to a shapeless platform, and a few pieces of oriental marble."-vol. i. Diss. vii.

The epoch of the destruction of the Temple has been the subject of controversy, and we are not quite sure that Mr. Burgess has cleared up the obscurity in which it has been involved. The Anonymous of the eighth century read an inscription upon it entire, and he also mentions a Church of S. Sergius, at or near the arch of Septimius Severus, which Anastatius states to have been demolished about 40 years afterwards by a timorous Dean, on account of his fear of the Temple, (probably that of Concord,) conspicuously situated above it. Pope Hadrian the First rebuilt this Church from its foundations and greatly enlarged it in 772, and to this, Mr. Burgess attributes the first injury of the Temple of Concord, aggravated, as he thinks, by the fire of Robert Guiscard three centuries later, and afterwards consummated by the Senator Brancaglione, in 1257, who laid waste the whole Church and Temple too; 66 so that in the commencement of the 15th century, the Temple of Concord was effectually lost."

But how is this to be reconciled with the account of Poggio in the 15th century, who says that he saw, at his coming to Rome, the portico of the Temple of Concord at first almost entire, and afterwards perishing before his eyes, having been burnt for lime. Mr. Burgess disposes of this very easily, declaring that Poggio applied the name to the more visible eight columns hard by, and knew not of the true vestiges which have been so triumphantly restored to light; but these columns were of granite, and Poggio expressly declares that the portico he saw was of beautiful marble.

"Porticus ædis Concordiæ, quam, cum primum ad urbem accessi, vidi fere integram opere marmoreo admodum specioso; Romani postmodum ad calcem ædem totam et porticus partem disjectis columnis sunt demoliti."

It was easy for this scholar, misled by some fashionable tradition, to have confounded the ruins of one temple with those of another, but he could not easily mistake massive granite pillars for beautiful marble, nor could they burn granite into lime; and if it be said that the pillars might have been granite and the rest of the ornaments fine marble, which the construction will scarcely bear, how are we to reconcile the expression, "disjectis columnis," with the supposition of his describing a portico with pillars of granite still standing?

The question is not of much importance, and it is with some diffidence that we oppose our opinions to that of Mr. Burgess, but we do think that he has treated Poggio somewhat unceremo

niously; the inscription on the Architrave read by Poggio, is we confess, a difficulty.

Gibbon indeed says, that he saw at Rome a MS. attributed to Gravina, in which it was said that the Temple of Concord was destroyed in the 13th century: but he rejects this testimony.

Under this impression, observing that not one of the authors cited by Mr. Burgess affirms the destruction of the temple before the 15th century, and that one so competent as Poggio saw and described it then, we are compelled to believe that it was not destroyed till afterwards.

The neighbouring temple, that of Jupiter Tonans, affords occasion to Mr. Burgess for many valuable remarks, which we recommend to our readers.

The next question which arises in this scene is of an interest purely antiquarian, and has long divided the opinions of learned men at Rome, namely, the position of several celebrated buildings which crowned the summit or adorned the slopes of the Ca pitoline Hill, particularly the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the Arx or Citadel, the Capitolium, and the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. It is well known to all who have visited this city that the Capitoline Hill, which is of an elliptic form, is divided into two summits, separated by a space once called Intermontium, now chiefly occupied by the edifices of the Campidoglio; that upon the northern summit stands the church of Ara Cæli with its monastery, and upon the southern, which is nearer to the Tyber, are the Palazzo Caffarelli, with its gardens, an open area, and a number of wretched houses calculated to excite pity or disgust; also the Monte Caprino, with some gardens sloping to the forum. The hill has lost much of its heighth from various causes the filling up of the platform below, the gradual wear and tear of the elements, and the falling of masses of Tufo from above, one of which is mentioned by Livy as falling into the Vicus Jugarius, and another, as large as a "palazzo," by Biondo, in the 15th century, which killed five men in an Osteria.

