ROJIA. of the Clivus Capitolinus is adduced, which ran to the Western height, and must have led directly to the temple, whence it derived its name. But this is a complete begging of the question, and the clivus more probably derived its name from the hill. If the direction of the clivus, however, proves anything at all — and we are not disposed to lay much stress upon it — it rather proves the reverse of Becker's case. The clivus was a continuation of the Sacra Via, by which, as we shall have occa- 'sion to show when treating of that road, the augurs descended from the Ars after taking the auguries, and by which they carried up their new year's ofl'erings to king Tatius, who lived upon the Arx : and hence in sacerdotal language the clivus itself was called Sacra Via. (Varro, L.L. v. § 47, Miill. ; Festus, p. 290, id.). Lastly, " the contined height of Araceli would not have affoi-ded sufficient room for the spacious temple of Jupiter, the Area Capi- tolina, where meetings of the people were held, and at the same time be able to display so many other temples and monuments." There is some degree of truth in this observation, so far at least as the Area Capitolina is concerned. But when we come to describe the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, an ac- '-[uaintance with which is necessary to the complete understanding of the present question, though Becker has chosen to omit it, " as lying out of the plan of his book" (p 396), we shall endeavour to show how this objection may be obviated. Jlean- wiiile, having now discussed all Becker's arguments in favour of the SW. summit as the site of the CapitoJiue temple, it will be more convenient shortly to review the whole question, and to adduce some reasons which have led us to a directly contrary con- clusion. In doing this we do not presume to think, with Becker, that we have "completely decided" the question. It is one, indeed, that will not admit of complete demonstration ; but we venture to hope that the balance of probability may be shown to predominate very considerably in favour of the NE. height. The greater part of Becker's arguments, as we trust that we have shown, prove nothing at all, while the remainder, or those which prove some- thing, may be turned against him. We must claim as our own the proof drawn from the storm of the Capitol by the Vitellians, as described by Tacitus, as well a.s that derived from Jlons Tarpeius being tiie name of the SW. height, and that from the westerly direction of the Clivus Capitolinus. Ano- tiier argument in favour of the NE. height may be drawn from Livy's account of the trial of Manlius <,'apitolinus, to which we have already adverted v|jen treating of the Porta Flumentana [supra, p. 751], and need not here repeat. To these we •sliall add a few more drawn from probability. Tatius dwelt on the Arx, where the temple of Juno Moneta afterwards stood. {Vt. Rom. 20; Siilinus, i. 21.) "This," says Becker (p. 388), " is the height of Araceli, and always retained its name of Arx after the Capitol was built, since certain sacred customs were attached to the jilace and ap- pellation." He is here alluding to the Arx being the auguraculum of which Festus says : " Auguracu- lum appelhibant antiqui quam nos arcem dicimus, quod ibi augures publico auspicarentur " (p. 18, wiiere Mijiler observes : " non tam arcem quam in arce fuissc arbitror auguraculum "). Tiie templum, then, marked out from tho Arx, from which the city auspices were Uken, was delined by a peculiar and ROMA. 7C7 appropriate form of words, which is given by Varro, (L.L. vii. § 8, Miill.) It was bounded on the left hand and ou the right by a distant tree ; the tract between was the templum or tescum (country region) in which the omens were observed. The augur who inaugurated Numa led him to the Arx, seated him on a stone, with his face turned towards the South, and sat down on his left hand, capite velato, and with his lituus. Then, looking forwards over the city and country — " prospectu in urbem agrumque capto" — he marked out the temple from east to west, and determined in his mind the sign (signum) to be observed as far as ever his eyes could reach : " quo longissime conspectum oculi ferebant." (Liv. i. 18; cf. Cic. de Off. iii. 16.) The great extent of the prospect required may be inferred fiom an anec- dote related by Valerius Maximus (viii. 2. § 1), where the augurs are represented as ordering Clau- dius Centumalus to lower his lufty dwelling on the Caelian, because it interfered with their view from the Arx, — a passage, by the way, which shows that the auguries were taken from the Arx till at all events a late period of the Republic. Now, supposing with Becker, that the Arx was on the NE. summit, what sort of prospect would the augurs have had? It is evident that a large portion of their view would have been intercepted by the huge temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, The SW. summit is the only portion of the hill which, in the words of Livy, would afford a noble prospect, " in urbem agrumque." It was doubtless this point to which the augur conducted Numa, and which re- mained ever afterwards the place appointed fur taking the auguries. Preller is of opinion that Augustus removed them to a place called the Auguratorium on the Palatine. (Philologus, i. p. 92.) But the situation laid down for that building scarcely answers to our ideas of a place adapted for taking the au- guries, and it seems more probable that it was merely a place of assembly for the college of augurs. Another argument that has been adduced in favour of the SW. summit being the Arx, is drawn from its proximity to the river, and from its rocky and piecipitous nature, which made it proper for a citadel. But on this we are not inclined to Jay any great stress. Other arguments in favour of the Italian view may be drawn from the nature of the temple itself ; but in order to understand them it will first be necessary to give a description of the building. The most complete account of the Tem- plum Jovis Capitolini is that given by Diony- sius (iv. 61),i'rom which we learn that it stood upon a high basis or platform, 8 jdethra, or 800 Greek feet square, which is nearly the same in English measure. This would give about 200 feet for each side of the temple, for the length exceeded the breadth only by about 15 feet. These are the di- mensions of the original construction ; and when it was burnt down a generation before ihe time of Dionysius, — that is, as we learn from Tacitus {Hist. iii. 72), in the consulship of L. Scipio and Norbaims (h. c. 83), — it was rebuilt u])oii the same foundation. The materials emjiloycd in the second construction were, however, of a mucli richer description than those of the first. The front of the temple, which faced the south, had a porticoconsistingof tiircc rows of columns, whilst on the flanks it had only two rows : and as the back front is not said to have had any portico, we may conclude that there was nothing on this side but a plain wall. Tlic interior contained three ceils
