death by a fall from it, bears at present the name of Riipe Tarpea. That this was the true Tarpeian rock is still the' prevalent opinion, and has been adupted by Becker. But Dureau de la JIalle {Memoire svr la Roche Tarpeienne, in the Mem. de VAcad., 1819) has pointed out two passages in Dio- nysius which are totally incompatible with this site. In describing the execution of Cassius, that liistorian says that he was led to the precijiice ichich overhangs the forum, and cast down from it in the view of all the people (toCto to t4os ttjs S'iktis a€o6ffT]?, ayayovTes ol rafiiai Thv ixvOpa eVl tui/ vinpKiifxevov Tf;s d7opas Kpy]fx.vhv, andvTwv bpuVTwv, ippiiav KUTO. Tfjs TTtTpas, viii. 78, cf. vii. 35, seq.). Now this could not have taken place on the side of the Tor de' Specchi, which cannot be seen from the forum ; and it is therefore assumed that the true Rupes Tarpeia must have been on the E. side, above 5. Maria della Consolazione. The arguments adduced by Becker to controvert this assumption are not very convincing. He objects that the hill is much less precipitous here than on the other side. But this proves nothing with regard to its earlier state. Livy, as we have seen, records the fall of a vast mass of rock into the Vicus Jugarius. Such landslips must have been frequent in later times, and it is jjrecisely where the rock was most precipitous that they would occur. Thus, Flavins Blondiis (Imt. Horn. ii. 58) mentions the fall in his own time of a piece as large as a house. Another objection advanced by Becker is that tiie cri?iiinal would have fallen into the Virus Jugarius. This, however, is absurd : he would only have fallen at the back of the houses. Notliinfj can be inferred from modern names, as that of a church now non-extant, designated as .tub Tarpn'o, as wo have alrcaily shown that the wiiolc S. i-ummit was Mons Tar]ieius. Becker's attempt to rx]iiaiii aw.<»y the words cmavrtov boiivTwv is utti-rly futile;. On the whole, it seems iiiost probable that the rock was on the SIv side, not only fioni the express testimony of Dioiiysius, which it is dillicult or im- jiossible to set aside, hut also from the inherent pro- 3 u 2