เ

purpose beyond a commemorative object it served, it is difficult to determine. It seems possible, when we look at the subject of the sculptures, especially the sacrificial animals, that it formed a sort of avenue leading to an altar and statue of the emperor, in whose honour the monument may have been erected after his deification by the Senate. The sculptures on the two interior walls represent the three animals used in sacrifice-the boar, the bull, and the ram-whose names were combined to form the title of the great lustral ceremony, Suovetaurilia. The beasts are adorned with ribbons and vitte, and move on both sculptures in the direction of the Basilica Julia. The sculptures on the outer walls of the screens present a far greater variety and interest, consisting of a number of human figures in more or less high relief, about half life-size, with a background of architectural and other objects indicating the locality of the scenes represented. . . . The screen placed nearer to the Capitol displays, to the right of the spectator, a group which has furnished a key to the probable meaning of the entire monument by its resemblance to some of the medals of the emperor Trajan. These medals represent the emperor seated, with Italy and her children before him, and bear the inscription, ALIM. ITAL. S.P.Q.R. OPTIMO PRINCIPI." They commemorate the provision made by Trajan for the children of poor or deceased citizens, who were called pueri et puellæ alimentarii. The same figures are seen in the bas-relief. The torso of an infant remains on the left arm of the female figure, and another child probably stood under her right hand. To the left, a distinct group represents a personage standing on the rostra, and addressing a crowd of persons, who evidently receive his words with pleasure and applause. Unfortunately the head of the principal figure in each of these groups is missing, owing to its having been in high relief; but there can be little doubt that we have here an allusion to some other public act of the same emperor.'

66

We have thus brought before us the representation in sculp ture of an actual incident in Roman life. The other screen of which we have spoken commemorates another incident in the same striking fashion. The historians have told us that the emperor Hadrian, when, on a certain occasion, he remitted some large sums which were due to the imperial treasury, caused the accounts to be publicly burnt in the Forum of Trajan for the greater satisfaction of his debtors. There is evidence, however, of a like remission of taxes by Trajan also, and there is reason to think that the sculpture before us refers to the act of this emperor rather than of his successor. front of the piece represents a number of people carrying what look like heavy ledgers, piles of wooden tablets, and the like, and laying them in a heap before a more majestic personage, whose head again is unfortunately missing, and who, it may be supposed, is superintending the generous sacrifice. We have thus brought before us two sculptured incidents much the same in character as the sculptures on the column of Trajan,

One

where troops are seen marching and fighting and laying out their camps and bridges just as in a picture. Such were the combat and the procession on the frieze of the Parthenon, and such some of the much earlier sculptures on the palace walls at Nineveh. The chief interest, however, in these remains is to be found in their backgrounds, which in both cases represent the scene, as Mr. Nichols says, which was actually before the spectator, namely, the Forum Romanum, in which no doubt the incidents themselves took place.

The locality of the burning of the registers is most easily recognised. In the foreground, to the left of the spectator is a fig-tree, and next to it a statue on a pedestal. In the background, behind the figures, were five arches of a building divided by piers with halfcolumns or pilasters of the Tuscan order. At a short distance from the end of this building is a hexastyle Ionic portico with a pediment. Then, after a short interval, through which an arch is seen in the further distance, is another hexastyle portico and pediment with Corinthian columns. A part of the bas-relief to the right is lost; but in the foreground is a portion of the rostra, upon which the emperor was seated. In order to identify the scene it is only necessary for the spectator to turn from the sculpture to the ruined buildings before him. In the Corinthian columns of the temple of Vespasian he will recognise the remains of the Corinthian portico, in the portico of Saturn the Ionic portico of the bas-relief. The arch seen in the distance between the two porticos would probably be a part of the loggia of the Tabularium. The long line of arches, with piers between them, will be found in the Basilica Julia with the ornaments of Tuscan architecture. The whole of the background may thus be explained by the aid of the ruins which remain.* ... On the other bas-relief, which is more perfect than the first, the same statue and fig-tree are seen in the foreground on the right, and next to them, behind the figures, are seven arches with intermediate piers, similar to those of the first sculpture. Then, after an interval of some width, is a Corinthian portico, which is represented as having five columns; and finally, to the left, an arch, which appears nearer to the spectator than the portico. In the foreground are the rostra, from which the emperor is speaking.'

We italicise the words 'right' and 'left' throughout to make it clear to the reader that the two scenes presented to him are turned different ways. In the first case he is supposed to be looking towards the Capitol, and the objects in the background are such as would meet his eye in that direction; in the second he looks towards the Velia, and the temples of Vesta and of

*Hadrian's burning of the registers took place, as specified by Spartianus, in the Forum of Trajan. It is on this account that the sculpture before us is with more probability ascribed to some similar act of an earlier emperor.

Julius Cæsar. In both cases the statue and the fig-tree are seen in the same relative position. In the first we distinguish the northern, in the second the southern, portion of the Basilica Julia, the one to the left, the other of course to the right. The portico of Corinthian columns in the second may represent the façade of the Julian temple, though we must suppose there is one column too many. The temple was probably tetrastyle. In this design we perceive also an arch behind the rostra, on the left, which may correspond with the position of the arch of Augustus, of which we have an obscure indication recovered for us by Mai. The two sculptures,' concludes Mr. Nichols, are united by the recurrence of the statue and the fig-tree in a similar relative position in both scenes, and present us with a partial panorama, comprehending the south-east, southwest, and part of the north-west side of the Forum, as seen from the neighbourhood of the rostra.'

