*
MORE ABOUT "CARCER"


LOOKING AT THE WORD "FORUM" ITSELF:

Even learning somewhat about the word "forum" and learning somewhat about the Forum at Rome "physically," and something of its history, further demonstrates the fact that the carcer spring marked the "border of an enclosure." While in the first section (previous web page) on "carcer" it was pointed out that the carcer spring was on the Forum's border, the Forum, as such, was not the focus of our attention. Now it will be:

What we "moderns" now understand the word "forum" to mean, even in the context of the Forum Romanum, the most famous "Roman Forum," is NOT actually the same definition the ROMANS had for the word "forum." OUR usage of it is NOT the same usage THEY had for the word in their common speech. Today, when WE are discussing the famous Roman Forum we ordinarily say "Forum" having in view the FULLY DEVELOPED, marble-clad, "downtown" hub of Rome at the height of its pomp and grandeur. We are NOT usually considering the word "forum" in the vocabulary of the Romans back when grass still grew in "it" and rivulets of water still trickled across "it." Rather, we tend to transpose a centuries-later "image" (and hence, an "evolved" DEFINITION) upon the word "forum." We make it "mean" what the forum eventually grew into, or BECAME. But the truth is, BEFORE the "marble" came, "forum" was common in their vocabulary, and it will be the word's meaning to us in THAT age, if it is to speak to the study we have here in hand. To make a clumsy analogy it is like what we do when we refer to the residence of the American President, the "White House." We are not ordinarily considering the actual meanings of the words "house" and "white." If you look up "house" and "white" in a dictionary, no mention will be found of the President's residence. We say "the White House" as a proper noun. And we do the same with "the Forum," because "it" eventually was a famous "thing." Now, it should be observed, that EVENTUALLY, later, yes, even the Romans themselves got used to their fully developed, marble-clad "piazzas" and took to speaking of the "Forum" the way we do the "White House." Of course I don't mean "Forum" and "White House" mean anything close to one another. I only mean that eventually the term "the Forum" came to be used as a proper noun by the Romans, indicating one specific place, as the term "the White House" does. In Britain, "Number 10, Downing Street" corresponds to our "White House." And so, we might say that in some international emergency, "the White House spoke with Downing Street." But we do NOT mean that some actual "house" gained the power of speech and somehow "spoke" to a paved "street" in London. "Downing Street" was named after a certain Sir George Downing. But when the Washington Press Corps wants to know if "the White House spoke with Downing Street" they don't care two turnips about George Downing, neither does he come to mind. Neither does the fact that a certain house is painted "white." All of the BACKGROUND and ORIGINS of the words contained in those terms are forgotten in light of their new use. Neither is anyone interested in the DEFINITION of "house" or "white" or "street" or why it was called "Downing." Once a place begins to be named as a "proper noun" the word origins evaporate. But here, we are going back, earlier, before ANY "forum" in Rome was a famous "marble clad piazza" and just looking at what the Romans originally meant by the word ITSELF.

WHAT DID THE WORD "FORUM" ACTUALLY MEAN?

A "forum" referred to a FORE-COURT, the court BEFORE or in front of something (hence "for" as in "fore"). But it is necessary to view this fore-court from two (2) directions; 1. the view one has when approaching the complex, and 2. the view one has when exiting from it. On the APPROACH TO a complex, one came first to the FORE-COURT in front of it. But if we speak of LEAVING the place, the "forum" also bespoke of the LAST thing one would pass on the way OUT, the final DOOR or GATE which led to the OUTSIDE of the complex. A "fore-court" is travelled across as part of your entrance TO an edifice, but when you are DEPARTING, you cross the court to the door to the outside world. Thus you will see that "forum" has elements of both the courtyard IN FRONT OF something, and, the door to the "great outdoors" as you LEAVE.

