THE ROMAN CAPITOL. As Dr Dyer has done me the honour of criticising my account of the Capitoline controversy, in which I have expressed my dissent from his views as laid down in the article Roma in Dr Smith's Dictionary of Geography, I am anxious to remove some misapprehensions into which he has fallen, and to support the arguments used in my book on "Rome and the Campagna," by some additional remarks and explanations. In his opening sentences, Dr Dyer regrets that I do not seem to have been aware of the discovery of the so-called Casa di Tiberio on the Palatine. If however he had looked at the map of that hill as given at the beginning of Chapter VIII. of "Rome and the Campagna," he would have seen that the position and ground plan of the house are plainly marked on it. The reason why no opinion was offered in the text as to the date or arrangement of the buildings, is, that having had no opportunity of a personal inspection, and therefore not being able to endorse the conjecture that it was of so early a date as that implied by the title given by Cav. Rosa, "Maison paternelle di Tibère,” I had no information to give beyond that conveyed by the ground plan. The only With regard to the house of Asinius Pollio, also referred to by Dr Dyer as an omission on my part, it has still to be shewn, that his house stood in the Vigna Guidi. passage, so far as I know, in which his name is mentioned in connection with this site is Frontin. de aq. XXI. and the expression there used is horti Asiniani and not domus. It is true that the Toro Farnese mentioned by Pliny, N. H. XXXVI. § 34 as having been among the treasures of art possessed by Asinius Pollio, was discovered in this neighbourhood, but that group of sculpture might have stood as well in the Horti as in the Domus of Asinius. Donati gives an inscription found in the Vigna Guidi from which appears that the ground was occupied in the year 115 A. D. at the time of Trajan's death by a certain Ninfeus. The date on the bricks found there corresponds to the reign of Hadrian, from which it may be inferred that the ruins in question are of a much later date than the time of Asinius Pollio (see Pellegrini in the Bullettino dell' Instituto, 1867, pp. 109-119). However this may be, the excavations did not seem to me to be of sufficient importance to require more than the passing notice given in the note on p. 213, which Dr Dyer has overlooked. (See the Bullettino dell' Inst. 1867, p. 109.) Dr Dyer then passes on to examine my account of the Capitoline question, and appears to be annoyed at the statement that there are some few passages of ancient writers relating to this question which have never been "fairly discussed." In using this expression I referred to the spirit in which, as it seemed to me, many of the principal writers on the subject had approached it. The pamphlets of Becker and Urlichs, Die Römische topographie in Rom, and Römische topographie in Leipzig, are written with a bitterness of feeling which is hardly compatible with impartial judgment, and the mode in which Dr Dyer speaks of those who hold opinions contrary to his own, does not seem quite free from a tinge of the odium archæologicum, or calculated to encourage an opponent to expect from him the "greatest attention and impartiality" which he professes. I. I must explain, in the first place, that in using the term "decisive" arguments, I could hardly have anticipated that it should be understood in any other sense than decisive as far as the nature of the discussion will allow, whereas Dr Dyer understands my meaning to be that the arguments I have called decisive exclude the conceivability of any other conclusion than that the temple was on the S. W. height. In such a case we may surely assume ἱκανῶς λέγεσθαι εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὑποκειμένην üλnv diaoapnleín. Dr Dyer however is willing to allow that it is "more probable" that the bridge of Caligula was thrown from the Palatine to the S. W. height, and perhaps this is as strong an expression as can well be looked for from the pen of a writer who leans so much to the Italian view of the question. Allowing then that the bridge was probably thrown from the Palatine to the S. W. height, he still thinks that the temple might have been on the Araceli, and that either the bridge might have been continued across the back of the Capitoline hill to the Araceli summit, or that Caligula might have walked to that point. I confess that though I have traversed the bridge, to which he refers, across the Arno at Florence, leading from the Pitti Palace to the Uffizi, and am therefore prepared to admit the possibility of the former supposition, yet I think it must be regarded as highly improbable. It seems however more probable than the latter, for it is not very likely that Caligula, who lived in constant dread of assassination, would have consented to walk so far by himself, if a covered way could have been constructed. Nor do the words of Suetonius, "Mox quo propior esset, in area Capitolina novæ domus fundamenta jecit," seem to me to tell in favour of