[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
mail:
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]
Italiano

[Link to a series of help pages]
Help
[Link to the next level up]
Up
[Link to my homepage]
Home

This webpage reproduces an article in the
Transactions
of the American Philological Association

Vol. 56 (1925), pp54‑69

The text is in the public domain.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though, please let me know!

p54 The Velia: a Study in Historical Topography
By Professor Homer Franklin Rebert
Adelbert College of Western Reserve University

To few, perhaps, outside of specialists in Roman topography is it known that the term Velia, like many another topographical name, is considerably more lacking in clearness and definiteness than our handbooks give us reason to suspect. Platner's Topography, styled by Ashby1 'the most useful handbook on the subject in English, or indeed in any language,' follows earlier authorities in representing the Velia on his diagrams as a small oval-shaped hill standing alone in the plain between Esquiline and Palatine,2 a picture for which it is difficult to find any authority in the physical features at present discernible on the site.3 What we really have here is a saddle connecting the Palatine with the Esquiline and forming a dividing line between valleys to the east and west of it. For the rounded, isolated summit of the so‑called Velia, no evidence can be found in the actual levels.4

We are led to believe, moreover, that the so‑called Velia was 'more frequently referred to in literature as the Summa p55Sacra Via,'5 a view, unfortunately, that does not find support in any literary reference. Augustus, in fact, offers positive evidence against this belief, when, in listing the buildings that he had construct or reconstructed, he writes,6 Aedem Larum in summa sacra via, aedem deum Penatium in Velia.

The truth of the matter is that there was at the disposal of the topographer very meager evidence for interpreting and defining the Velia, and the result was that his own conjecture, without being subjected to historical criticism, was too readily accepted as actual fact in the manuals.

Two considerations make it seem desirable to attempt again a definition of this term Velia which, as a matter of fact, occurs none too frequently in the literature. The first is that the progress made in our knowledge of Rome's early history, proceeding from a study of the primitive Italic peoples and also from an analytical study of Roman religion, offers an additional means for testing the rather obscure accounts on which mainly our knowledge of the word depends. The second is that Dr. E. B. Van Deman in a study of the Neronian Sacra Via7 has taken occasion to identify, beyond any question, the street on which the temple of the Penates (in Velia) stood and Mr. Philip B. Whitehead in a new study8 of the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano has identified in an equally definitive way the site of the Augustan structure. We are thus supplied with a definite point of departure for studying the evidence anew.

The current conception of the Velia seems to be that it formed part of the Palatine city although outside its wall, that it was a separate hill with definitely marked physical delimitation, and that it continued in use as a topographical p56term throughout the length of Rome's history. A building, whether erected 509 B.C. or in the time of Hadrian, is located by the statement that it stood on the Velia. A glance at the literary references, however, suggests that the Velia, be it hill or district or ridge or slope, is associated chiefly with the early period of Rome's history and that the word was not in general use in the later period. But before we enter upon this question, let us see, if we can, what was the earliest meaning attached to the word.

Of prime importance in this connection is Labeo's account of the Septimontium as recorded by Festus (348): Septimontio, ut ait Antistius Labeo, hisce montibus feriae: Palatio, cui sacrificium quod fit, Palatuar dicitur; Veliae, cui item sacrificium; Fagutali, Suburae, Cermalo, Oppio, Caelio monti, Cispio monti. Wissowa, in an article entitled "Septimontium und Subura,"9 comes to the conclusion that Septimontium was the name of a period in the city's existence as well as the name of a religious festival, and that it must have antedated the City of Four Regions. Obvious objections to this theory were presented and discussed by Professor Platner.10 Several years later Carter11 contended that the "detailed study of the festival indicated that it was a celebration carried out jointly by seven small communities rather than a celebration by seven parts of the city. The Septimontium proves the league of seven communities, rather than the existence of one city containing all seven of them."

