Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/799

 EOMA. several passages in ancient authors. Thus we leam from Dionysius (ii. 66) that it was in the forum, and that the temple of the Dioscuri, whose site we shall point out further on, was subsequently built close to it (Id. vi. 13 ; Mart. i. 70. 2). It is also said to have been near the lake, or fountain, of Jutuma. (Val. Max. i. 8. 1 ; Ov. F. i. 707.) All these circumstances indicate its site to have been near the present church of St. Maria Liberatrice ; where, indeed the graves of twelve vestal virgins, with inscriptions, were discovered in the 16th century. (Aldroandus, Jiemon'e, n. 3; Lucio Fauno, Antkh. di Roma, p. 206.) In all its subsequent restorations the original round form was retained, as symbolical of the earth, which Vesta represented (Ov. F. vi. 265). The temple itself did not imme- diately abut upon the forum, but lay somewhat back towards the Palatine; whilst the Regia, which lay in front, and a little to the E. of it, marked the boundary of the forum on that side. The latter, also called Atrium Vestae, and Atrium Regium, though but a small building, was originally inha- bited by Numa. (Ov. ih. 265; Plut. Nuvi. 14, &c.). That it lay close to the forum is shown by the account of Caesar's body being burnt before it (App. B. C. ii. 148); and, indeed, Servius says expressly that it lay " in radicibus Palatii finibusque Romani fori " (_ad Aen. viii. 363). At the back of botli the build- ings must have been a sacred grove which ran to- wards the Palatine. It was from this grove that a voice was heard before the capture of the city by the Gauls, bidding the Romans repair their walls and gates. The admonition was neglected; but this impiety was subsequently expiated by building at the spot an altar or sacellum to Aius Loquens. (Cic. Dw. i. 45.) TuUus Hostilius, after the capture of Alba Longa, adonied the forum vrith a curia or senate- house, which was called after him the Curia Hostilia, and continued almost down to the imperial times to be the most usual place for holding assemblies of the senate. (Varr. L. L. v. § 155, Mull.; Liv. i. 30.) From the same spoils he also improved the co- mitium : " Fecitque idem et sepsit de manubiis co- mitium et curiam" (Cic. Eep. ii. 17) ; whence we can hardly infer that he surrounded the comitium with a fence or wall, but more probably that he marked it off more distinctly from the forum by raising it higher, so as to be approached by steps. The Curia Hostilia, which from its pre-eminence is generally called simply curia, must have adjoined the eastern side of the Vulcanal. Niebuhr {Besclir. vol. iii. p. 60) was the fii-st who indicated that it must have stood on the N. side of the forum, by pointing out the followini; passage in Pliny, in which the method of observing noon from it is described: — " Duodecim tabulis ortus tantum et occa-sus nomi- nantur ; post aliquot annos adjectus est meridies, acccnso consulum id pronuntiante, cum a curia in- ter rostra et graecostasim prospexisset solem." (vii. 60.) Hence, since the sun at noon could be observed from it, it must have faced the south. If its front, however, was parallel with the north- ern line of the forum, as it appears to have been, it must have looked a little to the W. of S.; since that line does not run due E., but a few de- grees to the S. of E. Hence the necessity, in order to observe the true meridian, of looking between the Graecostasis and rostra. Now the Graecostasis — at a period of course long after Tullus Hostilius, and when mid-day began to be observed in this ROMA. 779 manner — was a lofty substruction on the right or V. side of the curia ; and the rostra were also an elevated object situated directly in its front. This appears from the passage in Varro just alluded to: — '■^ Ante hanc (curiam) rostra: quojus loci id vo- cabulum, quod ex hostibus capta fixa sunt rostra. Sub dextra hujus (curiae) a comitio locus sub- structus, ubi nationum subsisterent legati, qui ad senatum essent missi. Is graecostasis appellatus, a parte ut multa. Senaculum supra Graecostasim, ubi aedis Concordiae et Basilica Opimia." (L. L. v, § 155, 156.) When Varro says that the Graeco- stasis was sub dextra curiae, he is of course looking towards the south, so that the Graecostasis was on his right. This appears from his going on to say that the senaculum lay above the Graecostasis, and towards the temple of Concord; which, as we have had occasion to mention, was seated on the side of the Capitoline hill. It further appears from this passage that the Graecostasis was a substruction, or elevated area (locus substructus) at the side of, or adjoining the comitium (com p. Phn. xxxiii. 6); and must have projected in front of the curia. The relative situation of these objects, as here described, is further proved by Pliny's account of observing midday, with which alone it is consistent. For, as all these objects faced a little to the W. of S., it is only on the assumption that the Graecostasis lay to the W. of the curia, that the meridian sun could be observed with accuracy from any part of the latter between the Graecostasis and rostra. A singular theory is advanced by Mommsen re- specting the situation of the Curia Hostilia, which we cannot altogether pass over in silence. He is of opinion (I. c. p. 289, seq.) that it lay on the Capitoline hill, just above the temple of Concord, which he thinks was built up in front of it: and this he takes to be the reason why the curia was rebuilt on the forum by Sulla. His only authority for this view is the following passage in Livy : " (Censores) et clivum Capitolinum silice stemen- dum curaverunt et porticum ab aede Saturni in Capitolium ad Senaculum ac super id Curiam" (xli. 27). From these words, which are not very in- telligible, Mommsen infers (p. 292) that a portico reached from the temple of Saturn to the senaculum, and thence to the curia above it, which stood on the Capitol on the spot afterwards occupied by the Tabularium (p. 292). But so many evident ab- surdities follow from this view, that Mommsen, had he given the subject adequate consideration, could hardly, we think, have adopted it. Had the curia stood behind the temple of Concord, the ground plan of which is still partly visible near the arch of Se- vcrus, it is quite impossible that, according to the account of Pliny, mid-day could have been observed from it between the rostra and Graecostasis, since it would have faced nearly to the east. Jlommsen, indeed (p. 296), a.sserts the contrary, and makes the Career Mamert.'nus and arch of Titus lie al- most due N. and S., as is also shown in his plan at the end of the volume. But the writer can affirm from his own observation that this is not the fact. To a person standing under the Capitol at the head of the forum, and opposite to the cohnnn of Phocas, the temple of Faustina bears due E. by the com- pass, and the arch of Titus a few degrees to the S. of E. To a person standing by the arch of Severus, about the assumed site of the curia, the arch of Titus would of course bear a little more S. still. Something must be allowed for variation of the