ROMA. wall between them, according to indications offered by the nature of the ground. We learn from Cicero that Servius, like Romu- lus, was guided in the construction of his wall by the outline of the hills: " Cujus (urbis) is est tractatus ductusque muri quum RomuU turn etiam reliquorum regum sapientia definitus ex omni parte arduis praeruptisque montibus, ut unus aditus, qui esset inter Esquihnum Quirinalemque montem, maxirao aggere objecto fossa cingeretur vastissima ; atque ut ita munita ars circumjectu arduo et quasi circumciso saxo niteretur, ut etiam in ilia tempestate horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intacta pcrmanserit." (Z)e Eep. ii. 6.) Becker (de Muris, p. 64, Handb. p. 129) asserts that Cicero here plainly says that Servius erected walls only where there were no hills, or across the valleys, and con- cludes that the greater part of the defences of the city consisted of the natural ones offered by the hills alone. Becker, however, appears to have formed no very clear ideas upon the subject; for notwithstanding what is here said, we find him a few pages further on, conducting the line of wall not only along the height of the Quirinal, but even over the summit of the Capitoline hill itself ! {Ilandh. pp. 131, 136, de Muris, pp. 65, 70.) Keither his first, or theoretical, nor his second, or practical, view, is correct. The former is in di- rect contradiction to his authority; for Cicero says that the other kings did like Romulus; and he, as we have seen, and as Becker himself has shown, walled in his city all round. Cicero says, as plainly as he can speak, that there teas a wall, and that it was defined along its whole extent (" definitus ex omni parte ") by the line of the hills. If it did not run along their summit, we cannot explain Plifiy's assertion_(iii.9) that the agger equalled the height of the walls (" Namque eum (aggerem) mm'is aequavit qua niaxime patebat (urbs) aditu piano : caetero munita erat praecelsis muris, aut abruptis montibus," &c.), since it would be a no great extolling of its heiglit to say that it was raised to the level of a wall in the valley. Cicero, however, notices two exceptions to the continuous line, and the fixct of his pointing these out proves the continuity of the wall in the remainder of the circuit. The first exception is the agger just mentioned, upon the top of which, however, according to Dionysius (ix. 68), there seems also to have been a sort of wall, though probably not of so great a height as the rest, at least he uses the comparative when speaking of it : Tilxos aviyeipas vy^Xorepov (iv. .54). The second exception was the Arx, or Capitoline hill, which, being on its western side much more abrupt and precipitous than the other hills, was considered as sufiiciently defended by nature, with a little as- sistance from art in escarping its sides. That there was no wall at this spot is also proved, as Niebuhr remarks (^Eist. vol. i. p. 396) by the account of the Gauls scaling the height. (Liv. v. 47 ; comp. Bunbury, Class. Mus. vol. iii. p. 347.) The Ca- pitoline, therefore, must have been the spot to which Dionysius alluded, when he said that Rome was partly defended by its hills, and partly by the Tiber (ix. 68); as well as Pliny in the passage just cited, where we must not infer from the plural (montibus) that ho meant more than one hill. This is merely, as in Dionysius also, a general mode of expression; and we have before observed that Pliny's own ac- count shows that the wall crowned the hills. Lastly, had there been no wall upon them, it is difficult to ROJIA 749 see how there could have been gates ; yet we find Becker himself placing gates at spots where, ac- cording to his theoretical view, there could have been no wall. Niebuhr {I. c), who, like Becker, does not confine the escarpment to the Capitol,' but thinks that the greater part of the city was fortified solely by the steepness of its hills, places towers, walls, and gates just at the different ascents; but this view, improbable in itself, and unsupported by any authority, cannot be maintained against the express testimony of Cicero. There seems, however, to have been an interior fortification on the E. side of the Capitoline, protecting the ascent by the dims, as we shall see in the sequel. It was probably in- tended to secure the citadel, in case an enemy suc- ceeded in forcing the external walls. We have seen before that the hill was fortified by Romulus; but whether these ancient fortifications, as well as those on the Palatine, were retained by Servius, it is im- possible to say. We may assume then that the wall of Servius, or his predecessor, — which seems to have been built of stone (" muro lapideo,"Liv. i. 15), — surrounded the whole city, with the exception of the Capitoline hill and a small part defended by the Tiber, — thus justifying the noble lines of Virgil {^Georg. ii. 533.) :— " remm facta est pulcerrima Roma Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces." Our next task will be to determine the outline of this wall by means of the site of the different gates ; though, of course, where the outline of the hills is well defined this alone will be a guide. The situ- ation of two of the gates may be considered certain, — that of the Porta Collina, at t he N. extremity of the agger, and that of the Esquiline at its southern end. Taking, therefore, the former as a starting-point, and proceeding continually to the left, we shall make the circuit of the whole city, till we again arrive at the Porta Collina. This, the most northerly of all the gates, lay near the point where the Via Salaria branches ofl' from the Via Nomentana. From this spot the first gate to the W. was probably the Porta Salutaris, so named, ap- parently, from its being on that division of the Qui- rinal which in the time of Numa and in the sacred books of the Argives was called Collis Salutaris, from an ancient sacellum of Salus which stood upon it (Varr. L.L. v. § 51). When Paulus Diaconus tells us (p. 327, Miill.) that it was named after tho temple of Salus, he seems to be alluding to the later and more famous temple dedicated by C. Junius Bubulcus in b. C. 303, which we shall have occasion to describe in the sequel : but it is probable that it obtained its pame, as we have said, at a much earlier period. As the new temple probably stood at or near the site of the ancient one, and as the Notitia in de- scribing the 6th Regio, or Alta Semita, takes this temple for a starting point, and, proceeding always in a circuit to the left, arrives at last ut the baths of Diocletian, it may be assumed that this gate was tho first important object westward of the baths. It seems to have spanned a Clivus Salutis, which Ca- nina {Roma Aiitica, p. 187) places, with much pro- bability in the Via delle Qi/attro Fontane, where it ascends from the Fiazza Barberina. (Cf. Preller, Regionen, p. 134.) The next gate to the left seems to have been the PouTA Sanqualis,so named from tlio temple of San- cus. (Paul. Diac. p. 345, Miill.) Thia was tho same