The Velia, at all events, was one of seven montes that participated in the celebration of the Septimontium. But the question arises as to what the meaning of mons is here. Kornemann,12 in discussing the nature of the settlements of primitive Italic peoples, points out that it was characteristic of these peoples to build their villages on the hilltops and to p57fortify the limits of their settlement with a wall. To these settlements they gave the name oppida while to the lowland districts outside was given the name pagi, whence the inhabitants were called respectively oppidani and pagani. Now the point of interest for us here is that the oppidani were also referred to as montani, which leads us to the conclusion that the seven montes in Labeo's account have to do with oppida built on the hilltops of territory that later formed part of the first Roman urbs. And this conclusion seems to be strengthened by the references in literature to montani Velienses, montani Cermalenses, etc. That is to say, the name, montani, applied to inhabitants of oppida, the primitive Italic villages, persists down into late republican times, but only in connection with the survival of the "feria non populi sed montanorum modo."13 A case in point is the inscription,14 found "alle Sette Sale," which refers to Mag(istri) et flamin(es) montan(orum) montis Opp(i), 'il primo ed unico monumento che ricordi il monte Oppio.'15 The montani montis Oppi, at first the settlers of one of seven separate communities (oppida) that united to celebrate the Septimontium, later, when their settlement was merged in territory of the first Roman city (i.e. urbs), did not break up this sacral union but continued to perform their religious offices around their local centers (sacra pro montibus).16

The matter of first importance for us to note here is that these montes of the Septimontium, Oppius, Cispius, Cermalus, Velia, etc., have mainly to do with individual settlements before ever Rome began. In a word, the passage in Festus has historical rather than topographical interest for us. Oppius and Cispius, for example, are not component parts of the Esquiline, but rather points or districts included within the limits of the hill later known as the Esquiline. In fact the terms Oppius and Cispius have a very limited topographical p58application,17 after the pomerium is drawn around the first Roman urbs. To be sure, the religious formulae quoted by Varro18a do mention Oppius mons and Cespius mons, but this can be easily explained, since it is but natural that, when the Greek rite19 of the Argei priests was introduced, places with ancient religious associations such as the Oppius, Cispius, Cermalus, Fagutal and Velia should be used in their religious formulae to give them an archaic touch. Just before quoting the passage, Varro18b says: Pars (Oppius pars) Cespius mons suo antiquo nomine etiam nunc in sacris appellatur, showing clearly that these words, Oppius and Cespius, were practically obsolete in his own day. Varro, too, it must be remembered, as Professor Platner20 shows in a study of the Seven Hills of Rome, was apparently ignorant of the "original content of the Septimontium as given by Labeo," and his reference to the montes of the Septimontium will constitute no exception to the thesis I am trying to establish, viz., that the montes of Labeo's statement have practically no place in the topographical history of the Roman Republic. That these names have survived at all is due entirely to the survival of the festival of the Septimontium with which they had been associated.

To the Roman of Cicero's day the Seven Hills referred unquestionably to those of the Servian city, and it was difficult even for the antiquarian Varro to conceive of the Septimontium as differing materially from the political organization of his own day. The first septimontium, however, belongs to an earlier chapter of Rome's history.

It may be well, by way of digression, to consider here the fact that in the list21 of Septimontial hills eight names are given instead of seven. Many devices22 have been suggested to reduce the montes to the required number, but none seem p59to be wholly acceptable, and Lindsay in his edition of 1913 prints the text as transmitted without offering any solution of the problem. Perhaps the least objectionable theory is that of Wissowa,23 who, noting that Caelio changes its position in the lists of Festus and Paulus, suggests that it was inserted as an explanation of Subura; but since Caelio follows Subura in none of the lists, it would be hazardous to give to much weight to the conjecture. The order of words in all three of these lists suggests to me that Antistius Labeo — the passages in Festus and that in Paulus all go back to him as their source — inserts Fagutali(a) as an explanation of Velia. In the Augustan age, it seems, as I shall endeavor to show below, the phrase in Velia was used exclusively in connection with the Aedes deum Penatium, the site of which was at the foot of a slope close to the Forum,24 in all probability in the vicinity of the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano. This connotation that the word would have for the people of this age would need a correction of some kind, because, as we have shown above, the Velia that participated in the Septimontium was an oppidum, a fortified settlement on the hilltop, and it must have included within its limits the ridge at S. Francesca Romana together with some of the territory stretching forth from this point over toward the Esquiline. This, in fact, is a force that the epithet Fagutali could easily convey, for the Fagutal we know was the name given to a sacellum25 which, while it cannot be assigned to any definite position, certainly is to be located somewhere between S. Pietro in Vincoli and Santa Francesca Romana.

