7G6 ROIIA. two ancient inscriptions from Marini's Atti de Fra- telli Arvali (p. 212); in which a basilica Opiinia is recorded; and Becker, in his Antwort (p. 33), con- fessing that he had overlooked these inscriptions, retracted his doubts, and acknowledged the existence of a basilica. According to Varro, then, the Aedis Concordiae and bitslica of Opimius were close to the senaculum; and the situation of the senaculum is pointed out by Festus between the Capitol and forum: " Unum (Senaculum) ubi nunc est aedis Concordiae, inter Capitolium et Forum " (p. 347, JIUII.). This description corresponds exactly with the site where the present remains of a temple of Con- cord are unanimously agreed to exist: remains, how- ever, which are supposed to be those of the temple founded by Camillus. and not of that founded by Opimius. According to this supposition there must have been two temples of Concord on the forum. But if these remains belong to that of Camillus, who shall point out those of the temple erected by Opimius? Where was its site? What its history? When w;is it demolished, and its place either left vacant or occupied by another building? Appian, as we have seen, expressly says that the temple built by Opimius was in the forum; where is the evidence tliat the temple of Camillus was also in the forum ? There is positively none. Plutarch, the only direct evi(ience as to its site, says no such thing, but only that it looked down upon the forum: ii )(p[(javro TTJs fjLiv 'Ofj-ovias Uphv, liiairep Jtv^aro b KafiiWos, iis T'qv ayopav koI (is ttji" eKKXrialav &noTnov tnl Tola yeyevrijj.4t>ois iSpvcTaaOai (^Camill. 42). Now a^updw means to view from a distance, and espe- cially yro?« a height. It is equivalent to the Latin prospicere, the very term used by Ovid in describing the same temple: — " Nunc bene prospicies Latiam, Concordia, turbam." These expressions, then, like Ovid's allusion to the " sublimes gradus " of Moneta, point to the Arx as the site of the temple. It is remarkable that Lucan (^Pharx. i. 195) employs the same word when de- scribing the temple of Jupiter Tonans, erected by Augustus, also situated upon the Arx, or Rupes Tarpeia : — " m.ignae qui moenia prospicis urbis Tarpeia de rupe Tonans." This temple, indeed, has also been placed on the clivus, on the authority of the pseudo- Victor, and against llie express evidence of the best authorities. Thus an inscription in Gruter (Ixxii. No. 5), con- sisting of some lines addressed to Fortuna, likewise places the Jupiter Tonans on the Tarpeian rock: — " Tu quae Tarpeio coleris vicina Tonanti Votorum vindex semper Fortuna meorum," &c. Suetonius {Aug. c. 29 and 91), Pliny (xxxvi. 6) and the Mon. Ancyranum, place it " in Capi- tolio," meaning the Capitoline hill. It has been absurdly inferred that it was on the clivus, be- cause Dion says that those who were going up to the great temple of Jupiter met with it first, — on ■npuTw ol avtdvTfS is to Kamrwhtov IviTxr/yavov (liv. 4), which they no doubt would do, since the clivus led first to the western height. On these grounds, then, we are inclined to believe that the temple of Concord erected by Camillus stood on the Arx, and could not, therefore, have had any steps leading to the temple of Juno Jloneta. The latter was likewise founded by Camillus, as we learn from Livy and Ovid : — ROMA. " Arce quoque in summa Junoni templa Monetae Ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo ; Ante domus Manli fuerant" {Fast. vi. 183); and thus these two great works of the dictator stood, as was natural, close together, just as the temple of Concord and the basilica subsequently erected by Opimius also adjoined one another on or near the clivus. It is no objection to this view that there was another small temple of Concord on the Arx, which had been vowed by the praetor Manlius in Gaul during a sedition of the soldiers. The vow had been almost overlooked, but after a lapse of two years it was recollected, and the temple erected in discharge of it. (Liv. xxii. 33.) It seems, therefore, to have been a small affair, and might very well have coexisted on the Arx with another and more splendid temple. But to return to Becker's arguments. The next proof adduced is Caligula's bridge. " Caligula,"' he says, as Bunsen has remarked, " caused a bridge to be thrown from the Palatine hill over the temple of Augustus (and probably the Basilica Julia) to the Capitoline temple, which is altogether in- conceivable if the latter was on the height of Araceli, as in that case the bridge must have been conducted over the forum" (p. 393). But here Becker goes further than his author, who merely says that Caligula threw a bridge from the Palatine hill to the Capitoline : " Super templum Divi Au- gust! ponte transmisso, Palatium Capitoliumque conjunxit." (Suet. Cal. 22.) Becker correctly renders Palatium by the " Palatine hill," but when he comes to the other hill he converts it into a temple. Suetonius offers a parallel case of the use of these words in a passage to which we had occasion to allude just now, respecting the temple of Jupiter Tonans : " Templum Apollinis in Palatio (extruxit), aedem Tonantis Jovis in Capi- tolio " {Aug. 29) ; where, if Becker's view was right, we might by analogy translate, — " he erected a temple of Apollo in the palace." The next proof is that a large piece of rock fell down from the Capitol (" ex Capitolio ") into the Vicus Jugarius(Liv. xxxv. 21); and as the Vicus Jugarius ran under the S. summit, this shows that the Capi- toline temple was upon it. But pieces of rock fall down from hills, not from buildings, and, therefore. Capitolium here only means the hill. In like manner when Livy says (xxxviii. 28), " substruc- tionem super Aequimelium in Capitolio (censores loeaveruut)," it is plain that he must mean the hill ; and consequently this passage is another proof of this use of the word. The Aequimelium was in or by the Vicus Jugarius, and could not, therefore, have been on the Capitol properly so called, even if the latter hud been on the SW. height. Becker wrongly trans- lates this passage, — a substruction of the Capitol over the Aequimelium" (p. 393.) Then comes the passage respecting the statue of Jupiter being turned towards the east, that it might behold the forum and curia; which Becker maintains to be impossible of a statue erected on the height of Araceli. Those who have seen the ground will not be inclined to coincide in this opinion. The statue stood on a column (Dion Cass, xxxvii. 9 ; Cic. JJiv. i. 12 ; ef. Id. Cat. iii. 8), and most probably in front of the temple — it could hardly have been placed behind it ; and, therefore, if the temple was on the S. height, the statue must have been at the extremity of it ; a site which certainly would not afford a very good view of the forum. Next the direction
