R05IA. Piazza di Venezia, as Urliclis assumes (^BescJir. vol. V. p. 17), since in that case the portico must have crossed tlie road leading out of the Porta Ratumena. A little beyond the last named gate the wall must have joined the Capitoline hill, along which, as we have said, there was no other fortification but the precipitous nature of the ground, rendered here and there still more abrupt by escarpment. At the SV. extremity of the hill the wall must have been re- sumed, and must undoubtedly have run in a direct line across the short space between the Capitoline hill and the Tiber. Between this spot and the Aventine the wall was discontinued; and this is the part alluded to by Dionysius (/. c.) as sufficiently defended by the river. The piece of wall just mentioned must have shut out the P'orum Olitorium and Circus Flaminius, since Asconius {ad Cic. Tog. Cand. p. 90, Orell.) mentions a temple of Apollo, which was situated between those places, as being outside the Porta Carmentalis. This gate lay just at the foot of ihe Capitol, and is one of the most certain entrances to the Servian city. It was named after a fane or altar of Carmenta, the mother of Evander, which stood near it. This altar is mentioned by Dionysius (i. 32), and appears to have existed long after his time, since it was seen by A. Gellius (sviii. 7) and by Servius (ad Virg. Aen. viii. 337.) The street called Vicus jugarius ran from the Porta Carmentalis round the base of the Capitoline to the Forum, as we learn fromLivy's description (xsvii. 37) of the pro- cession of the virgins to the temple of Juno Regina on the Aventine, when two white heifers were led from the temple of Apollo before mentioned through the Porta Carmentalis and Vicus Jugarius to the forum. The exact site of the gate was probably a little to the NW. of the church of S. Omobono. The principal gates of Rome had commonly more than one thoroughfare. These archways, or passages, were called Fornices and Jani. Cicero's etymology of the latter word shows the meaning attached to it, though the etymology itself is absurd (" Ab eundo nomen est ductum: ex quo transitiones perviae Jani, foresque in liminibus profanarum aedium januae nominantur," Nat. Deor. ii. 27). We have already said that the right Janus of the Porta Carmentalis, on going out of the town, was regarded as ill-omened, and branded with the name of Porta Scelerata, from its having been that through which the Fabii passed on their fatal expe- dition to the Cremera. (Liv. ii. 49.) So Ovid {Fust i. 201): — " Carmentis portae dextro via proxima Jano est: L'e per banc noli, quisquis es, omen habet." Festus (p. 285, Miill.), Servius {Aen. viii. 337), and Orosiua (ii. 5) have completely misunderstood these passages in applying the epithet scekrata to the whole gate, as we have before remarked. In the short piece of wall betvreen the Capitoline hill and the Tiber there must have been at least another gate besides the Carmentalis, namely the Porta Flumentana. It is mentioned by Cicero {ad Ait. vii. 3), and its situation near the river may be inferred not only from its name, but also from passages in Livy, which mention it in connection with inundations (xxxv. 9, 21). Plutarch also {Otho, 4) records a great inundation which had caused much damage in the corn-market, at that time held in the Porticus Minucia Frumentaria, near the Forum Olitorium {Not. Reg. ix.); but the words of Paulus Diaconus are incomprehensible, who says that a part ROMA. 751 of the Tiber once actually flowed through this gate (" Flumentana Porta Romae appcllata, ijuod Tiberis partem ea fluxisse affirmant," p. 89, Jliill.) The site is further confirmed by a passage in Varro alluding to the populousness of the suburb just outside the gate: " Nam quod extra urbem est aedificium, nihilo magis ideo est villa, quum eorum aedificia qui habitant extra portam Flumentanam, aut in Aemi- lianis " {Ji. R. iii. 2). This neighbourhood had early become very thickly inhabited, as is evident from the many porticoes, theatres, temples and other buildings, which are mentioned there (see Preller, Regionen, p. 156, seq.) But Livy's narrative of the trial of Manlius (vi. 20) is one of the most striking proofs of the situation of the P. Flumentana, though it is a stumbling-block to those who hold that the temple of Jupiter was on the SW. summit of the Capitoline hill. A spot near the place where the Circus Haminius afterwards stood was at that time used for the assemblies of the Comitia Centuriata, by which Manlius was tried. From this place both the Capitol and the Arx were visible; and Manlius had produced a great effect upon his judges by calling upon them to pronounce their verdict in the sight of those very gods whose temple he had preserved : " Ut Capitolium atque arcem intuen'tes, ut ad deos immoibiles versi, de se judicarent." In order to deprive him of this appeal the tribunes adjourned the assembly to a spot just outside the Porta Flu- mentana, called " lucus Poetelinus," whence the Capitol could not be seen (" unde conspectus in Ca- pitolium non esset "). A glance at any map of Rome will show that this was the only spot in the Campus Martins where the temple, from its being hidden by the SW. summit, which we assume to have been the Arx, was concealed from view. The tribunes would doubtless have been glad to conceal the Arx also, had it been in their power; but an appeal to the Arx alone would have lacked the effect of the re- Ugio which swayed so much with the superstitious Romans. They were no longer in the presence of those rescued deities in whose sight Manlius had invoked their judgment. There is no occasion therefore to try, with Becker, to alter Livy's text, by reading Frumentaria for Flumentana, or seek to place the scene of the trial at another spot, since the Comitia Centuriata were usually assembled in the Campus. The ancient topographers, as well as the modern Italians (Nibby, Mura, ^c. p. 132 ; Canina, htdi- cazione Topograjica, pp. 34, 632, ed. 1850), place another gate, the Porta Triujiphalis. between the Carmentalis and the I'lumentana. That there was such a gate is certain, since it is frequently mentioned in classical authors, but unfortunately in such a manner that no decided inference can be drawn respecting its situation. Hence various theories have been advanced on the sul)ject, which have led to warm controversies. The German school of topographers, though not united among them- selves, have agreed in departing from the Italian view, chiefly because it apjicars to them absurd to imagine that there could have been three gales in so short a piece of wall. If, however, as it will be shown to be probable, the Porta Triumphalis was opened only on occasions of state, there really seems to be very liitle force in this objection. Bunscn and his followers allow that it formed a real entrance into the city, but strangely enough make it lead into the Circus JIaximus; whilst Becker, on the other hand, holds that it was no gate at all properly