It is interesting to note in this connection that the device of considering Veliae Fagutali together was suggested a good many years ago, but later rejected, because topographers falsely argued that the Velia and Fagutal were separated by too great a distance.

p60 Moreover, outside of the passage under consideration, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the word Fagutal ever had anything to do with a hill. Paulus (87) in defining Fagutal says merely, Sacellum Iovis, in quo fuit fagus arbor, quae Iovis sacra habebatur. Varro (L. L. V.152) derives Fagutal "a fago, unde etiam Iovis Fagutalis, quod ibi sacellum." There are several other occurrences of the word, but in every instance it is the epithet of a grove (lucus fageus)26 or the sacellum of Jupiter in that lucus — no confirming example of mons Fagutalis, no reference to montani Fagutales.

That there was, on the contrary, a Mons Velia, at least during the time of the Septimontial league, there can be no doubt, and when spoken of in this connection it means one of the seven communities that took part in the religious festival. But it does not always have this force when it occurs in the classical authors. Two other classes of references can be clearly distinguished — those that have to do with the stories about the Valerian gens, and those that refer to the temple of the Penates. In the former it is a ridge, moderately high and steep;27 in the latter, a conventional phrase that was regularly added to Aedes Penatium whenever this temple was referred to. Augustus, for example, writes in the Monumentum Ancyranum (4.7): Aedem deum Penatium in Velia, where Velia does not furnish necessary topographical information, but preserves with characteristic conservatism the form in which the name regularly appeared in official or sacred records. The word Velia, then, is used in three different senses. It is (1) the name of an oppidum, (2) the name of a ridge, and (3) part of a quasi-formal phrase that came in time to be almost entirely devoid of any topographical content. This does not mean, however, that there is no common denominator, but it does mean that if we would define the term Velia and trace the history of its use, we must be fully cognizant of the varying shades of meaning that our source material contains.

p61 If the three uses just noted are to be accepted, it is clear that, in the first place, some reasonable explanation should be presented for this variation in meaning. If Velia in Festus means (as we are sure that it does) an independent community (oppidum), how can it come to mean in Livy's or Plutarch's or Cicero's account of the Valerian myth merely a hill, or slope, in the ordinary sense of the term?

The explanation is to be found in the origin of the story about Publicola, who was said to have built a house on the top of the Velia and later to have brought it down to the foot of the slope. Honorary monuments28 of the Valerii found behind the basilica of Maxentius apparently confirm the statement made in classical authors that a place for a sepulcher was granted to Valerius near the Forum sub Velia.29 The existence of this sepulcher near the foot of a slope, together with some evidence that the top of this slope had been or seemed to have been at some previous time a fortified or impregnable spot overlooking the Forum, would have afforded all the necessary facts for the later members of the Valerian gens to evolve this aetiological tale about their ancestors. Mons Velia, the fortified oppidum of the Septimontium, later, when it was merged in the Roman urbs, must have retained some evidence of its independent existence. If, however, (and this seems more likely), the story of Publicola came into being several hundred years after the events of which it tells, the basis for the arx expugnabile of Livy's account (II.7) could well be some imposing building in the Carinae, which we shall endeavor to show below in confirmation of Miss Van Deman's conjecture30 was located on the top of the slope with which the name Velia has been associated.

