ROMA. Janus was not situated in the place here assigned to it, but in the Forum Olitorium outside tlie Porta Carmentalis. As the opinion of so distinguished a scholar as Mommsen is entitled to great attention, we shall here briefly review his arguments. They may be stated as follows. That the temple of Janus was in the Forum Olitorium may be shown from Ta- citus: " Et Jano templum, quod apud Forum Olito- rium C. Duilius struxerat (dedicavit Tiberius)," (^Ann. ii. 49); and also from Festus: " Religioni est quibusdam porta Carmentali egredi et in acde Jani, quae est extra earn, senatum haberi, quod ea egressi sex et trecenti Fabii apud Cremeram omnes interfecti sunt, cum in aede Jani S. C. factum esset, ut proficis- cerentur" (p. 285, Miill.). But this temple was un- doubtedly the same as the famous one founded by Nunia, and Duilius could only have restored, not built it ; since it can be shown that there was only one Temple of Janus at Rome before the time of Domitian. Thus Ovid (as may be seen in the pas- sage before quoted) asks Janus, — " Cum tot sint Jani cur stas sacratus, in utw, Hie ubi juncta foris templa duobus habes ? " The same thing appears from the following passage of Martial (x. 28. 2), which shows that, before Do- mitian erected the Janus Quadrifrons in the Forum Transitorium, the god had only one little temple : — " Pervius exiguos habitabas ante Penates Plurima qua medium Roma terebat iter." The same situation of this only temple is also testified by Servius (ad Aen. vii. 6U7): " Sacrarium (Jani) Numa Pompilius fecerat — Quod Xuma in- stituerat, translatum est ad Forum Transitorium." And again Sacrarium hoc Numa Pompilius fecerat circa imum Argiletum juxta theatrum Marcelli." Tlius the situation of the sole temple of Janus is proved by the preponderance of the best authority, and does not rest on mere conjecture. In these remarks of Jlommsen's we miss that ac- curacy of interpretation which is so necessary in treating questions of this description. The word " .struxerat," used by Tacitus, denotes the erection of a new building, and cannot be applied to the mere restoration of an ancient one. Nor, had there been no other temple of Janus, would it h.ave been necessary to designate the precise situation of this by the words " apud Forum Olitorium." Again, the words of Ovid refer, not to one temple, but to one Janus, which, however, as we have seen, was con- verted into a sort of small temple. " When there are so many Jani, why is your image consecrated only in one ? " This, then, was not a temple in the larger sense of the word ; that is, a building of such a size as to be fit for assemblies o i the senate, but merely the little sacellum described by Ovid. Let us hear Mommsen's own description of it, drawn from this passage, and from that of Martial just quoted: " Fuit enim Jani aedes (quod luculentissime apparet ex Ovidii verbis supra laudatis) non nisi Janus ali- quis, sive bifrons sive quadrifrons, Dei statua ornatus, Ea, quam Numa fecit, fornix erat pervius ad portam Carmentalem applicatus, quo transibant omnes qui a Campo Martio Foroque Oiitorio venientes Boarium Komanumve petebant " (p. 307). But - overlooking the point how the building of Numa could have been attached to a gate erected in the time of Sen'ius — how is it possible to conceive that, as Mommsen in- fers from the words of Festus, the senate could have been assembled in a little place of this description, ROMA. 731 the common thoroughfare of the Romans? Besides, we have the express testimony of Livy, that the Senatus Consultum, sanctioning the departure of the Fabii, was made in the usual place for the meetings of the senate, — the Curia Hostilia. "Con- sul e Curia egressus, comitaiite Fabiorum agmine, qui in vestibulo curiae, senatus consultum exspec- tantes, steterant, domum i-ediit" (ii. 48). Livy is certainly a better witness on such a point than Festus; whose account, therefore, is overthrown, not only by its inherent improbability, but also by the weight of superior authority. All that we can infer from his words is, that the temple of Janus, outside the Porta Carmentalis, was sufficiently large to hold an as- sembly of the senate ; but this circumstance itself is sufficient proof that it could not have been the origi- nal little temple, or sacellum, of Numa. There are other objections to the account of Festus. It was not ominous, as he says, to go out at the Carmental gate, but to go out through the right arch of the gate (" infelici via dextro Jano portae Carmentalis profecti, ad Cremeram flumen perveniunt," lb. c. 49). If the whole gate had been accursed, how could a sacred procession like that of the virgins from the temple of Apollo to that of Juno Regina, described by Livy (xxvii. 37), have passed through it ? Nor can it be told whether the relative ea refers to the Porta Carmentalis, as sense, or to aedes Jani, as grammar, requires. Further, it would be contrary to the usual custom, as Becker correctly remarks {Handbuch, p. 139, note), for the senate to assemble outside of the gates to deliberate on a domestic matter of this nature. Then, with reference to Ovid's description, he could not have mentioned the sacellum of Janus as adjoining two fora, had it stood where Mommsen places it, where it would have been separated from the Forum Romanum by the whole length of the Vicus Jugarius. Besides, it is plain from the passage of the Fasti before quoted that the original temple stood at the foot of a clivus, or descent from the Capitoline. Yet Mommsen puts it at the very top of the hill over the Cannental gate (" in ipso monte," p. 310, vide his plan at the end of the volume), where the hill is most abrupt, and where there could not possibly have been any clivus, and the Porta Janualis at the bottom. We should remark, too, that the reading, " arduus in valles et fora clivus erat," is not a mere conjecture of Becker, as Mommsen seems to think (p. 310), but the com- mon reading; and that to substitute "/«r fora " in- stead would make evident nonsense. Nor in that case do we see how the temple could have been " apud Forum Olitorium," as Tacitus says, even if aptid only means near, not at: and still less how it could have adjoined the theatre of Marcellus ("juxta thea- trum ]Iarcelli "), as indicated by Servius. What has been said will also be sufficient to refute the last named commentator in stating this to be the original temple. He has evidently confounded the two. We can therefore only agree in part with the somewhat severe censure which Mommsen has pro- nounced on Becker on this occasion. "At quod somniavit de aede Jani sine simulacro ( p. 259), quod Festum, quod Servium gravissimi erroris in- cusavit (p. 139, n. 254, .«ieq.), id vix condono hornini pliilologo" (p. 307). It appears, we trust, pretty plainly, that Festus .and Servius must have been in error; but we cannot admit a temple with- out an image. The explanation we have already given, that Ovid is alluding to a Janus, not to a proper temple, may obviate the difficulty. But wa
