« ZurückWeiter »
The author of the Free Enquiry' was no enthusiast, even in the cause of his favourite Cicero, and the emotions which he confesses himself to have felt will be assuredly partaken by any one imbued with a moderate respect for the wisest and best man of all antiquity. Every site and relic that can remind us of him must be regarded with that veneration with which he himself contemplated the porticoes and seats of the Athenian philosophers : and we treasure up the little dies of the pavement which lie scattered on the Formian shore, and may possibly have been trodden by the saviour of his country, with an affectionate regard scarcely inspired by the masterpieces of ancient art.*
There is certainly no delight comparable with that derived from the sight of objects connected with the writings and actions of those, who, according to the panegyric of Dryden,
“ Better lived than we, though less they knew—”
How fully such a delight is enjoyed at Rome may be understood by the most ignorant, and is experienced by the most indifferent observer. The fear of ridicule, the vice of the age, is, in this instance, insufficient to check the honest indistinct admiration, which, it may be some consolation for the timid to learn from competent authority, is not the sign of folly, but of superior sense, and is the sole origin of wisdom.* The memory of the great orator was preserved at Rome even in the ages of ignorance. In the twelfth century, an ancient structure was known by the name of the temple of Cicero. He had not a temple raised to him, but no man that ever lived was more deserving of one.
* Cicero is the hero of Mola di Gaeta; a tomb and a villa, said to belong to him, are shown by the antiquary at the inn of that, town
We must be content with the site, for we cannot trust much to the objects of the Roman Forum. It will have been seen that when Middleton was at Rome the eight columns under the Capitol with the inscription, “ Senatus Populusque Romanus incendio consumptum restituit,” were usually supposed those of the Ciceronian Temple of Concord. In fact, they had gone by that name in the fifteenth century, when seen by Poggio, who witnessed the destruction of the cell and part of the portico. The author of the Ordo Romanus,' in
* Μάλα γαρ φιλοσόφου τούτο το πάθος, το θαυμάζειν, ου γάρ άλλη åpxò pilooobias ñ aútn. Platon. Theæteti. dialog. oper. tom. i. p. 155. The reader may remark the use the eloquent Winkelmann has made of this authority. Storia delle Arti, &c. lib. v. cap. vi. tom. i. p. 393.
† Benedict, in his Ordo Romanus, says, “Mane dicit missam ad sanctam Anastasiam, qua finita descendit cum processione per viam juxta porticum Gallatorum ante templum Sybillæ et inter templum Ciceronis et porticum Cimorum.”—Ap. Mabillon. Mus. Ital., tom. ii. p. 125, num. 16.
† “ Romani postmodum ædem totam et porticus partem disjectis columnis sunt demoliti.”—De Variet. Fortunæ ap. Sallengre, tom. i. p. 501. Mr. Lumsden, who published his volume on the antiquities of Rome in 1797, talks as if the doubts respecting these ruins were unfounded. He says, “ But as the Temple of Concord is not mentioned in the inscription, some antiquaries, contrary to tradition,
the twelfth century, places it near the Arch of Severus, * a position which seems to accord with that given to the Temple of Concord by Dion Cassius,ť and by Servius, the first of whom says it was near the prisons, and the second near the Temple of Saturn, on the Clivus Capitolinus. Plutarch, in his life of Camillus, mentions that it looked towards the Forum. An inscription found near the ruins, as Marlianus § and Faunus |
have doubted if this was it.”—p. 360. Of this very unsafe guide an equally credulous writer says
“ And Lumsden taught him to converse of Rome.” . And then follows a note extolling Mr. Lumsden. See Dial. iv. of • Pursuits of Literature,' a work which enjoyed the most marvellous popularity, and the author of which, amongst other proofs of scarcely sane self-importance, actually goes the length of comparing his foolish fears to the Passion of our Saviour. “It is written,” says he, “I hope we all know where, and being in an agony he prayed yet more fervently.'" 'Pursuits of Literature,' Dial. iii., note. The quotation from the New Testament is given in Greek.
*“Descendit ante privatam Mamertini ; intrat sub arcu triumphali inter templum fatale et templum Concordiæ.” Ordo Roman. Auct. Benedict. ap. Mab. ib. p. 143, num. 51. The author of the 'De mirabilibus Romæ also says, “ Templum Concordiæ juxta Capitolium, ante quod arcus, triumphalis.”—Ap. Montfaucon Diar. Italic., cap. xx.