But why is this slope, this ridge overlooking the Forum, called the Velia? When Livy (II.7) and Dionysius (V.19) say that Valerius Publicola built a house on the Velia, they p62have in mind a hill which was so called at the beginning of the republic, not a section of the city which was commonly designated thus in their own day. That Velia as the name of a ridge was ever in common use, can well be doubted. But Dionysius (I.68) explicitly informs us that sub Velia was used colloquially to refer to a little street leading to the Carinae, and sub Velia would seem to point to a Velia as its origin, presumably the Mons Velia of the Septimontium. A little street beneath the oppidum Veliense could very naturally be called sub Velia, and continue to be designated in this way long after the Septimontial Velia, for obvious reasons, passed out of use, as did Oppius and Cispius. When, however, the burial place of the Valerii was regularly referred to as being sub Velia, it is not difficult to understand why a tale purporting to represent conditions at beginning of the republic should ascribe the name Velia to the slope and hill above the sub Velia. But there is no reason to believe that Romans of the Republic applied the word Velia to any slope or hill to indicate the location of buildings of their own day. This second class of references to the Velia, as we shall endeavor to show at greater length below, must be ruled out as topographical source-material.

As for the in Velia that was appended to aedes deum Penatium, this seems to have become part of the name given to the shrine in formal statements or public documents. The words of Augustus in the Monumentum Ancyranum have been quoted above. In Livy, 16.5 we read: De prodigiis deinde nuntiatis senatus est consultus. Aedes deum Penatium in Velia de caelo tacta erat. It would seem very probable that in the time of Augustus the phrase in Velia is little more than a formal epithet that survives because the religious practice of the Romans admitted of no change in such matters. But whether or not it is used at this time to give any topographical information, this must have been the reason for its use in the first instance. What was the location it indicated then?

p63 Fortunately, we are not in doubt about the location of the Aedes deum Penatium. Dr. E. B. Van Deman (A. J. A. XXVII (1923), 395) demonstrates that it was not far from the Sacra Via on the ancient street that can still be traced along the east side of the temple of Romulus, "the street leading to the Carinae" (τὴν ἐπὶ Καρίνας φέρουσαν ὁδόν). Part of the remains belonging to the so‑called Temple of the Sacred City Whitehead (see n. 8) attributes to the rebuilding of this temple by Augustus. This, then, must have been the district referred to by the words in Velia if they ever gave any definite topographical information when applied to the temple of the Penates.

But a contemporary31 of Augustus expressly informs us that the temple was located in a place which in the vernacular of the people was called sub Velia; and this fact is supported further by the inscriptions found behind the basilica of Maxentius, since they point to this as the location of the burial place of the Valerian gens, which is said to have been sub Velia. Unquestionably, this phrase sub Velia gives the exact location of the Aedes deum Penatium, and, even apart from its identification, gives rise to the difficulty of explaining why a temple which was really sub Velia should regularly have applied to it the descriptive phrase in Velia. Perhaps Cicero or Varro can help us here.

In one place (Rep. II.53), Cicero writes: P. Valerius . . . aedis suas detulit sub Veliam, posteaquam, quod in excelsiore loco Veliae coepisset aedificare eo ipso, ubi rex Tullius habitaverat, suspicionem populi sensit moveri. In another place (Har. Resp. 16) he says: P. Valerio pro maximis in rem publicam beneficiis data domus est in Velia publice, at mihi in Palatio restituta. The contradiction between these two passages is obvious. In the first, P. Valerius is represented as bringing his house down sub Veliam on account of the suspicion of the people; in the second, a house is presented p64to him at public expense in recognition of his distinguished services to the state. In the one case, the house is located sub Velia; in the other, in Velia, where this phrase is balanced by the similar one, in Palatio. The house of Valerius on the Velia (an elevation, apparently, corresponding to the Palatine) is compared with that of Cicero on the Palatine. One sees immediately that Cicero is adapting the Valerian tradition to the requirements of the subject he is treating. It suggests, what is confirmed by the testimony of other authors, that little accuracy of detail, topographical or other, is to be expected in the tales recounted about Publicola. The matter of topography, at all events, is the least of considerations in this connection. Even the name of the man who plays the chief rôle in the story varies, according to Asconius,32 in different authorities. Antias makes Marcus Valerius the hero of the tale, while Julius Hyginus makes the son of Publicola play the same part. According to one version the house is built on the Palatine; according to another, on the Velia (either in Velia or sub Velia). Topography, it is evident, cannot be based on material such as this. Which, of course, does not mean that there did not exist in the mind of Cicero or others of his time the hazy notion that the topographical background for the traditional account of the Valerian myth was to be found in one of those two slopes between which the Sacra Via33 wends its way from the Forum toward the east,34 and preferably in the one to the north, at whose foot stood the monuments of the Valerii. Others, apparently, found this identification inadequate, and laid the scene for another version of the story on the Palatine, the ridge to the south of the Sacra Via.