We need to know both what the WORD "forum" specifically literally meant, as well as what they APPLIED it to. Compare "automobile": Auto means "self." Hence an "autobiography" is the biography OF one's self, and BY one's self. Before the invention of the four-wheeled "automobile" the closest English word to its meaning was "automaton," a machine which moved by itself. "Auto" meaning "self" and "mobile" meaning "moving" or that which moves, the word "auto-mobile" denotes a thing which "moves by itself" or "moves on its own." But now make the difference. We do NOT today call every child's toy that "moves by itself" an "automobile." It may be a toy robot or a battery operated boat. We do NOT call an "airplane" by the word "automobile" although, just like an "automobile" it "moves by itself." And SO we have essentially DEPARTED from the word's actual original "MEANING" and we now go by what we APPLY IT to. We apply it to a four-wheel vehicle that is driven on streets and highways and carries passengers. "Auto" and "mobile" are words with definitions, but application OF them is another matter.

Looking at "forum" we find that by "WORD DEFINITION" it "MEANT" something like our word "outdoors" or "out of doors" or "outside the door" or even the area that pertains to the farthest "outer door" or perhaps even the "door to the outside." Remember the comparison of "automobile." APPLICATION was another matter: They APPLIED "forum," or USED it, to denote an enclosed space WITH BOUNDS or BOUNDARIES that lay just outside the front door. For a quick comparison think of the "front yard" of a house. It will be a closer comparison if you picture that "front yard" having a yard fence around its outer perimeter at the "property line," with this fence having a gate. Some etymologists allow that this enclosed gated yard could also be all around or might SURROUND the house. But the basic thought is that it is IN FRONT OF the house. Now, it is important for you to know that my "house" in that picture is merely "incidental." It could be some other thing, such as a place of business, a bakery, or a butcher shop or a temple, etc. The gated enclosed YARD is the important thing. Further, in your mind's eye you can "pave" the "yard" entirely with bricks, and have it be more of a "COURTYARD" and it does not change the application. A person approaching the house or business, the building on this lot, must first enter and cross through the COURTYARD before he can reach the building he is visiting. THAT was the Roman application of the word, the "courtyard BEFORE the building."


Note also the following from George Dennis in "Cities of Etruria" page 155: "On the way to Gallese, to Ponte Felice, and to Civita Castellana, you pass through deep clefts, sunk in the rock in ancient times; and in the more immediate neighbourhood of the village are roads cut in the rock, and flanked by SEPULCHRES, or built up on either hand with large blocks of tufo, which have every appearance of REMOTE ANTIQUITY. ... There are some columbaria as at Falleri, and not a few of those singular CONICAL TOMBS, sunk in the ground, and having AN OPENING ABOVE, which have been stated to abound at Civita Castellana." While this and numerous like descriptions closely resemble that of the carcer, and while some scholars (such as Nibby) believe the carcer to have been (at least at one stage) a tomb, the majority have disputed the idea. But this is not what we take notice of here, but rather the FORUMS of tombs and other things: Dennis continues with his discussion on page 157, "About two miles from Corchiano on the road to Bassanello, at a spot called Puntone del Ponte, is a singular tomb, with A SORT OF COURT IN FRONT sunk in the rock, and with the remains of a portico, of which but one square pillar is now standing." To this mention of a "COURT IN FRONT" he affixes a footnote, which reads, "As Etruscan tombs are often IMITATIONS OF HOUSES, this COURT IN FRONT of the portico must represent the VESTIBULE DESCRIBED by Caecilius Gallus (ap. A. Gell. XVI.5; Macrob. Sat. VI.8) AS a VACANT SPACE BEFORE the door of the house, through which lay THE APPROACH TO it. Here we have architectural EXAMPLES of the lexicographical definitions just given above. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, by George Dennis, pub'd by John Murray, Albemarle Street, London, 1848, pp 155-157.

