776 EOMA. a section of the area at its eastern extremity, in size about one-third of the whole furum. An argument advanced by Becker himself (llandb. p. 278) seems decisive against both these views-, namely, that we never hear any building on the S. side of the forum spoken of as being on the comitium. Yet in spite of this just remark, lie ends by adopting the theory of Bunsen, according to which the comitium began at or near the ruin of the three columns and ex- tended to the eastern extremity of the forum: and thus both the temple of Vesta and the Kegia nmst have stood very close to it. The two cliief reasons which seem to have led him to this con- clusion are, the situation of the rostra, and that of the Tribunal Praetoris. Respecting the former, we shall have occasion to speak further on. The argument drawn from the latter, which is by far the more important one, we sliall examine at once. It proceeds as follows (Ilandb. p. 280): "The original Tribunal Praetoris was on the comitium (Liv. vi. 15, xxix. 16; Gell. xx. 1, 11,47 (from the XII. Tables); Varro, L. L. v. 32. p. 154; Plant. PoeJi. jii. 6. 11 ; JIacrob. Sat. ii. 12), which, however, is also mentioned as being merely on the forum. (Liv. xxvii. 50, xl. 2, 44.) But close to the tri- bunal was the Puteal Libonis or Scribonianum, and this is expressly mentioned as being near the Fornix Fabius, the Atrium Vestae, the rostra, and lastly the aedes Divi Julii (Porphyr. «(/ //or. £7;. i. 19. 8; Scbol. Cruq. lb. Id. ad. Sat. ii. 6. 35; Fest. p. 333; Schol. ad Pers. Sat. iv. 49); consequently the comitium also must have been close to all these objects." We presume that Becker's meaning in this passage is, that the Jirst or orirjinal tribunal vras on the co- mitium, and that it was afterwards moved into the forum. It could hardly have been both on the comitium and fjrum, though Becker seems to hint at such a possibility, by saying that it is " also mentioned as being merely on the forum;" and indeed there seems to be no physical impossibility in the •way, since it is evident that the tribunal at first was merely a movable chair ("'dictator — stipatus ea multitudine, sella in comitio posita, viatorem ad M. Manlium misit: qui — agmine ingenti ad tribunal venit," Liv. vi. 15). But if that was his meaning, the passages he cites in proof of it do not bear him out. In the first Livy merely says that a certain letter was carried through the forum to the tribunal of the praetor, the latter of course being on the comitium (" eae literae per foi'um ad tribunal prae- toris latae," xxvii. 50). The other two passages cited contain nothing at all relative to the suliject, nor can there be any doubt that in the early times of the Republic the comitium was the usual place on which the praetor took his seat. But that the tribunal was jnoved from the comitium to the forum is shown by the scholiasts on Horace whom Becker quotes. Thus Porphyrio says: " Puteal auteni Libonis sedes prae- toris fuit prope Arcum Fabianum, dictum([ue quod a Libone illic primum tribunal et subsellia locata sint." Priimim here is not an adjective to be joined with tribunal — i. e. " that the first or original tri- bunal was placed there by Libo; " but an adverb — " that the tribunal was first placed there by Libo." The former version would be nonsense, because Libo's tribunal could not possibly have been the iirst. Besides the meaning is unambiguously shown by the Schol. Cruq.: "puteal Lil.'onis ; tribunal: Quod autem ait JAbonis, hinc sumsit, quod is j)riinus tribunal inforo statuerit." If the authority ROMA. of these scholiasts is suspicious as to the fact of this removal, though there are no apparent grounds for suspicion, yet Becker at all events is not in a condi- tion to invalidate their testimony. He has quoted them to prove the situation of tiie puteal ; and if they are good for that, they are also good to prove the removal of the tribunal. Yet with great in- consistency, he tacitly assumes that the tribunal had always stood in its original place, that is, on the comitium, and by the puteal, contrary to the express evidence that the latter was on the forum. (" Puteal locus erat in foro" Sch. Cruq. ad Sat. ii. 6. 35.) Libo flourished about a century and a half before Christ. [SeeZi/ci!. o/iJio^r?-. Vol. II. p. 779.] Now all the examples cited by Becker in which the tribunal is alluded to as being on the comitium, are previous to this date. The first two in note 457 might be passed over, as they relate not to the praetor but to the dictator and consuls ; nevertheless, they are both anterior to the time of Libo, the first belonging to the year b. c. 382 and the second to 204. The passage from Gellius " ad praetorem in comitium," being a quotation from the XII. Tables, is of course long prior to the same period. The passage in Varro (v. § 155, Mlill.), which derives the name of comitium from the practice of coming together there (coire) for the decision of suits, of course refers to the very origin of the place. A passage from Plautus can prove nothing, since he died nearly half a century before the change effected by Libo. The passage alluded to in Macrobius (ii. 12) must be in the quotation from the speech of C. Titius in favour of the Lex Fannia: " Inde ad comitium vadunt, ne litem suam faciant ; veniunt in comitium tristes, &c." But the Lex Fannia was passed in b. c. 164 (Jlacrob. ii. 13); or even if we put it four years later, in b. c. 160, still before the probable date of Libo's alteration; who appears to have been tri- bune in B. c. 149. Thus the argument does not merely break down, but absolutely recoils against its inventor; for if, as the Scholia Cruquiana in- form US, Libo moved the tribunal from the comi- tium to the forum, and placed it near the jiuteal, then it is evident that this part of the area could not have been the comitium. The comitium, then, being neither on the south nor the east sides of the forum, we must try our fortune on the north and west, where it is to be hoped we shall be more successful. The only me- thod which promises a satisfactory result is, to seek it with other objects with which we know it to have been connected. Now one of these is the Vulcanai. We learn from Fcstus that the comitium stood be- neath the Vulcanai: "in Volcanali, quod est supra Comitium " (p. 290, Jliill.). In like manner Diony- sius describes the Vulcanai as standing a little above the forum, using, of course, the latter word in a general sense for the whole area, including the comitium: Ka ra^ avvohovs ivraiidae-noiovvTO, tu li(pai.(TTOv xpriixaTi^ovTes I'fpy, fJ-iKphv eirave- o-t7)ki5ti rf/s ayopcis (ii. 50). Wliere ifp6p is not to be taken of a proper temple (vaos), but signifies merely an area consecrated to the god, and having probably an altar. It was a rule that a temijle of Vulcan should be outside the town (Vitruv. i. 7); and thus in later times we find one in the Campus JIartius (" tactam de caelo aedem in campo Vulcani," Liv. xxiv. 10). Tliat the Vulcanai was merely an open space is manifest from its a].pellation of area, and from the accounts we read of rain falling upon it (Liv. xxxix. 46, si. 19), of buildings be.ng