Varro, like Cicero, evinces little interest in topographical facts. As quoted by Nonius (531), he says: Tullum Hostilium in Veliis (Solinus, I.22, who apparently is also quoting p65Varro, says "in Velia"), ubi nunc est aedis deum Penatium. The contradiction here scarcely needs to be pointed out. Tullus Hostilius certainly was not thought to have lived where in Varro's own day stood the temple of the Penates. Tradition makes it perfectly clear that Tullus Hostilius lived on the top of a hill named Velia, at the very spot where later Valerius Publicola started to build his own house. The temple of the Penates, on the other hand, was at the foot of a slope, on the street leading up to the Carinae. The only way to account for this statement is to say that in this instance at least Varro is not the topographer but the antiquarian scholar, quoting what he finds in his sources. He finds the expression, in Velia, applied both to Tullus Hostilius and the temple of the Penates, and, consequently, writes that Hostilius lived where in his day the temple stood, without stopping to think that in Velia in the former case had the force of in summa Velia, as the account of Livy shows.

Varro (L. L. V.54) serves us better when he quotes from the sacra Argeorum: Veliense sexticeps in Velia apud aedem deum Penatium. It is here I think that we can see the origin of the phrase in Velia as applied to the Aedes deum Penatium. It may be true, as Wissowa thinks, that the Greek rite of the Argei was introduced in the third century; still, the quotation shows that an Aedes deum Penatium antedated the introduction of this rite. In fact the date of the first temple of the Penates must be placed considerably ahead of the third century, if Velia and Veliense here are to be explained in the way in which we have shown above the similar names, Oppius, Cespius, and Cermalus (Germalense), must necessarily be interpreted in quotations from the same source. In a word, Velia refers to a locus in the city, one of the septem loci mentioned by Antistius Labeo in his account of the Septimontium festival. In the case of the other montes of the Septimontium we have shown that the names lived on, if at all, merely for the reason that religious celebrations continued to be observed around these centers. The Aedes deum Penatium, however, p66may not date from the time when the Velia was an independent settlement, but it must be placed at a time when Velia as the name of a district had not yet passed out of general use.