Notice the first syllable, FOR in "forum." There is a direct relationship between this and the "for" in "forest" and in "foreign." The Latin "foris" was used of the "door to the outside" much like today's "front door" of a house leads TO THE OUTSIDE (as opposed to, say, bedroom doors, interior doors, or even doors in general). In the same way, the "gate" of a city which opened to the "outside" world, was such an "outer door." "Forest" derived from this word because it meant "the wild" or "wilderness" which lay "OUTSIDE" the city gates. Again, think of terms such as going "outdoors" or "out of doors," etc. "Foreign" came by the same means: "OUTSIDERS" were "FOReigners." The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology perhaps gives the best entry on "forest," as "the woods lying outside the walls of a park, those that are not fenced in", from Latin foris, 'outside'; literally, 'out of doors', from a lost noun fora, related to foris 'door', and altered from fura."

The Latin language of course descends from the Indo-European language. "Forum" in Roman speech is a word that was somewhat "revived" or "RESTORED" to the vocabulary of the Latins. It had its origins in the Indo-European word "DHWER" meaning (at its most basic) "DOORWAY." And it will help if you place extra emphasis on "WAY" in door-WAY, for the sense is actually of the area one passes THROUGH when entering or exiting a place, NOT like the OBJECT we call a "door" with a doorknob, but rather the PASSAGE-WAY where that object is located. The entrance-WAY. In example, neither is the "threshold" of a door-WAY the actual wooden door on hinges, and likewise the door-JAMB is not the object on hinges. Yet ALL of this goes into a "door-WAY." It includes the threshold beneath, the jambs at the sides, the roof above, and perhaps the HALLWAY WALLS in which the door is set. This whole complex is the passage-WAY, or door-WAY. It is believed that OTHER peoples who had in their languages words for the "door to the outside" or that which is "outside the door" which had anciently derived from the Indo-European word "dhwer" came into contact with the Latin-speaking Romans, and that the Romans RECOGNIZED these "outside the door" (or more accurately "BEFORE the door") words to be what in their own speech had become "foris, forus, fores, fora," etc. with roughly the same meaning, and so, utilizing "for" they "coined" the word "forum" to be a word more closely matching what these other people groups meant by that which is "before the door." We might say that they "sharpened up" their CONFORMITY to the other Indo-European-derived languages that they encountered by coining "forum."

We will return to "dhwer" shortly, but first let's look a bit more at how the Romans understood and applied the word "forum":

I will here draw from several sources, including Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Perseus Digital Library:

The entry for "Forum" in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1963, after saying "an open place" says, "In THE LAWS OF THE TWELVE TABLES the word (forum) is used of THE VESTIBULE OF A TOMB. ... the term was NO DOUBT ORIGINALLY applied generally to the SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY public building or GATEWAY. In Rome itself 'forum' was almost a proper name, denoting the flat and formerly marshy SPACE between the Palatine and the CAPITOLINE hills ... (which) afforded the accomodation necessary for such public meetings as could not be held in the AREA CAPITOLINA. ... The Forum ... was not a thoroughfare and was ENCLOSED by GATES at the ENTRANCES." Speaking of the forum built at Pompeii, it says OF such forum gates, "of which traces have been found at Pompeii."

Some valuable information is provided in this Britannica entry, which might be easily overlooked. Note the mention of "The Laws of the Twelve Tables": These "Tablets of the Law" called in Latin variously "Lex Duodecim Tabularum" or "Lex XII Tabularum" or "Duodecim Tabulae" were the MOST ANCIENT coded or written civil law of the Romans. No earlier written body of laws is referred to in any Roman sources. That the word "FORUM" is found HERE gives us a window into probably the MOST ANCIENT (hence most AUTHORITATIVE) definition of the word IN THE LIPS OF THE ROMANS as regards the ancient period WE are studying.

The Britannica draws from Cicero citing these things from "the Laws of the Twelve Tables." Cicero's use of "forum" is the earliest, the most ancient known use of the word "forum" by the Romans, and it is he, in On The Laws, who shows that in the Laws of the Twelve Tables "forum" meant the VESTIBULE OF A TOMB (SEPULCHRE, SEPULCRI, SEPULCRORUM). Cic. Leg. 2, 24, 61.