Nardini contends that the Citadel stood on the southern summit, and the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, where the Ara Cæli now stands, on the other, with the Asylum between them; the Arx and Capitolium being always spoken of as two distinct things, particularly by Livy. Donatus reverses this order, and Marliano pleads for the station of the Citadel on Ara Cæli, in which he seems to have been supported by the learned German, Niebuhr, in his History of Rome, vol. i. p. 440.-Hare and Thirlwell's Translation. Dr. Burton places the citadel on the southern summit, and the Capitolium on the northern, relying upon the passages of Livy quoted by Nardini, and one more pointed

in Val. Max. On the other hand, J. Rycquius, who has dedicated a whole volume to the subject, divides the Mount into three distinct parts, the Arx or Fortress, into which he puts the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, on the southern side, the Saxum or Rock from which malefactors were thrown, and the Capitolium, which he thinks was the name applied to the northern summit. This distribution Mr. Burgess, after much discussion, adopts, with this exception, that instead of calling the Ara Cæli summit the Capitolium, he would call it Mons Capitolinus, and apply the term Tarpeian Cliff more generally to the other summit, the Saxum being a bold piece of rock looking towards the Tyber. We now subjoin his reasoning, which we think for the most part well supported

"The Capitolium, in its strictest sense, certainly meant the great Temple of Jupiter, with the many other splendid edifices around it. Tacitus has already proved this to us sufficiently, and if more were wanting, we might bring the authorities of Suetonius and Dio. It cannot indeed be denied, that these names were sometimes taken in a more general acceptation, but that will not affect the propriety of these distinctions.

"The point we are next concerned in proving is, that the fortress and the Capitol (the proper "seat of I. O. M.") were both upon the same summit; and for this purpose it will be sufficient to cite, of the prose writers, these three-Plutarch, Dionysius, and Livy. The former, after correcting the erroneous traditions which prevailed about the origin of a name, observes, that after the death of the virgin Tarpeia the hill was called Tarpeius, until King Tarquin consecrated the place to Jupiter. Henceforth the name of Tarpeia ceased to prevail, except for the rock from which they threw the criminals, and this they still call now in the Capitol "Tarpeia.' ."* If it be alleged that the word Capitol may here be taken for the whole mount, the same writer, a little after, says, "If the Temple of Jove was consecrated when the bones of Tarpeia were buried, and they were transported thence, yet the cliff retained the name Tarpeia; and this affords a proof the bones had been near the cliff where afterwards the temple was.' Dionysius, still more accurate, speaking of Herdonius, who took possession of the Capitol in the year of Rome 294, says, he approached the city by the place where the Capitolium is, being not quite one stadium (625 feet) from the river. Having entered by the gate called Carmentalis, which was open, and advancing his forces he took possession of the garrison, and thence proceeded to the citadel, which is contiguous to the Capitolium. In the celebrated account which Livy gives us of the attempts of the Goths and the valour of T. Manlius, we invariably find him mentioning the Arx and Capitolium as two distinct things, but as always involved in the same danger or success. The of Manlius was destroyed, and it was

""

*Plutarch. in Romulo, p. 28, edit. Lutet. Paris, 1624. † Propert. lib. iv, eleg. i. 7.

henceforth forbid that any patrician should have his habitation in the citadel or the capitol; and when he was thrown from the Tarpeian rock, it is remarked by the historian that the same spot which was the citadel, was the scene of his glory and of his condign punishment. The site of his house was afterwards occupied by the Temple and Mint of Juno Moneta. If we turn to the poets, the authorities, with all allowance for poetical license are still more abundant. Manlius is said to be standing before the temple, and in possession of the lofty capitol, the guardian of the Tarpeian rock, the Tarpeian father is said to thunder from the naked cliff;* in a style of prophecy Silius Italicus describes the golden capitol on the Tarpeian rock, and Ovid salutes the Tarpeian Jove who holds the citadel. Nor can it be forgotten how clearly Tacitus describes the Capitolium and the Capitoline fortress in one place; whilst Suetonius, relating the same transaction, equally declares that the Temple of I. O. M. was set on fire. In short, if it were expedient to bring together all the authorities, nothing can be more clearly established than the fact, that the great Temple of Jove, with the adjoining edifices, collectively called the Capitolium, and the citadel, called the " Arx Capitolina," both stood on that part of the mount called the Tarpeian rock, and that this was the southern summit needs no demonstration."-vol. I. Diss. vii.

