The archæology of Rome, Part 8

by John Henry Parker

APPENDIX.
On Spē or Spc̄.

For the supposed Temple of Spes, the ruins of an apse in the gardens of S. Croce, of “Venus and Cupid,” (as it is marked in most maps, and as “Speranza Vecchia” in others,) was fixed upon by Piranesi, who carefully examined all that he could with a view of mapping out his aqueducts, according to the knowledge possessed in his time. This building was no doubt a hall belonging to the Sessorian Palace. Others, again, have suggested the so-called temple of Minerva Medica, but this again is a nymphæum, or pantheum, and not a temple at all. Besides, a further difficulty lies in one being too far south, while the other is too far north.

Canina, in his account of the results of the excavations at the Porta Maggiore[43], and of the tomb of Eurysaces the baker there discovered, just outside of the gate, gives a plan in which he inserts a temple just inside the gate on the southern side, which he calls the Temple of Spes[44]. It is quite possible that this was a Temple of Spes. There certainly was a temple on the site indicated, where the modern guard-house stands; and during excavations carried on there, fragments of a temple of the time of the early Empire were found, consisting chiefly of a fine cornice of travertine.

When, however, the words of Frontinus have to be applied, the difficulties of the theory of his referring to a temple are increased. In the case of the expression last referred to, “following the specus (spes), or, according to one manuscript, the old specus, which is obviously the sense,” it is very difficult to imagine what circumstances there were in connection with a temple which could warrant the use of such words; and even in the instance mentioned, where we were noticing the Appian aqueduct, “the expression, the Gemelli, which is a place under the old specus (Spe̅s̅ Vetus),” is somewhat singular. Granting that a temple once existed just within the wall of the city (which, from the context, must have been its position if any) it is singular that he should use it as a landmark when describing the junction of two streams of water. The remaining three expressions are simply “at the old specus (Spe̅s̅ Vetus[45]).”

With these difficulties to contend with, it has been thought well to seek a different solution, and this is found in the reading of “Specum Veterem” for “Spe̅m̅ Veterem,” i.e., the “old specus.” With this reading, it naturally follows that it would refer to the old specus, or the specus of the Appia and the Anio Vetus; and it is singular that the first time it occurs in Frontinus, the Codex Urbinas[46], only second in authority to the Codex Cassinensis, has the reading “Anienem Veterem,” instead of “Spem Veterem.” What was the true reading of the Codex or Codices from which these two copies were made, it is impossible to say; they are the earliest we have, and it is clear from several other instances that the scribes did not copy with much knowledge of the matter in question: then it was easy to mistake Spc̄ for Spē. That it was the Specus Vetus which was meant, must rest therefore upon the circumstances which allow of its application to the passages named, and it remains to shew that this is the case.

In the instance under discussion, the water of the Anio is said to flow along its own specus, and therefore it would not be probably possible to find an interpretation more suitable as far as this case is concerned. The conduit of the water of the Anio Vetus had “emerged,” as the other aqueducts emerge, near the Porta S. Lorenzo, from the higher ground between the Porta Maggiore and that gate: it must consequently have been carried on a substructure from that point on the outer bank of the original fortifications of Rome, that is, on the high bank on which the aqueducts were carried, and on which the wall of Aurelian was afterwards built, to the inner bank, on lower ground faced with the tufa wall of Servius Tullius. The names of the gates are matters of dispute, and are quite immaterial; the levels of the ground decide the question[47].

In another place, Frontinus says[48] that several streams of water, and first the Marcia, were carried to the Aventine from the specus (a spe-cu), that is from the old specus he had before mentioned on the Cœlian, and obviously from the west end of the Cœlian. The Temple of Spes of Canina and others at the Porta Maggiore, is at least a mile from the Aventine. The only way of giving an intelligible meaning of the passage is that the author refers to the old specus he had before mentioned, as leading along the Cœlian to the Porta Capena. In the excavations made in 1868 and 1869, on the line of the wall of Servius Tullius from the Cœlian to the Aventine, the conduits of three specus were found, two of which must have passed over the arch of the Porta Capena, in order to cross the Via Appia, there a deep foss-way. Two conduits were seen in each of the pits that were dug at intervals along the line, and at the junction with the Piscina Publica under the Aventine they were all three perfect; the lowest one is there cut in the tufa rock under the wall, the other two are on the wall, and partly cut out of it.

Piranesi has preserved a sketch of the specus of the aqueduct, which he supposed to be the Anio Vetus upon its substructure; but he gives no clue as to the exact spot whence that sketch was taken[49]. In its character the masonry is very similar to that of the Marcian, but there are minor differences sufficient to shew that it belongs to an earlier age.