The student of this matter (if he does not have Lewis & Short) can quickly confirm these citations through the Perseus Digital Library.


"Vestibule" in Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary, (Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary).

"Vestibulum , i, n. perh. for vesti-bulum, kindr. with Sanscr. vas, habitare, commorari; cf. Vesta,

"in gen., an entrance to any thing: 'sepulcri,' Cic. Leg. 2, 24, 61. ...

"Trop., an entrance, opening, beginning: 'vestibula nimirum honesta aditusque ad causam faciet illustres,' Cic. Or. 15, 50: 'vestibulum modo artis alicujus ingredi,' Quint. 1, 5, 7; cf. id. 8, praef. / 18; 9, 4, 10."

Source (including in the Pers. Digit.): A Latin Dictionary - Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary - revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short, LL.D, Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1879.

Further, in Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary, while referencing the same passages in Cicero as above it ALSO words its definition as "The AREA BEFORE A TOMB, FORE-COURT: 'quod (lex XII. Tabularum de sepulcris) FORUM, id est, vestibulum sepulcri, BUSTUMVE USUCAPI vetat, tuetur jus sepulcrorum,' Cic. Leg. 2, 24, 61."

But, in Lewis' Elementary Latin, it gives simply and concisely

"vestibulum , an enclosed space before a house, fore-court, entrance-court, vestibule: templi: aedium: alti Quadriiuges in vestibulis, Iu. - An entrance: sepulcri: urbis, L. - Fig., an entrance, opening, beginning: vestibula aditusque ad causam." Elementary Latin Dictionary by Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D."


MY COMMENTARY: Note above in Lewis and Short especially the words "AN ENCLOSED SPACE." This has its own value to our study, as (which you may have already noticed) we ourselves have used those precise words, "AN ENCLOSED SPACE" repeatedly in connection with the word "carcer." Note also that immediately after the Britannica acknowledges that "forum" means "an open place," the FIRST USAGE in history that it cites is its usage as THE VESTIBULE OF A TOMB. Right here, you have it, in the main. The word "forum" anciently MEANT a "space" that served as the "vestibule" OF something, or TO something, a FORE-COURT of something."Forum" was an entry-way "space," even if it was open above. Even if it was under open sky, it was "AN ENCLOSED SPACE," that is, at least "enclosed" around its PERIMETER, as with a fence. I stress the "at least" because further investigation of "forum" will reveal that it can rightly be compared to our word "lobby" (as in a hotel lobby), which carries the "entrance-way area" connotation, or, the space "in front of" or "leading to" some building or structure, but can afford to lose being under open sky. I gather the sense that the ancient Roman would call a thing a "forum" if it was an "enclosed entrance area to", or "vestibule of" some structure, whether "roofed" or not, even if the average "forum" was roofless. When you think "forum," think "lobby" and "vestibule." Though "lobby" and "vestibule" pretty much mean the same thing, note that "vestibule" is Latin (vestibulus) and is the definition given by the sources above placing "forum" in its ancient Latin context. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language says what I've said regarding "covered over" or not: It says, of "vestibule," L. vestibulum, the porch or entrance INTO a house or a large open space before the door, BUT COVERED." Note; "open space ... BUT COVERED." Now, I have SAID that the average or most commonly existing "forums" in Rome may have been the NON-covered ones, but keep as your word definition for "forum" that its being under open sky is not NECESSARY to its definiton. If most WERE "coverless", that's fine, but it is not part of the definition of the word "forum." What IS, is that it is a VESTIBULE, an "entrance-way area" like a lobby. When you came to a "forum" it was "PRELUDE" to its "OBJECT." It was merely the enclosed area leading TO whatever building it was there FOR. In other words, the ancient Roman mind, if it heard any "forum" referred to, would naturally ask, "the forum of WHAT?" or "the forum to WHAT?" or "the forum which leads to WHAT?" or "the forum in front of WHAT?" The forum is not the important OBJECT, but merely the "lobby" OF "it." Thus, a "forum" standing alone is MISSING SOMETHING. It is there to LEAD TO the important thing, whatever that happens to be. It may be the forum to a particular beautiful ornamental garden. Picture this: A Roman owns a spectacular garden, replete with fountains and statues amid the most beautifully groomed flowers and shrubs. As he leads his guests out to view this garden they first come to the FORUM of it, perhaps a paved arbor with lattice-work overhead, grown over with flowering vines. This "FORUM" might be fenced in or walled with stones on the left and on the right. This forum "OF" or forum "TO" the garden serves to "glorify" the garden which lies just beyond it, or which the forum opens INTO. The "lead in" provided by the forum serves to enhance the "approach" to the garden or give the impression one is heading TO something special. In its function as a "vestibule" a forum might be the forum OF a particular house, or a forum might be the forum OF a particular temple, or a forum might be the forum OF a particular TOMB. Since at least as early as Cicero the word was STILL used as a "lobby" or "foyer" or "vestibule" or entrance "TO" something, and some aspect of "entrance to" or a "lead-in space" was intended when THIS area they called a "forum" first got referred to by that word. SOMEONE, at SOME time, had to be the first one to call this space by the newly coined word "forum." But I cannot find in histories any "MOMENT" or "EVENT" in which it was FIRST so called. With such a "genesis" missing, I find nothing stopping "forum's" first application to this space being set far back in antiquity when this "area" still had grass growing in it, and when it was still marshy in its south-eastern area.

