Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/811

 ROJMA. A further confirmation that the new curia stood on the ancient sjxit is found in the fact that down to the latest period of the Empire that spot continued to be the site of the senate-house. The last time that mention is made of the Curia Julia is in the reign of Caligula (" Consensit (senatus) ut consules non in Curia, quia Julia vocabatur, sed in Capitohum con- vocarent," Suet. Cal. 60); and as we know that the curia was rebuilt by Domitian, the Julia must have been burnt down either in the fire of Nero, or more probably in that which occurred under Titus. It is not likely, as Becker supposes {Ilandb. p. 347), that Vespasian and Titus would liave sufl:ered an old and important building like the curia to he in ashes whilst they were erecting their new amphi- theatre and baths. The new structure of Domitian, called Senatus in the later Latin ('■ Senatum dici et pro loco et pro hominibus," Gell. xviii. 7, 5), is men- tioned by several authorities (Hieronym. an. 92. i. p. 443, ed. Rone; Cassiod. Chron. ii. p. 197; C'atal. Imp. Vienn. p. 243.) The place of this senatus is ascertained froni its being close to the little temple of Janus Geminus, the index belli pacisque (ex^' 5e ihv viwv (6 'laybs) Iv rrj ayopa izph rov fiov€vT7)piov, Procop. B. G. i. 25); and hence from its proximity to Numa's sacellum it was sometimes called "Curia PompiUana " (Vopisc. Avrel. 41, Tacit. 3.) The same situation is confirmed by other writers. Thus Dion Cassius mentions that Didius Julianus, when he first entered the curia as emperor, sacrificed to the Janus which stood before the doors (Isxiii. 13). In the same manner we find it men- tioned in the Notitia in the viiith Region. That it occupied the site of the ancient church of S. Mar- tina, subsequently dedicated to and now known as S. Luca, close to the arch of Severus, appears from an inscription (Gruter, clsx. 5) which formerly existed in the Ambo, or hemicycle, of S. Martina, showing that this hemicycle, which was afterwards built into the church, originally formed the Secre- tarium Senatus (Urlichs, Rum. Top. p. 37, seq.; Preller, Regionen, p. 142.) The Janus temple seems to have been known in the middle ages un- der the appellation of templum futale, by which it is mentioned in the Mirabilia Urbis. (" Juxta eum templum fatale in S. Martina, juxta quod est tem- plum refugii, i. e., S. Adrianus," lb.) In the same neighbourhood was a place called in the later ages " Ad Palmam," which also connects the senatus with this spot, as being both near to that place and to the Arcus Severi. Thus Ammianus: " Deinde ingressus urbem Theodoricus, venit ad Senatum, et ad Palmam populo alloquutus," &c. (^Excerpt, de Odo.66.) And in the Acta SS., Mai. vii. p. 12: " Ligavemnt ei manus a tergo et decollaverunt extra Capitolium et extrahentes jactavenint eum juxta arcum triumphi ad Palmam." (cf. Anastas. V. Sist. c. 45.) The appellation " ad Palmam " was derived from a statue of Claudius II. clothed in the tunica palmata, which stood here: " Illi totius orbis judicio in Kostris posita est columna cum palmata statua superfixa." (Treb. Pollio, Claud, c. 2.) We cannot doubt, therefore, that the curia or senatus built by Domitian was near the arch of Severus; which is indeed admitted by Becker him- self (//fmrf6. p. 355). But, from his liaving taken a wrong view of the situation of the comitium, he is compelled to maintain that this was altogether a new site for it; and hence his curia undergoes no fewer than three changes of situation, receiving a new one almost every time that it was rebuilt, ROMA. 791 namely, first, on the N. side of his comitium secondly on the S. side, and thirdly near the Arcus Severi, for which last site the evidence is too overwhelming to be rejected. We trust that our view is more consistent, in which the senate- house, as was most probable, appears to have always retained its original position. And this result we take to be no slight confirmation of the correctness of the site which we have assigned to the comitium. In their multitudinous variations, Bunsen and Becker are sore puzzled to find a place for their second curia — the Julia — on their comitium, to which the passages before cited from Pliny and Dion inevi- tably fix them. Bunsen's strange notions have been sufficiently refuted by Becker (Ifandb. p. 333), and we need not therefore examine them here. But thotigh Becker has succeeded in overthrowing the hypothesis of his predecessor, he lias not been able to establish one of his own in its place. In fact he gives it up. Thus he says (p. 335) that, in the absence of all adequate authority, he will not ven- ture to fix the site of the curia ; yet he thinks it probable that it may have stood where the three columns are ; or if that will not aaswer, then it must be placed on the (his) Vulcanal. But his complaint of the want of authorities is unfounded. If he had correctly interpreted them, and placed the comitium in its right situation, and if he had given due credit to an author hke Dion Cassius when he says (Z.c.) that it was determined to rebuild the Cu- ria Hostilia, he had not needed to go about seeking for impossible places on which to put his Curia Julia. There are three other objects near the forum into which, from their close connection with the Basilica Julia, we must inquire at the same time. These are the Chalcidicum, the Imperial Graecostasis, and a Temple of Minerva. We have already seen that the first of these buildings is recorded in the Mo- mimentum Ancyranimi as erected by Augustus ad- joining the curia ; and the same edifice is also mentioned by Dion Cassius among the works of Augustus: t6 t€ 'Adrjvatop /cal rb XaAiaSiKhi/ uivojj.affixivov, kclI rh ^ovKiini]piov, i-h 'lovAinov, rh iirl ToiJ -rruTphs avrov rt/xfj yeySfievov, Kadtfpccaev (li. 22). But regarding what manner of thing the Chalcidicum was, there is a great diversity of opinion. It is one of those names which have never been sufiiciently explained ; but it was perhaps a sort of portico, or covered walk (deambnlatorium), annexed to the curia. Bunsen, as we have men- tioned when treating of the temple of Castor in the preceding section, considers the Athenaeum and Chalcidicum to have been identical; and as the Notitia mentions an Atrium Minervae in the 8th Region, and as a Jlinerva Chalcidica is recorded among the buildings of Domitian, he assumes that these were the same, and that the unlucky ruin of the three columns, which has been so transnuited by the topographers, belonged to it. In all which we can only wonder at the uncritical spirit that could have suggested such an idea; for in the first place the Monumentum Ancyranwn very distinctly sepa- rates the aedes Minervae, built by Augustus, from the Chalcidicum, by mentioning it at a distance of five lines apart; secondly, the aedes Minervae is represented to be on the Aventine, where we find one mentioned in the Notitia (cf. Ov. Fast. vi. 728 ; Festus, V. Quinquatrus, p. 257, Miill.), and conse- quently a long way from the curia and its ad- joining Chalcidicum ; thirdly, they are also men- tioned separately by Dion Cassius in the passage 3£ 4