Dr Dyer's view. For the Palatine palace was quite far enough off from the Caffarelli height to make Caligula discontented with the distance he had to travel, and he probably wished to be as near to Jupiter as he was to Castor, at the back of whose temple in the Forum he had a private entrance. II. The statue of Jupiter alluded to by Cicero in the third oration against Catiline, and in the De Divinatione, can hardly be understood to be any other than the colossal statue first erected in B. C. 293 on the Capitol by Sp. Carvilius. Plin., N. H. XXX. § 43 (quoted by Weissenborn on Liv. x. 46), says of it, Fecit et Sp. Carvilius Jovem qui est in Capitolio victis Samnitibus sacra lege pugnantibus e pectoralibus eorum ocreisque et galeis, amplitudo tanta est ut conspiciatur a Latiari Jove. In the oration against Catiline Cicero's words are not, as Dr Dyer says, merely "simulacrum Jovis," which might apply to any statue of Jupiter, but Cicero distinctly mentions Jupiter Optimus Maximus as the God whose statue had been moved, and by whose aid the Catilinarian conspiracy had been detected. And in the De Divinatione he probably refers to the statue of the same God, the Jupiter Optimus Maximus of the Capitol. For we first have the lines and then "Nam pater altitonans stellanti nixus Olympo 66 Et Divum simulacra peremit fulminis ardor:" Atque hæc fixa gravi fato ac fundata teneri; Now that Jupiter Capitolinus is meant by Cicero when he appeals to Jupiter Optimus Maximus is, I think, clearly shewn by another passage of Cicero, pro Domo 57. Quocirca te, Capitoline, quem propter beneficia populus Romanus Optimus, propter vim Maximus nominavit...precor et quæso; I do not see how we can avoid the conclusion that Cicero is alluding both in the speech against Catiline and in the De Divinatione to the statue of Capitoline Jupiter. Dr Dyer however thinks that Jupiter is alluded to merely in his general character of best and greatest guardian of the city. Few scholars who will read the whole of the three passages quoted will I think be disposed with him. to agree The exact position of the temple is then treated of by Dr Dyer, and from the configuration of the hill he concludes that the front of the temple may have inclined to the south-west, forgetting that the site was artificially prepared and therefore that in this particular case conclusions drawn from the exigencies of the site do not apply. He also objects that the south-east angle of the temple would have screened the statue from the Forum and Curia. But the supposition is that the statue was raised high enough to be seen above the surrounding buildings, The passage of Pliny above quoted certainly implies that it was very lofty and huge. Dr Dyer also complains that I have altered the position of the Capitoline temple in the Ichnographia at the end of my book so as to make it face the south Journal of Philology. VOL. IV. 9 east. This may be so, but from the very small scale of that map it is a matter of slight importance, and it certainly was not done, as he insinuates, in order to support the opinion advanced in the text, but was unintentionally transferred from Du Rieu's map, my obligations to which are duly acknowledged. If Dr Dyer had referred to the plan of the Capitoline hill at the beginning of Chapter VIII., which is intended to illustrate the text, he would have found no reason for such an insinuation, and by ignoring the plan on a large scale immediately annexed, and referring to the map at the end of book, which is on a small scale, he has laid himself open to the very charge which he tries to fix upon me, of misrepresentation in order to support a theory. III. We then come to the temples of Mens and Fides, from the position of which upon the Capitol one of the most important arguments for the German view of this question is drawn. It is argued by Becker, Reber, and others, that sufficient space cannot be found upon the Araceli height for the numerous temples mentioned as situated on the Capitol. Among these temples two of the principal are the above-named, and therefore great efforts have been made by those who hold the Italian opinion to get rid of these temples. Canina transfers the Temple of Fides to the Palatine, and converts the temple of Mens into a small chapel, and Dr Dyer follows nearly the same line of argument, removing the temple of Fides from the Capitol, and ingeniously assigning to it a new Deity, Fides privata, which he adds to the Roman mythology. With regard to one point I feel obliged to him for correcting a mistake into which I had fallen. The temple of Mens is certainly nowhere mentioned, so far as I know, as having been used for meetings of the Senate, and in coupling it with that of Fides as used for such a purpose, I was in error. It is not however denied by any writer that the temple of Mens was on the Capitol, and as it is called an ædes by Livy and a delubrum by Ovid, and was built in fulfilment of a vow made at a most important crisis, we can hardly degrade it to the rank of a mere sacellum. In the case of the temple of Fides, Dr Dyer has either |