However, that speculation also calls for a "narrowing" of the possibilities of what they might have thought this "AREA" was the "lobby" TO, or, the "vestibule" OF, that early. It is important to know about the small "Forum Valley" that in antiquity, not all of it was USEABLE for ANY kind of a "forum." I have just mentioned its "marshy" south-eastern end. Every student of the "Forum's" history knows this flat "valley" was a marsh in its "eastern half" (MORE than half, actually, more like two-thirds). And, the CENTER of the area was the WORST, being an actual LAKE (the famous Lacus Curtius, or "Lake of Curtius"). The dry, useable AREA of this little valley was its WESTERN end, where the Capitoline Hill (Hill of Saturn) came down and met the flat valley floor. THERE, immediately AT the base of that hill, was the flat area of the valley that was first found useable. Then, from the base of the Hill of Saturn (roughly from the carcer spring) a "walkable" strip of dry land followed the NORTH side of the wet valley for a short distance eastward along the base of the Quirinal Hill. This "trail" was basically between the north "shore" of the little lake and the Quirinal. So, if a visitor to this little valley entered it FROM THE EAST, and wanted to get to the other end, he would get to the right, keep tightly against the base of the Quirinal Hill, and make his way west along the trail, first getting past the marsh on his left and then past the lake on his left, until finally reaching the dry OPEN FLAT AREA in front of the Hill of Saturn. I present to you that THIS west end AREA was virtually ALL that could practically be called a "forum." And IF we want this place to be called a "forum," might we not WONDER what it was anciently the "LEAD-UP" to, or what it was deemed the "porch" OF, or the "patio" IN FRONT OF? What was it the "front lawn" OF, or the "courtyard" OF? And IF we realize that probably only the western and north-western part of the AREA was fit to be a usable "forum AREA," does that not suggest that the "OBJECT" or "STRUCTURE" it was the "forum" OF or FOR or TO should be sought at the western and north-western end of the valley? Alright, then consider what "candidates" there were. What things EXISTED there, to which the "forum" might be considered the "entrance-way," or the "vestibule" of, or to? At the extreme north-west corner of the "forum valley" was the CARCER SPRING (and we may speculate that it was already FRAMED in stonework after the Mycaenian tomb style of architecture). Alright, was the dry flat AREA in front of the carcer (extending out from it to the south-east) the "forum" OF the carcer? In their place in this treatise we have mentioned scholars who suggest the carcer was a sacred spring, that is, sacred to some god, and some who suggest it was a tomb. Could the "forum" have been viewed as the "APPROACH" to that revered site? Did the earliest inhabitants consider themselves assembled before the carcer when standing in that AREA? Next candidate: We have also been told that anciently the sacred Altar of Saturn was at the south-west corner of the "forum" AREA, just slightly up the slope of the Hill of Saturn, on the trail that later came to be named the Clivus Capitolinus. Could men anciently have held the AREA IN FRONT OF that sacred spot to be its "forum?" Next candidate: The Hill of Saturn itself. Their ancient legends held that the god Saturn actually had his residence, his home, atop that hill. Furthermore, the god literally did farming. And, if one takes his residency literally, it follows that he did his farming on the flat AREA at the base of the hill. And, indeed, that is what their stories told them was the case. So; Could a visitor approaching from the east end of the valley, consider himself approaching the "forum" of Saturn's abode as he came to the flat AREA at the base of the Hill of Saturn? Next candidate: In its place we have treated of the fact that the western end of the "forum" valley, the flat AREA at the foot of the Hill of Saturn, was called "THE AREA OF SATURN." And to repeat, a number of reasons made that Saturn's "AREA" (the Altar, and the hilltop abode belief, and we should add, the building THERE of the TEMPLE of Saturn). We ask; If we admit that this "AREA" was an already identified and designated "AREA" and that said "AREA" was the FLAT USABLE AREA at the valley's west end, does this not offer material for a theory at least that the original so-called "FORUM" was PRECISELY the SAME piece of ground that was otherwise called "THE AREA OF SATURN?" Remember that we are excluding the lake and the swamp area that was the valley's eastern two-thirds. Now