But before proceeding further with the Velia it will be necessary to discuss briefly the question of the Carinae. In annotated editions of classical texts it has become the fashion to say that the Carinae occupied the ridge where the church of S. Pietro in Vincoli now stands. Topographers, however, have shown no tendency to be in complete accord as to its exact location. S. Pietro in Vincoli has, for obvious reasons, usually figured in their discussions, but the final view in most cases favors a site closer to the Forum. Huelsen, for example, at first seems to cast his vote for S. Pietro in Vincoli, but later makes it clear that a corrective must be added. Accordingly, we find that on his maps (Kiepert-Huelsen, Formae Urbis Romae Antiquae, Berlin, 1912) he places the Carinae midway between S. Pietro in Vincoli and S. Francesca Romana, and the Aedes Telluris (in Carinis) still farther to the southwest (along the Via del Colosseo). As favoring a site not far removed from S. Francesca Romana, the following considerations may be mentioned. Two roads lead to the Carinae from the media pars urbis. One is the Sacra Via, which, following the line of the valley between the Palatine and the ridge to the north, crosses the Summa Sacra Via, which and after partly encircling the height of S. Francesca Romana reaches the Sacellum Streniae (in Carinis) at a point to the north or northeast of this height. The other street, branching off toward the northeast from the Sacra Via, makes a short cut (ἐπίτομον ὁδόν) to the same point (this street, which Dionysius, I.68, calls "τὴν ἐπὶ Καρίνας φέρουσαν ἐπίτομον ὁδόν," Dr. E. B. Van Deman has identified with the little street east of the templum Divi Romuli). The references to the Carinae in Cicero (Har. Resp. 49), Vergil (Aen. VIII.361), Horace (Ep. I.7.48), and Appian (B. C. II.126, 130, and 131) all suggest a site closer to the Forum than S. Pietro in Vincoli. In several passages (Livy, XXVI.10.1, media urbe per Carinas p67Esquilias contendit; Suet. Tib. 15, e Carinis ac Pompeiana domo Esquilias . . . transmigravit; cf. Livy, XXVI.10.5) the Carinae is referred to as a district leading to the Esquiliae. The site we have suggested for the Carinae would tend to clarify some troublesome features of Varro's account of the Four Regions, and especially the proximity of the Sucusa (and Caelian) to the Carinae (Pagus Succusanus, quod succurrit Carinis). A freedman of Pompey, Suetonius (de Gram. 15) tells us, taught in Carinis ad Telluris, and this temple Dionysius (VIII.79) says was situated κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Καρίνας φέρουσαν ὁδόν, the road which in another place (I.68) he calls ἐπίτομον. Remains of private buildings were discovered in the lengthening of the Via dei Serpenti (Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae, p29), thus pushing the probable position of the Aedes Telluris as far to the southwest as the Via del Colosseo at least. In the Curiosum Urbis the Templum Telluris is named just before the Tigillum Sororium and the Colosseum. And finally, there is the church of S. Maria in Carinis (Armellini, Chiese di Roma, 1887; C. L. Visconti, Bull. Com. XV (1887), 211), evidence which Huelsen rejects without sufficient reason.

Closely connected with this question of the Carinae is that of the early settlement of the Velia. How large the settlement was, we don't know; but, since a part of the "street leading to the Carinae" continued down into the time of Augustus to be designated as sub Velia, it is an easy conjecture that the early Velia (the oppidum on the hilltop of Septimontial times) extended from the sub Velia (the site of the Aedes Penatium) up to the top of the ridge, embracing some of the territory that came to be known as the Carinae not long after the Velia ceased to be independent and was merged in the Roman urbs. Since the sub Velia led to the Carinae, the Velia, certainly, must have occupied a part at least of what later became the Carinae together with the short street leading to it. In other words, the Carinae, that fashionable quarter of the city stretching from the height of S. Francesca Romana over p68toward that of S. Pietro in Vincoli, covered all the territory formerly occupied by the early oppidum known as Velia except the small area in the immediate vicinity of the Aedes Penatium. In addition to this temple, moreover, two other small shrines were located here, — those of Vica Pota and Mutunus Tutunus. Both these deities Wissowa35º is inclined to place among the oldest circle of gods, and when Festus (154) says: Mutini Titini sacellum fuit in Veliis, we can easily understand why the Sacellum Mutini Titini, as well as the Aedes deum Penatium, should ever have been referred to as being in Velia (or in Veliis). There can be little doubt that the worship of Mutinus Tutunus dates from the primitive Italic settlement of the Velia.

The third separate force, therefore, that we attributed to Velia turns out to be closely related to the first and derived directly from it, although at first glance they seem to be quite distinct. When, however, Augustus and Livy use the expression, Aedes deum Penatium in Velia, the original topographical force of Velia has, it would seem, entirely disappeared, and, because of this fact, it would not be incorrect to place the phrase, in Velia, in a separate category. There is no reason to believe that the word, Velia, in any sense whatsoever remained in use long after the time of Augustus.