† Hist. Rom. lib. lviii. cap. ii. tom. ii. p. 885. Near the prison, he says, that is the Mamertime, αλλ' αυθημερόν η γερόνσια πλησίον Toù oikjuatos év tq 'Ouovocio, &c. vol. ii. p. 885, edit. Hamb.
† “ Templum Saturni, quod est ante Clivum. Capitolium, juxta Concordiæ templum.”-Ad Æneid. lib. ii. ver. 116.
$ Marlian. Topog. Urb. Rom. cap. x. lib. ii. only says, “ Inventus est autem lapis,” without saying where.
|| Faunus, lib. ii. cap. x. de Antiq. Urb. Rom. “In marmore præterea quodam aliquando in ruinis reperto.” Is the Abate Fea justified from this in saying, “Che vi fu trovata per testimonianza
CHAP. XIII. INSCRIPTIONS–CONJECTURES THEREON. 51
attest, and transferred afterwards to the Lateran, records that the Temple of Concord having fallen from old age was restored by the Senate and the Roman people in the time of Constantine. Donatus * was positive of the authentic claims of the eight columns. The first to establish a doubt was Nardini,f and his opinion prevailed with Winkelmann, and with Winkelmann's editor, who, however, was converted before
del Marliano e di Lucio Fauno ?”—Dissertazione, &c. p. 299. This inscription is given elsewhere. * Lib. ii. cap. xiv.
Lib. v. cap. vi. I Storia delle Arti, &c. lib. xii. cap. xiii. tom. ii. p. 413. § Dissertazione, &c. tom. iii. p. 299, ibid.
ADDITIONAL NOTE. Fragments of the cell of the Temple of Concord have been discovered since this was written, and also four inscriptions given in Nibby's edition of Nardini, tom. ii. p. 196. Nibby (For. Rom., p. 137) thinks that the one inscription was two, and that the S. P. Q. R. was repeated “ per confusione maggiore.” Confusion indeed-I must confess that in my opinion the confusion has not been entirely cleared away by the able writer in Dr. Smith's Dictionary (p. 781-2). It is indeed agreed that the words “ S. P. Q. R. aedem Concordiæ vetustate collapsam in meliorem faciem opere et cultu splendidiore restituerunt” must have belonged to the Temple of Concord. Such was the inscription on the stone which was formerly in the Lateran, and which is given in a MS. still preserved, but those words have nothing to do with the inscriptions now seen on the ruined edifices under the Capitol, namely—“Senatus Populusque Romanus incendio consumptum restituit” on the eight columned ruin, and the letters “Estituer" on the three columned ruin; and the accident of the three inscriptions being given together has by no means solved the problem. I do not think it at all certain that the
he had finished his labours, and to get rid of the difficulty respecting the two' inscriptions (the one in the Lateran and the other now on the frieze), supposes that they both may have been affixed to the porch, and that the restoration was made, first under Constantine, and afterwards perhaps at the time that the Emperor Eugenius encouraged the Pagan worship.
The fall and the fire and the modern Romans have left but little of the temple where Cicero assembled the
ESTITVER belonged to either of the three. The words supplied from the anonymous collector of inscriptions, whose MS. is preserved at Einsidlen, are “ Divo Vespasiano Augusto S. P. Q. R. impp Caes. Severus et Antoninus pii. fel. Aug,” and “ unt," and hence the very recent name assigned to the three columns, but not without a struggle ; for though the Italian Canina, followed by Dyer, prefers Vespasian and Titus, Bunsen and Becker insist upon Saturn having been the god of this temple. The Abate Fea, Diario di Roma, vol. i. p. 258, asserts positively that in the middle of the eighth century the inscription was seen and began with the S. P. Q. R. This eliminates Vespasian and his son, but the Abate is obliged to suppose that the S. P. Q. R. were prefixed by the half republican authorities after the invasion of Totila. If that was so, the senate and the Roman people of that unhappy period must have thought it immaterial, whether or not an inscription admitted of a sensible or even a grammatical construction. It has been remarked that the architrave and frieze of these columns have been blended together so as to form an uniform surface for the insertion of the inscription. The same peculiarity is observable on the Portico of Octavia, in the Pescaria, which was restored by the above mentioned Emperors. Severus has left more records of his architectural exploits than any other master of the Roman world. The Pantheon, the Portico of Octavia, the two arches which bear his name, and the inscription now under discussion, are all proofs of his attachment to the arts and to the imperial city; but in order to make him worthy of the praise bestowed upon him by Spartianus, it is necessary to allopt an