if you have caught the possibility, add to it these facts. Three things were on elevations above that "AREA" anciently. If you were somehow (perhaps on a raft) floating in the middle of the lake (Lacus Curtius) and looking west to the Hill of Saturn, you'd have in the CENTER of your vista the Hill of Saturn. If you looked to the hill's LEFT your view would take in the location of the ALTAR of Saturn. If you moved your view to the hill's RIGHT, it would take in the location of the CARCER (which for this drama I suggest was held by the viewer to be a SACRED spring). But note, all of these three locations were elevated ABOVE the flat "AREA" the viewer was just "off-shore" of. If you are accompanying me on my little "view-tour" here, it will readily present a suggestive scenario: In the APPROACH to these sacred spots the person APPROACHING would have the FLAT AREA IN FRONT OF THEM indeed as the "PORCH" or "LANDING" or "PATIO" laid out before them. The same "AREA" we know to be "THE AREA OF SATURN" might indeed be the "VESTIBULE" or "APPROACH" to the shrines or sacred places. I ask, WHY could not the "forum" originally have been actually the "forum" of those sacred elevations? If we discard the idea on the basis of it being sheer speculation, I understand. But can it be discarded on the basis of some EVIDENCE, or something in history that informs us to the contrary? That "evidence" I have not yet found. The notion would be obliterated if someone could provide an authoritative statement in history to the effect that the "forum" area was not CALLED by the word "forum" until AFTER "it" was drained, and then paved, and, AFTER the first twenty stone buildings were constructed around "its" perimeter. But I only ask for thought: HOW could such an important flat valley go that long without being CALLED anything? We have things IN the valley called things. We have the "Lake of Curtius" et al. But the valley itself being called nothing? That is not reasonable. Men could only say they have no knowledge of WHAT it was called before it was called a "forum." But I will remind my readers that when it comes to the DRY, WALKABLE, USEABLE land, we have the "AREA OF SATURN" as a designation. But a thing's name or title is not the same as WHAT a thing is. A certain thing may be named "Vesuvius." But WHAT is it? A volcano. I suggest that the area we are discussing may have been named "The Area of Saturn," but if we ask, "WHAT was it?" the answer might be, "a forum." And still, if it turns out that the Area of Saturn was NOT identical with the original "forum" in that vicinity, that is, if we cannot say the "forum" was named or called "The Area of Saturn," it doesn't matter for our present point, which is really only that the possibility exists that "forum" may have indicated that it was the "vestibule" entrance-area TO something. We have seen that this was the word's meaning, and I simply raise the possibility that some one of the STRUCTURES or SITES on the perimeter of the "forum" might have been what the early inhabitants held the "forum" to be the "yard IN FRONT OF." And with that possibility in mind, what is wrong with wondering what adjacent thing the forum was viewed as the approach TO? I will even offer the reader another possibility that DISCARDS restriction to only the dry, walkable, useable land at the base of the Hill of Saturn (the Area of Saturn): Go back outside the eastern end of the "forum" valley and begin again to approach it, walking westward. In antiquity, when the "kingdom" or "city state" of "SATURNIA" occupied the ENTIRE west end of the "forum," encompassing the WHOLE Hill of Saturn AND the Altar of Saturn, AND the carcer, AND the "Area of Saturn" (and for good measure let's add everything within 100 yards of this complex in all directions), the visitor to this "SATURNIA" coming from the east, would come first to the entrance of the "forum" valley, and the ENTIRE forum valley might be considered the flat valley "this side of" Saturnia, or, the "lead-in" TO Saturnia. The whole "forum" valley could be "that which is at the fore of Saturnia." Think if you will of the "Plains of Troy" which were that great flat sandy expanse that lay between the city of Troy and sea. The Greeks came ashore on the "Plains of Troy" which were before the city. Might not the ENTIRE flat "forum" valley floor have been the "FORE-ground" of Saturnia to those coming in from the east? THIS would establish a premise for the entire "Forum" area having from ancient times been called the "forum" of "something." This would accomodate both the legend of Saturnia being here, and the "forum" being the "approach" TO something.

