7G4 ROMA. was nearest to the river. " Cominius in Capitolium evadit" is here equivalent to "Romulus in Capi- tolium escendit," in a passage before cited. (Liv. i. 10.) Hence, to mark the spot more precisely, the historian inserts "ad Carmentis" in the follow- ing chapter. There is nothing in the other autho- rities cited in Becker's note (no. 750) which yields a conclusion cither one way or the other. We might, with far superior justice, quote the following passage of Cicero, which we have adduced on another occa- sion, to prove that the attempt of the Gauls was on theArx or citadel: " Atque ut ita munita Ars cir- cumjectu arduo et qu.isi circuniciso saxo niteretur, ut etiam in ilia tejnpestate horribili Gallici adventus incolumis atque intacta pennanserit " {Be Rep. ii. 6). But, though we hold that the attempt was really on the Arx, we are nevertheless of opinion that Cicero here uses the word only in its general sense, and thus as applicable to the whole hill, just as Livy uses Capitolium in the preceding passage. Hence, Mr. Bunbury {Class. Mm. vol. iv. p. 430) and jI. Preller (I. c.) have jvistly regarded this narrative as affording no evidence at all, although they are ad- herents of the German theory. We may further observe, that the house of Manlius was on the Arx; and though this circumstance, taken by itself, pre- sents nothing decisive, yet, in the case of so sudden a surprise, it adds probability to the view that the Arx was on the southern summit. We now proceed to the next illustration, which is drawn from the account given by Tacitus of the attack of the Vitellians on the Capitol. Becker's interpretation of this passage is so full of errors, that we must follow him sentence by sentence, giving, first of all, the original description of Tacitus. It runs as follows: " Cito agmine forum et imminentia foro templa praetervecti erigunt aciem per adversum col- lem usque ad primas Capitolinae arcis fores. Erant antiquitus porticus in latere clivi,dextrae subeuntibus: in quarum tectum egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruebant. Neque illis manus nisi gladiis armatae; et arcessere tormenta aut missilia tela longum vide- batur. Faces in prominentem porticum jecere et .sequebantur ignem; ambustasque Capitolii fores penetrassent, ni Sabinus revulsas undique statuas, decora majorum in ipso aditu vice muri objecisset. Tum diversos Capitolii aditus invadunt, juxta lucum asyli, et qua Tarpeia rupes centum gradibus aditur. Improvisa utraque vis : propior atque acrior per asylum ingruebat. Nee sisti poterant scandentes per conjuncta aedificia, quae, ut in multa pace, in altum edita solum Capitolii aequabant. Hie ambigitur, ignem tectis oppugnatores injecerint, an obsessi, quae crebrior fiima est, quo nitentes ac progressos depellerent. Inde lapsus ignis in por- tions appositas aedibus : mox sustinentes fastigium aquilae vetere ligno traxerunt flammam aluerant- que. Sic Capitolium clausis foribus indefensum et indireptum conflagravit." {Hist. iii. 71.) " The attack," says Becker, " is directed solely against the Capitol ; that is, the height containing the temple, which latter is burnt on the occasion (p. 390). This is so far from being the case, that the words of Tacitus would rather show that the attack was directed against the Arx. The temple is represented as having been shut up, and neither attacked nor defended : "clausis foribus, indefensum et indireptum conflagravit." Such a state of things is inconceivable, if, as Becker says, the attack was directed solely against the Capitol. That part of the hill was evidently deserted, and EOMA. left to its fate; the besieged had concentrated them- selves upon the Arx, which thus became the point of attack. By that unfortunate ambiguity in the use of the word Capitolium, which we h.ave before pointed out, we find Tacitus representing the gates of the Capitolium as having been burnt (" ambustas que Capitolii fores") which, if Capitolium meant the same thing in the last sentence, would be a direct contradiction, as the gates are there represented as shut. But in the first passage he means the gates of the fortification which enclosed the whole summit of the hill ; and in the second pasi^ago he means the gates of the temple. The mean- ing of Tacitus is also evident in another man- ner; for if the Vitellians were attacking the tem- ple itself, and burning its gates, they must have already gained a footing on the height, and would consequently have had no occasion to seek access by other routes — by the steps of the Eupes Tarjicia, and by the Lucus Asyli. Becker proceeds : " Ta- citus calls this (j. e. the height with the temple), indifferently Capitolina Arx and Capitolium." This is quite a mistake. The Arx Capitolina may possibly mean the whole summit of the hill; but if it is to be restricted to one of the two eminences, it means the Arx proper rather than the Capitol. " The at- tacking party, it appears, first made a lodgment on the Clivus Capitolinus. Here the portico on the right points distinctly to the SW. height. Had the portico been to the right of a person ascending in the contraiy direction, it would have been sepa- rated from the besieged by the street, who could not therefore have defended themselves from its roof. If we thought that this argument had any value we might adopt it as our own : for we also believe that the attack was directed against the SW. height, but with this difference, that the Arx was on this height, and not the Capitol. But, in fact, there was only one principal ascent or clivus, — that lead- ing towards the western height ; and the only thing worth remarking in Becker's observations is that he should have thought there might be another Clivus Capitolinus leading in the opposite direction. We may remark, by the way, that the portico here mentioned was probably that erected by the great- grandson of Cn. Scipio. (Veil. Pat. ii. 3.) " As the attack is here fruitless, the Vitellians abandon it, .and make another attempt at two different ap- proaches (" diversos aditus "); at the Lucus Asyli, that is, on the side where at present the broad steps lead from the Palazzo de' Conservatori to Monte Ca- prino, and again where the Centum Gradus led to the Rupes Tarpeia. Whether these Centum Gradus are to be placed by the church of Sta Maria della Consolazione, or more westward, it is not necessary to determine here, since that they led to the CaJ- farelli height is undisputed. On the side of the asylum {Palazzo de' Conservatori) the danger was more pressing. Where the steps now lead to Monte Caprino, and on the whole side of the hill, were houses which reached to its summit. These were set on fire, and the flames then caught the adjoining portico, and lastly the temple." Our chief objection to this account is, its impossi- bility. If the Lucus Asyli corresponded to the steps of tlie present Palazzo de' Conservatori, which is seated in the depression between the two summits, or pre- sent Piazza del Campidoglio, then tl;e besiegers must have forced the passage of the Clivus Capito- linus, whereas Tacitus expressly says that they were repulsed. Being repulsed they must have retreated
