nOMA. downiBcirds, and renewed the attempt at lower points; at the foot of the Hundred Steps, for instance, on one side, and at the bottom of the Lucus Asyli on another ; on both which sides tl»ey again attempted to mount. The Palazzo f/e' Conservatori, though not the higliest point of the hill, is above the clivus. Becker, as we have shown, has adopted the strangely erroneous opinion that the " Capitolinae arcis fores " belonged to the Capitol itself (note 752), and that consequently the Vitellians were storming it from the Piazza del C'ampido(/lio (note 754). But the portico from which they were driven back was on the clivus, and consequently they could not have reached the top of the hill, or piazza. The argument that the temple must have been on the SW. height, because the Vitellians attempted to storm it by mounting the Centum Gradus (Becker, Warnung, p. 43), may be retorted by those who hold that the attack was directed against the Arx. The precise spot of the Lucus Asyli cannot be indi- cated ; but from Livy's description of it, it was evi- dently somewhere on the descent of the hill ("locum qui nunc septus descendefitibus inter duos lucos est, a.sylum aperit," i. 8). It is probable, as Preller supposes {Philol. p. 99), that the " aditus juxta lucum Asyli" was on the NE. side of the hill near the present arch of Severus. The CKvus Asyli is a fiction; there was only one clivus on the Capitoline. We have only one more remark to make on this narrative. It is plain that the fire broke out near the Lucus Asyli, and then spreading from house to liouse, caught at last theyj-ow^of the temple. This follows from Tacitus' account of the portico and the eagles which supported iie fastigium or pediment, first catching fire. The back-front of the Capito- line temple was plain, apparently a mere wall; since Dionysius (iv. 61) does not say a single word about it, though he particularly describes the front as having a triple row of columns and the sides double rows. But as we know that the temple faced the south, such an accident could not have happened except it stood on the NE. height, or that of Araceli. We niight, therefore, by substituting CaffarelU for Ai'oceli, retort the triumphant remark with which Becker closes his explanation of this passage: "To him, therefore, who would seek the temple of Jupiter on the height of Caff'urelU, the description of Ta- citus is in every respect inexplicable." Becker's next argument in favour of the W. sunmiit involves an eiiuivocation. It is, " that the temple was built on that summit of the hill which bore the name of Mons Tarpeius." Now it is notorious — and as we have already esta- blished it, we need not repeat it here — that before the building of the Capitol the wJiole hill was called Mons Tarpeius. The passages cited by Becker in note 755 (Liv. i. ."jS; Dionys. iii. 69) mean nothing more than this ; indeed, the latter expressly states it (^6s [Ad^ojj Tdxe /xiv eKoAeiTO Tapirriios, vvv 6e Koir iT&)A.rcos). Capitolium gradually became the name for the whole hill ; but who can belijve that the name of Tarpeia continued to be retained at that vei7 portion of it where the Capitoline temple was built ? The process was evidently as follows : the noithern height, on which the temple was built, was at ili-st alone called Capitolium. Gradually its superior inijmrtance gave name to the whole hill ; yet a particular portion, the most remote from the temple, retained the primitive name of liupcs Tar- peia. And tlius Festus in a mutilated fragment, — ROMA. 70.- not however so mutilated but that the sense is plain — " Noluerunt funestum locum [cum altera parte] Capitoli conjungi" (p. 343), where Jliiller remarks, " non multum ab Ursini supplemento discedere licebit." Becker then proceeds to argue that the temple of Juno Moneta was built on the site of the house of JI. Manlius Capitolinus, which was on the Arx (Liv. V. 47 ; Plat. Cam. 36 ; Dion Cass. Fr. 31, &c.); and we learn from Ovid {Fast. i. 637) that there were steps leading from the temple of Concord, to that of Juno Moneta. Now as the former temple was situated under the height of Araceli, near the arch of Severus, this determines the question of the site of Juno ][oneta and the Arx. Ovid's words are as follows: — " Candida, te niveo posuit lux proxima teniplo Qua fert sublimes alta Moneta gradus ; Nunc bene prospicies Latiam. Concordia, tur- bam," &c. This is very obscure; but we do not see how it can be inferred from this passage that there were steps from one temple to the other. We should rather take it to mean that the temple of Concord was placed close to that of ]Ioneta, which latter was approached by a flight of lofty steps. Nor do we think it very difficult to point out what these steps were. The temple of Juno was on the Arx ; that is, according to our view, on the SW. summit; and the lofty steps were no other than the Centum Gradus for ascending the Rupes Tarpeia, as de- scribed by Tacitus in the passage we have just been discussing. Had there been another flight of steps leading up to the top of the Capitoline hill, the Vitellians would certainly have preferred them to clambering over the tops of houses. But it will be objected that according to this view the temple of Concord is placed upon the Arx, for which there is no authority, instead of on the fonmi or clivus, for which there is authority. Now this is exactly the point at which we wish to arrive. There were several temples of Concord, but only two of any re- nown, namely, that dedicated by Furius Camillus, B. c. 367, and rededicated by Tiberius after his German triumph, which is the one of which Ovid speaks; and another dedicated by the consul Opi- niius after the sedition and death of Gracchus. Ap- pian says that the latter temple was in the forum : 7] hi ^ovXt] Kalffihv'Ofxovulas avrhv iv ayopa irpocr- era^ev tyiipai (B.C. i. 2C). But in ordinary lan- guage the clivus formed part of the forum; and it would be impossible to point out any place in the forum, strictly so called, which it could have occnjiied. It is undoubtedly the same temple alluded to by Varro in the following passage: " Senaculum supra Graecostasim ubi aedisConcordiaect basilica Opimia" {L.L. v. p. 156, Miill.); from which we may infer that Opimius built at the same time a basilica, which adjoined the temple. Becker (IJundh. p. 3U9) denied the existence of this basilica; but by the time be published his Warnung he had grown wiser, and quoted in the Appendix (p. 58) the fol- lowing passage from Cicero {p. Sest. G7): " L. Opi- mius cujus monunicntum cclcberrinuim in foro, se- pulcruiii desert issinuun in littore Dyrrachino est relictum ; " maintaining, however, that this ])as.sage related to Opimius' temple of Concord. But Urlichs {liiiin. Top. p. 26), after pointing out that the epi- thet celeherrimum, " very much freciuented," suited better with a basilica than with a temple, produced