6

Mr. Nichols proceeds to identify the objects visible in the foreground. The rostra, we know, was removed from the edge of the Comitium, where it had stood during the period of the Free-state and placed by Cæsar somewhere in the Forum, but its exact position was not known, as it is now shown by its relation to surrounding objects. The statue of Marsyas stood in front of the rostra, and its exact place is thus determined also. The fig-tree which is here introduced is also an historic object, but it is not to be confounded with the ficus Ruminalis of the ancient legend, which stood originally at the foot of the Palatine near to its northern angle, but a slip from which grew at a much later period in the Comitium. Another such slip, as appears from a curious note in Pliny, unless the plant were, as he seems to imply, self-sown, grew also in the mid Forum at the spot where Curtius leaped into the chasm, and this no doubt is the plant here represented, and its position. is hereby ascertained.† The rostra, the Marsyas, the Lacus

Hæc

Mr. Nichols cites a note from Canina, For. Rom.' 134, 139. Augustus. Hujus facti notæ repræsentantur in arcu qui est juxta 'ædem Divi Julii.' Mai. Interpret. Virgil. Æn. vii. 6, viii. 666.

Tacitus says, speaking of the year of the city 811 (Ann. xiii. 58): Eodem anno Ruminalem arborem in comitio, quæ octingentos et quadraginta ante annos Remi Romulique infantiam texerat, mortuis rama'libus et arescente trunco deminutam, prodigii loco habitum est, donec ' in novos fœtus reviresceret.' But, according to the legend, the original fig-tree stood hard by the Lupercal under the Palatine; and there was a story that the augur Attus Navius caused it to remove spontaneously to its later position. Pliny goes on to suggest at least a more rational explanation: Illic crescit, rursusque cura sacerdotum seritur.' (Hist. Nat. xv. 18.)

Curtius, and the later fig-tree all stood near together, and occupied a central part of the Forum between the temple of Julius Cæsar and the foot of the Capitoline.

Now all these are actual historic sites, and as they now appear for the first time before us-these and many others which have been brought to light by the excavations of the last few years especially in the Forum, the very centre of a famous history of a thousand years-they may naturally seem to bring before us the image of men and things with far more life and reality than the mere book knowledge we have hitherto had of them. The area of the Forum has been excavated, as we have seen, almost throughout to a great depth. We have cast off the accretions of many centuries. We have rid ourselves of the successive strata of Rome, modern and medieval. We have penetrated far below the surface on which Rienzi, or Charlemagne, or Gregory and Leo once trod, we have scattered to the winds even the dust which Constantine cast from his feet when he quitted the city of the Cæsars to plant himself on the Bosporus. We may say with confidence that we can now tread the very stones on which Hadrian and Trajan trod, perhaps even those which resounded to the tramp of Cæsar's legions, or echoed the oratory of Cicero. There is indeed no other spot in Rome which is so crowded with reminiscences of the ancient world as the Forum, yet there remains still much room for exploration, and for the discriminating examination which should attend upon it in other quarters, and above all on the Capitoline hill; but our author seems to be casting his eyes first in another direction.

'Our researches,' says Mr. Nichols, in concluding his work, 'have led me up to the boundaries of the Palatine, upon the two sides which were nearest to the Roman Forum. The topography of the Palatine hill constitutes a separate subject, into which it is not proposed to enter in the present work.'

We hope that these words may intimate that another work is in contemplation, and whether it deal with the Palatine or the Capitoline, we are confident of its warm reception by all who are interested in the History of the Romans at Rome.'

ART. IV.—1. Euvres complètes de FRÉDÉRIC BASTIAT. Mises en ordre, revues et annotées d'après les Manuscrits de l'auteur, par M. PAILLOLET; et précédées d'une Notice. Biographique, par M. DE FONTENAY. 2nd edition. Paris:

1862.

2. Lettres d'un habitant des Landes. FRÉDÉRIC BASTIAT. Paris: 1877.

THE

HE history of knowledge in all its forms, the opposition and incredulity that have attended the birth of new discoveries and the assertion of new laws, may have taught the world, it is to be hoped, some wisdom and humility, but by no means yet enough. There are still plenty of the faithful' who hold that scepticism regarding God's natural laws is the best proof of respect for His revealed laws. The persecutions that befell the earlier martyrs of science may be things of the past, but the spirit of disingenuous and self-sufficient ignorance still flourishes. In the words of M. Arago, we may always expect from a certain class the same verdict on a new discovery: firstly, that it is not true; secondly, that it is against religion; thirdly, that they knew it before! Even with good and earnest people, whose sincerity is unimpugnable, it is constantly put forth as a warning against the snares of materialism, that all the science and steam in the world will not convert the evil heart of man, nor teach him the things that belong to his peace. Who will not reverently endorse this in a certain sense? But the heart of man is intended by God's mercy to be reached in various ways-even by the blossoming of an almond-tree, as with Brother Lawrence—and all ways that reach it at all are good. It is therefore but a questionable tribute to religion which refuses to perceive, or is afraid to acknowledge, the moral as well as the utilitarian importance of every fresh revelation of the laws of the universe. Tested by their inherent merits, they are as obviously intended for the precept and example of man as for the lower purposes of his use. When do we find them-when the human co-operator has faithfully performed his subordinate part-either refusing, neglecting, or abusing their appointed duty? The action of light on the prepared plate can as little add as omit a feature of the picture presented to it. The electric spark, which spans an empire in a minute, can as little falsify as forge the message entrusted to it. The humblest natural force, which the patient persistence of man has enlisted in his service, is in itself no less proof to evil influence-whether of man or Satan-than the stars in their heavenly courses, and like them as loudly proclaims the Hand that made us is divine.'