Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/827

 ROMA. seem to be supported by any authority. The lower part of it, both on the side of the forum and of the Velabruni, was called Infima Nova Via. (Varro, v. § 43, Miili.) Ovid describes it as touching the forum (" Qua Nova Romano nunc Via juncta foro est," Fast. vi. 389); wlience we must conclude that not only the open space itself, but also the ground around it on which the temples and basilicae stood, was included under the appellation of forum. A road appears, however, to have led from the Nova Via to the forum between the temples of Vesta and Castor, as is shown by remains of pavement disco- vered there ; and this may have been the junction alluded to by Ovid, which from his words would seem to h.ave been comparatively recent. The Lucus Vestae must have lain behind the Nova Via, towards the Palatine, and indeed on the very slope of the hill, as appears from the following passages: " Ex- audita vox est a luco Vestae, qui a Palatii radice in Novam Viam devexus est" (Cic. Div. i. 45); " M. Caedicius de plebe nuntiavit tribunis, se in Nova Via, ubi nunc sacellum est supra aedem Vestae vocem noctis silentio audisse clariorem humana " (Liv. v. 32). The sacellum here alluded to was that of Aius Loquens. (Cic. I. c. and ii. 32.) It is described by Varro (ap. Gell. xvi. 17) as "in infima Nova Via "; whence we must conclude that it was in the part near the forum that Caedicius heard the voice. Though called Nova, the road must have been of high antiquity, since Livy mentions that Tarquinius lived in it (i. 47); and perhaps it received its name from its newness in comparison with the Sacra Via. Before we proceed to describe the monuments on the Velia, we must observe that some writers, and especially the Italian school of topographers (Canina, Foro Rom. p. 60, seq., Indie. Top. p. 462), do not allow that the Velia consisted of that height which lies between the Palatine, the Esquiline, and the eastern side of the forum, but confine the ap- pellation to the northern angle of the Palatine, which, it is contended, like the Germalus, was in ancient times considered as distinct from the re- mainder of the hill. Indeed it appears that Niebuhr first applied the name of Velia to the ridge in question {Hist. i. p. 390, Eng. trans.), in which view he was of course followed by Bunsen (^Beschr. iii. p. 81). One of the chief arguments adduced against it is the account given of the house of Valerius Publicola. Valerius is said to have begun building a house on the same spot where Tullus Hostilius had previously dwelt (Cic. Rep. ii. 31); and the residence of Tullus Hostilius again is re- corded to have been on the Velia, on the spot afterwards occupied by the Aedis Deum Penatium (Varro, ap. Non. xii. 51, p. 363, Gerl.; " Tullus Hostilius in Velia, ubi postea Deum Penatium aedes facta est," Solin. i. 22). Now Bunsen (76. p. 85), and after him Becker (c^e Muris, p. 43, Handb. p. 249), hold that the Aedes Deum Penatium here alluded to was that mentioned by Dionysius Halicar- n;issensis (i. 68) as standing in the short cut which led from the forum to the Carinae, in the district called 'TireWais. The MSS. vary in the spelling of this name ; but we think with Becker that the Velia, or rather " Sub Velia," is meant, as Cujacius has translated the word : and Casaubon (ad Mon. Anijr.) reads OiieAiai. But, whatever opinion may be entertained on that point, the other part of the description of Dionysius, namely, that the temple stood in the short cut between the forum and the ROMA. 807 Carinae, sufiiciently indicates the locality; and we are of opinion, vith Becker, that Bunsen arrived at a very probable conclusion in identifying this temple with the present circular vestibule of the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano. Yet, if we assume with those writers that this was the only temple of the Penates on the Velia, and consequently the spot on which the house of Publicola stood, then we must confess that we see considerable force in the objection of Canina, that such a situation does not correspond with the descriptions given by Cicero, Livy, and other writers. All those descriptions convey the idea that Publicola's house stood on a somewhat considerable, though not very great, elevation. Thus Dionysius characterises the spot as Adcpof virepKei- ixevov TTjs ayopas v'priXhi' tTriei/cis Kal irfpirofiov eKKe^dfievos (v. 19). And Cicero says of the house: " Quod in excelsiore loco coepisset aedificare " (Rep. ii. 31). A still more decisive passage is that of Livy: " Aedificabat in summa Velia " (ii. 7). For how can that spot be called the top of the Velia, which was evidently at the bottom, and, according to Becker's own showing, in a district called sub Velia? His attempts to evade these difiiculties are feeble and unsatisfactory (de Muris, p. 45). Yet they are not incapable of solution, without abandon- ing Niebuhr's theory respecting the Velia, which we hold to be the true one. There were in fact two temples of the Penates on the Velia, namely, that identified by Bunsen with SS. Cosma e Damiano, and another " in Summa Velia," as Livy says ; which latter occupied the site of the residence of Tullus Hostilius, and of the subsequent one of Valerius Publicola. Thus Solinus: " Tullus Hostilius in Velia (habitavit), ubi postea Deum Penatium aedes facta est" (i. 22). We cannot determine the length of this postea ; but it was most probably after the time of Publicola, and perhaps a great deal later. But the other temple was certainly older, as it is mentioned in the sacred books of the Argives (ap. Varro, L.L. v. § 54 : " In Velia apud aedem Deum Penatium") ; and thus it is plain that there must have been two temples. The one in the Summa Velia is the Sacellum Larum mentioned by Tacitus, in describing the pomoerium of Romulus (ArM. xii. 24) : and this is another proof that there were two temples; for it is impossible to imagine that the pomoerium could have extended so far to the N. as the church of 55. Cosma e Damiano. The situa- tion of this sacellum would answer all the require- ments of the passages before cited. For there is still a very considerable rise from the forum to the arch of Titus, near to which the sacellum must have stood, which rise was of course much more marked when the forum was in its original state, or some 20 feet below its present level. Indeed the northern angle of the Palatine, which Canina supposes to have beefl the Velia, does not present any great difference of height: .and thus the objections which he justly urges against the aedes near the temple of Faustina do not apply to one on the site that we have indicated. Besides it appears to us an insu- perable objection to Canina's view that he admits the spot near the temjjle of Faustina to have been called Sub Velia, though it is separated by a con- siderable space and by the intervening height, from the N. angle of the Palatine. The account of As- conius (ad Cic. Pis. 22) of a house of P. Valerius " sub Velia, ubi nunc aedis Victoriae est," is too confused and imperfect to draw any satisfactory conclusion from it. By all other authorities the 3f 4