848 EOMA. Thermae Cosstantinianae, the last erected at Eonie. They are mentioned I'V Auivlius Victor as an " opus caeteris hand inulto dispar" (Cnf«. 40. 27). In the time of Du Perac, there were still some vestiges of them on the Qiiirinal, on the site of the present Palazzo Rospigliosi ; but they have now entirely disappeared. At one time the colossal figures on Monte Cavallo stood near these baths, till Sixtus V. caused them to be placed before the Qnirinal palace. Tradition connects them with the Equi Tiridatis Regis Armeniorum, mentioned in the Notitia in the 7ih Region ; in which case they would belong to the time of Nero. On the other hand they claim to be the works of Phidias and Praxiteles ; but there is no means of deciding this matter. Besides the baths here enumerated, the Notitia and Curiosum mention, in the 13th Region, but under mutilated forms, certain Theumae Suranae et Decianae, to which we have already alluded in the ftth Section. They do not, however, seem to hare been of nmch importance, and their history is un- known. XVII. The Bridges. Rome possessed eight or nine bridges; but the accounts of them are so very imperfect that there are not above two or three the history of which can be satisftictorily ascertained. The Pons Subli- cius, the oldest and one of the most frequently men- tioned of all the Roman bridges, is precisely that whose site is most doubtful. It was built of wood, as its name imports, by Ancus JIarcius, in order to connect the Janiculum, which he had fortified, with the city. (Li v. i. .33; Dionys. iii. 45.) It was considered of such religious impoi'tance that it was under the special care of the pontifices (Varr. L. L. V. § 83), and was repaired from time to time, even down to the reign of Antoninus Pius. (Capitol. Ant. P. 8.) Nay that it must have existed in the time of Constantine is evident, not only from its being mentioned in the Xotitia, but also from the fact of a bridge at Constantinople being named after it, no doubt to perpetuate in that city the remem- brance of its sacred character. (^Descr. Const. Reg. xiv.) Yet the greatest difference of opinion prevails with regard to its situation; and as this question also involves another respecting the site of the Pons Aemilius, we shall examine them both to- gether.
EOMA.
We shall first consider the circumstance.s nnder which the Sublician bridge was built; and then in- quire into the passages in ancient authors regarding it. Whether Ancus JIarcius likewise built walls ou the right bank of the Tiber when he built the bridge is, as we have before observed, very pro- blematical, seeing that in his time there were none on the lejy. bank, and therefore there could have been no impediment to his choosing whatever site he pleased for his bridge, due regard being paid to the nature of the ground. But, as before the time of Tarquinius Priscus, the district about the Forum Boarium and circus was little better than a swamp, it does not seem probable that such a spot should have been selected as the approach to a bridge. The ground beyond the subsequent Porta Trigemina lies higher and drier, and would consequently have af- forded a more eligible site. Then comes the question whether, when Servius Tullius built his walls he included the Sublician bridge within them, or con- trived that it should be left outside of the gate. As the intention of walls is to defend a city, it is evi- dent that the latter course would be the safer one; for had the bridge afforded a passage to a spot within the walls, an enemy, after forcing it, would have found himself in the heart of the city. And if we examine the passages in ancient authors rel.at- ing to the subject we shall find that they greatly preponderate in favour of this arrangement. Poly- bius expressly says that the bridge was irph rrjs TToXecfiii, before or outside of the city (vi. 55). Becker, indeed (p. 697), would rob Tffd of its usual meaning here, and contends that the exprej.siou cited is by no means equivalent to trpo ■nuv irvXuv or e|&) rris TroAeojr ; but he does not support this assertion with any examples, nor would it be possible to support it. The narratives of the flight of Caius Gracchus likewise prove that the bridge must have been outside of the town. Thus Valerius Maximus: " Pomponius, quo is (Gracchus) facilius evaderet, concitatum sequentium agmen in Porta Trigemina aliquamdiu acerrima pugna inhi- buit — Laetorius autem in ponte Sublicio constitit, et eum, donee Gracchus transiret, ardore spiritus sui sepsit" (iv. 7. § 2). In like manner the account of Aurelius Victor ( FiV. III. c. 65) plainly shows that Gracclms must have passed the gate before he arrived at the bridge. There is nothing in Livy's narrative of the defence of the bridge by Horatius Codes to determine the question either one way or PONS SUUt.ICIUS, Kl>l' the other. An inference might perhaps be drawn from a passage in Seneca, compareil with another in Plautus, in favour of the bridge being outside of the Porta Trigemina: " In Sublicium Pontem me trans- fer et inter egentes me abige: non ideo tamen me despiciam, quod in illorum numero consideo, qui manum ad stipem porrigunt." (Sen. de V. Beat. 25.) As the Pons Sublicius is here shown to have been the haunt of beggars, so Plautus intimates that their station was beyond the P. Trigemina (Capt.i. 1. 22): " Ire extra Portam Trigeminam ad saccum licet." When the Tiber is low the piles of a bridge are still visible that existed just outside of the Porta Trige- mina, near the Porto di Ripa Grande (Canina, Indicaz. p. 557) ; and the Italian topographers, as well as Bunsen, have assumed them to be the re-