We pass over Mr. Burgess's description of the situation of the citadel, and will only add that of the Temple of I. O. M.

"Our next inquiry is for the site of the famous Temple of I. O. M., of which Dionysius has left us a most accurate description. We are informed that Tarquin, the fifth King of Rome, first laid ont an extensive platform, by levelling the rugged and uneven parts of the rock, and building up the space with immense substructions, so that an area suitable for such an edifice might, in the first instance, be inaugurated. W'e shall not dwell upon the purifying of the soil, and the lofty basement upon which the edifice was reared. It was in all eight "plethra," or 770 feet in circuit, being about 200 feet in length and 185 in width. Its elevation was towards the south, and the portico in that direction had three rows of columns, but only a double row on the flanks. The interior was divided into three cells, parallel to one another, and the walls of separation were common. The cella in the midst was of Jupiter; that of Juno on the left; Minerva's on the right,-all under the same roof and ceiling. This description of the temple, however, is as it was rebuilt by Sylla. He replaced the original pilasters of simple stone with the splendid columns of Pentelic marble, which he brought from the Temple of Jupiter Olympius in Greece, but there is no reason to suppose he made any change in the original ground plan. The cells, although under the same roof, had each its own elevation: for we read of the gilded "Quadriga," and the twelve glittering shields which adorned the tympanum of Jupiter's cella. This is represented in a medal extant. The statue appears thereon in a sitting posture, much resembling the brazen image now adored in St. Peter's, especially in the

*Dello Punico, lib. iii. 625.

+ Metamorph. lib. xv. 867.

attitude of stretching forward the foot. We learn also that the head was adorned with a radiated crown. Pope Honorius I. took away the bronze tiles of the Capitol, to make use of for the old Basilica of St. Peter, and this may be the reason why some suppose the statue of Jupiter was also taken away for the same purpose; but to pursue this inquiry would lead us from our subject. In the same cella was a statue of Scipio Africanus. In that of Minerva, there was the small chapel of "Youth" (Juventus,) above which was a painting representing the rape of Proserpine. The ceilings were gorgeously gilded; the pavement of the finest materials; the doors were of bronze overlaid with gold; and a profusion of statues and other objects of surpassing art embellished the whole. But as all these things are probably lost for ever, it would be a needless task to endeavour to enumerate them."-Vol. I. Diss. vii.

The history of this temple is very curious. Tarquinius Priscus was the founder of it after the Sabine war. But he might rather be said to have measured out the foundations by the hope of future greatness, than by the actual resources of the Roman people at that period. Servius Tullius, and after him Tarquinius Superbus, upon capturing the city of Suessa Pometia, continued the work; but the glory of it, says Tacitus, was reserved for the epoch of liberty. In the 247th year of the city the Capitol was finished, and dedicated by Horatius Pulvillus; and upon a scale of magnificence suited to the wealth and power of succeeding ages. In the consulship of L. Scipio and C. Norbanus it fell a prey to the flames of civil war. Sylla undertook to build it a second time upon the old foundations, and regretted, as the only thing wanting to complete his happiness, that he had not lived to finish his work, which devolved upon the Consul Quintus Lutatius Catulus, whose name existed upon the tabularium until the 16th century. Julius Cæsar is said to have stolen out of the Capitol 3000 lbs. weight of gold; but Augustus amply repaired the loss by carrying into the cell of Jupiter 16,000 lbs. of gold at one time, besides gems to the value of £403,645 sterling. To this we may add a variety of golden crowns, victories, silver tables, vases, candelabra, and every object of luxurious art. In this state it was besieged, and set on fire in the face of the whole city, in the civil war between Vitellius and the Flavian party, A. D. 70. Vespasian restored it, and endeavoured to supply the lost copies of the decrees; but it was burnt a third time, and Domitian raised it with greater magnificence than ever, bestowing on the gilding alone twelve thousand talents, that is, £1,976,250 sterling.

There is no reason to suppose this immense wealth was ever invaded until the calamitous times of Honorius. (A. D. 393-402.)