DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0481
PORTA ROMANA
415
. . . sepulchrum Accae . . . qui uterque locus extra urbem antiquam fuit
non longe a porta Romanula ; Fest. 262 : Romanam portam vulgus
appellat ubi ex epistylio defluit aqua ; qui locus ab antiquis appellari
solitus est statuae Cinciae, quod in eo fuit sepulcrum eius familiae. Sed
porta Romana instituta est a Romulo infimo clivo Victoriae ; qui locus
gradibus in quadram formatus est. Appellata autem Romana a Sabinis
praecipue quod ea proximus aditus erat Romam ; ib. 263 : Romana
porta apud Romam a Sabinis appellata est quod per earn proximus eis
aditus esset; ib. 269 is quite fragmentary). Romanula is, however,
clearly an incorrect form (Jord. i. I. 176 ; Glotta i. 295). The topo-
graphical indications (infimo clivo Victoriae—proximus aditus Romam—
quae habet gradus in nova via ad sacellum Volupiae) point to a site on
the west side of the Palatine at the foot, or lower part, of the Clivus
Victoriae (q.v.), where steps led down to the Nova via. The sacellum
Volupiae is wholly unknown. Although the original course of the clivus
Victoriae is uncertain, the gate was probably situated a little south of
the church of S. Teodoro (Jord. i. I. 176 ; Gilb. i. 42, 121-122 ; ii. 114-115 ;
Ann. d. Inst. 1884, 203-204 ; RE i. A. 2189 ; Richter 34 ; for the pre-
sentation of another view according to which the gate was at the north
corner of the hill, at the junction of the three existing ramps, or stairways,
from the Nova via, the forum, and the Velabrum see WR 241 ; Mel. 1908,
256-258). Support of this view is sought in the statement of Festus
‘ qui locus gradibus in quadram formatus est,’ which seems to mean that
the gate stood on a raised stone area approached by steps on all sides.
According to another explanation than that given by Festus
(Kretschmer, Glotta i. 295), the name porta Romana is evidence that the
Palatine settlement was not called Roma, since this designation of this
gate indicated that it opened towards Roma which was then the district
of the Velabrum and forum Boarium. Platner (in CP 1917, 196) pointed
out that had this been so, some trace of the transfer of the name to the
Palatine would have been found in tradition. The old view, according
to which Roma could be connected with ruma, rumon, ‘ a stream,’ made
it easy to explain the gate as the river-gate ; but if the name is a tribal
name, ‘ why can we not explain the porta Romana most easily by supposing
that this powerful Etruscan clan, or family, dwelt at this north-west
corner of the hill—where tradition puts the first settlement, and that the
gate, as well as the whole enclosure, got its name from this fact ? ’ A
still later view is that of Herbig (BPW 1916, 1440 if., 1472 ff., summarised
by Nogara in DAP 2. xiii. 279 and BC 1916, 141), that Roma is the
latinized form of the Etruscan ruma, ‘ breast’ (cf. Varro, RR ii. 11. 5 :
mamma enim rumis sive ruminare) and as a proper name means ‘ large
breasted,’ i.e. strong or powerful.
Another inference from Festus’ statement is that the real site of the
gate had been forgotten, and identified with that of the tomb of the
Cincii, probably not far away.
415
. . . sepulchrum Accae . . . qui uterque locus extra urbem antiquam fuit
non longe a porta Romanula ; Fest. 262 : Romanam portam vulgus
appellat ubi ex epistylio defluit aqua ; qui locus ab antiquis appellari
solitus est statuae Cinciae, quod in eo fuit sepulcrum eius familiae. Sed
porta Romana instituta est a Romulo infimo clivo Victoriae ; qui locus
gradibus in quadram formatus est. Appellata autem Romana a Sabinis
praecipue quod ea proximus aditus erat Romam ; ib. 263 : Romana
porta apud Romam a Sabinis appellata est quod per earn proximus eis
aditus esset; ib. 269 is quite fragmentary). Romanula is, however,
clearly an incorrect form (Jord. i. I. 176 ; Glotta i. 295). The topo-
graphical indications (infimo clivo Victoriae—proximus aditus Romam—
quae habet gradus in nova via ad sacellum Volupiae) point to a site on
the west side of the Palatine at the foot, or lower part, of the Clivus
Victoriae (q.v.), where steps led down to the Nova via. The sacellum
Volupiae is wholly unknown. Although the original course of the clivus
Victoriae is uncertain, the gate was probably situated a little south of
the church of S. Teodoro (Jord. i. I. 176 ; Gilb. i. 42, 121-122 ; ii. 114-115 ;
Ann. d. Inst. 1884, 203-204 ; RE i. A. 2189 ; Richter 34 ; for the pre-
sentation of another view according to which the gate was at the north
corner of the hill, at the junction of the three existing ramps, or stairways,
from the Nova via, the forum, and the Velabrum see WR 241 ; Mel. 1908,
256-258). Support of this view is sought in the statement of Festus
‘ qui locus gradibus in quadram formatus est,’ which seems to mean that
the gate stood on a raised stone area approached by steps on all sides.
According to another explanation than that given by Festus
(Kretschmer, Glotta i. 295), the name porta Romana is evidence that the
Palatine settlement was not called Roma, since this designation of this
gate indicated that it opened towards Roma which was then the district
of the Velabrum and forum Boarium. Platner (in CP 1917, 196) pointed
out that had this been so, some trace of the transfer of the name to the
Palatine would have been found in tradition. The old view, according
to which Roma could be connected with ruma, rumon, ‘ a stream,’ made
it easy to explain the gate as the river-gate ; but if the name is a tribal
name, ‘ why can we not explain the porta Romana most easily by supposing
that this powerful Etruscan clan, or family, dwelt at this north-west
corner of the hill—where tradition puts the first settlement, and that the
gate, as well as the whole enclosure, got its name from this fact ? ’ A
still later view is that of Herbig (BPW 1916, 1440 if., 1472 ff., summarised
by Nogara in DAP 2. xiii. 279 and BC 1916, 141), that Roma is the
latinized form of the Etruscan ruma, ‘ breast’ (cf. Varro, RR ii. 11. 5 :
mamma enim rumis sive ruminare) and as a proper name means ‘ large
breasted,’ i.e. strong or powerful.
Another inference from Festus’ statement is that the real site of the
gate had been forgotten, and identified with that of the tomb of the
Cincii, probably not far away.