Our conclusion then, is that from a topographical point of view the word Velia, in historical times, must be restricted to very narrow limits, — merely the lower portion of the little street leading to the Carinae, and that this district is the only one to which either sub Velia or in Velia actually refer. At this spot, we know, stood the small shrines of the Penates, of Vica Pota, of Mutunus Tutunus. Little more than this do we have authority for stating, except that the sepulcher of the Valerii was closely associated with the site of the sacellum of Vica Pota. The ridge above this spot, moreover, seems to have been connected somewhat loosely with the Velia of the p69Valerian tale, but no actual structure on this ridge was ever said to have been in Velia, for the reason that in historical times this district was regularly known as the Carinae. A section of the Carinae, together with the little street, popularly known as sub Velia, leading up to it, constituted in all probability the site of an Italic settlement named the Velia.


The Author's Notes:

1 J. R. S. II (1912), 278.

2 Platner, Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome (1911), frontispiece, Fig. 4, and Fig. 6; O. Richter, Topographie der Stadt Rom2 (Munich, 1901), Taf. 3; Carter-Huelsen, The Roman Forum, p2; Ruggiero, Il Foro Romano, p6; Kiepert-Huelsen, Formae Urbis Romae Antiquae (the maps do not agree with one another as to the limits of the so‑called Velia, which may also be said of two maps on the same page in Kiepert, Formae Orbis Antiqui, XXII). In reality the slope of the so‑called Velia extends in the direction of the Forum as far as the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina.

Thayer's Note: Platner's Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome was superseded by his own major reworking of it, the Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, as completed by Thomas Ashby (1929). In it, however, the article Velia blandly retains the identification that Rebert characterizes as just another conjecture.

3 Cf. Van Deman, A. J. A. XXVII (1923), 391 for discussion of levels in this district.

4 Equally difficult is it to find the evidence that justified Huelsen (Carter-Huelsen, p238) in referring to the junction of the Nova Via and Sacra Via as lying at the top of the Velia, for this point, marked q on his map (Pl. II), can scarcely be called the top of anything. The continuation of the Augustan Sacra Via, at all events, passing the Arch of Titus, continues to slope upwards to the Arch of Augustus on the Palatine.

5 Platner, op. cit. p33.

6 Monum. Ancyr. IV.7. Cf. Solinus, I.22: Tullus Hostilius in Velia, . . . Ancus Marcius in summa sacra via.

7 A. J. A. XXVII (1923), 395.

8 For the original study see La Chiesa dei SS. Cosma e Damiano, Nuovo Bull. Arch. Crist. XIX (1913), 143‑165. The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute, is soon to be published.

9 Satura Viadrina, pp1‑19 (= Wissowa's Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Munich, 1904, pp230‑252).

10 Class. Phil. I (1906), 76 ff.

11 A. J. A. XII (1908), 178.

12 "Polis und Urbs," Klio, V.72 ff.

13 Varro, L. L. VI.24.

14 CIL VI.32455.

15 G. Gatti, Bull. Com. XV, 157.

16 Varro, l.c.

17 These terms, of course, must have disappeared from use quite gradually.

18a 18b L. L. V.50.

19 Wissowa in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Argei.

20 Class. Phil. I (1906), 79.

21 Festus, 340, 348; Paulus, 341.

22 Mueller deletes Caelio; Niebuhr strikes out Subura.

23 Op. cit. (n. 19).

24 Dion H. I.6; Van Deman, l.c.

25 Paulus, 87.

26 Plin. H.N. XVI.37.

27 Dion H. V.19; Plut. Publ. 10; Livy, II.7.

28 Lanciani, Bull. Com. IV, 48 ff.; Henzen, Eph. Epigr. III, 1.

29 Dion H. V.48; Cic. Leg. II.58; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 79; Jord. I.2, pp416 ff.

30 Op. cit. 390 (n. 3).

31 Dion H. I.68.

32 In Pis. 52.

33 Van Deman, A. J. A. XXVII (1923), 390.

34 I.e. to the Summa Sacra Via.

35º Religion und Kultus der Römer, pp243 ff.


[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 7 Oct 12