Parker, John Henry: The archaeology of Rome (1,text): I. The primitive fortifications (Oxford [u.a.], 1874)

SECT. VII.] The Quirinal, Viminal, and Esquiline.

61

the Asty of the Atheniansl. On one side it depended on the hills and the scarped
cliffs ; on another side it was defended by the river Tiber. . . . Another part of
the city, which was more easy of access from the Porta Esquilina to the Porta
Collina, has been made strong by art. In the first place a foss has been excavated
of such large dimensions, that it is, at the least, one hundred feet wide, and its
depth thirty feet ; a wall is then built against this foss, and a high and large
bank, which can neither be shaken by battering-rams, nor can the foundations be
undermined. This part is in length about seven stadia [about a mile], and in
breadth fifty feet. Upon this, then, the Romans were placed ready to receive the
assault of their enemies, who could neither form the testudo [with their shields]
nor pass the fosses with the machines called elephants'1.”
And Strabo :—
“ Servius disapproved of the omission ; for he supplied it by adding the Esquinal
Hill and the Viminal. But as these are easy of approach from without, they dug
a deep ditch, and threw up the earth on the inner side, and this agger on the inner
brow of the ditch they continued for a distance of six stadia [three-quarters of
a mile], and raised upon it a wall and towers from the Porta Collina as far as
the Porta Esquilina. About the middle of the agger is a third gate, of the same
name as the Viminal Hillx. ”
There is a somewhat difficult passage in Terentius Varro, which
has been supposed to have reference to this wall, in which both
stone and earth are mixed. He seems, however, to be speaking
only of the etymology of the words, and not of the construction
of the walls.
“ They called [certain] towns tuta, because they fortified them with [earth]work,
so that it should more resemble a wall. The earth which they threw out into
a heap they called aggers, and what was contained (?) in the agger [they called]
a wall. That which was brought for the purpose of fortifying they called munus,
by which they enclosed the city, from which [word] ‘munus’ [comes] mmn.”
There is also a passage from Dionysius which applies to the outer
agger, and not to the inner one :—
‘ ‘ That part of the enceinte of Rome, by which you go to Gabii, was fortified by
him [Tarquinius]. A large number of people were employed in making an agger,
excavating a great foss, and raising the wall higher, and occupying the place with
thicker towers, because in this part the city appeared less strong, whereas in all
the rest of the circuit it was very secure and of difficult access2.”

1 It will be observed that the Asty
of the Athenians included only the city
proper, and not the long wall to the
Pirseus ; and in the same manner the
city of Rome did not include the long
wall or covered way which connected
it with the Janiculum.
" Dionys. Halic., Ant., lib. ix. c. 68.
x Strabo, Geogr., lib. v. c. ill, § 7.
From this passage it is evident that the
Porta Esquilina was at the north end of
the hill, not at the south, as it is usually
placed.

y “. . . Tuta oppida quod operis mu-
niebant, moenia dicta. Quo mcenitius
esset quod exaggerabant aggeres dicti.
Et qui aggerem contineret mcenus,
quod [moeniendi] causa portabatur moe-
nus, quo sepiebant oppidum, e quo
mcenere moerus.” (T. Varro, de Ling.
Lat., lib. v. c. 32, § 141.) The passage
admits of several versions. The Eng-
lish given above is as literal as possible,
but the passage is so corrupt that the
meaning can only be guessed at.
z Dionys. Hal., Ant., lib. iv. c. 54.