And so it should be understood that in their earliest usage of the word '"forum" it indicated an area BEFORE or IN FRONT OF something, and might even be used to denote the way OUT of a place, or the passageway to the outdoors, or, that which is immediately OUTSIDE of something. But please NOTICE that EVERY one of these uses requires that there be SOME OTHER THING, that is, that THING that the "forum" was the exit FROM, or that THING or PLACE that the forum was the way INTO, or, the fore-court OF. If you do not realize that there needed to be SOME THING or some place that a forum was the forum OF or TO, the word meaning is misunderstood.

Ah, good old METONYMY! In this treatise we have pointed out present-day misconceptions of the meanings of a number of things, due to metonymy and the process of time, and the oldest original "forum" at the foot of the Hill of Saturn, is another of them, another victim of metonymy.

THE FORUM HAD A BOUNDARY:



Not only was the carcer spring at the north-west corner of the Forum ON the Forum's BOUNDARY, but I will explain why I believe it possible that "sightings" (after the manner of surveyors and surveying) were originally taken AT and FROM the carcer spring for ESTABLISHING the Forum's boundary lines. I think it possible that the carcer spring was the POINT at which the Forum was "anchored" and from whence lines were drawn, and areas determined. And, as the carcer spring existed BEFORE any man-made "designs" at the site, it (the spring) may have anciently been deemed the FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT "marker" of the Forum's BORDERS. The logic ought to readily appear, that if the word "carcer" most anciently denoted the "boundary of an enclosed space" there is no mystery as why that word should be attached to this particular landmark, this spring.

In the Britannica, cited above, it stated that a forum "was ENCLOSED by GATES at the ENTRANCES." It was a distinct ENCLOSURE, and a bit of focus makes it apparent that it was an enclosure with a distinctly IDENTIFIABLE PERIMETER. A Roman could clearly KNOW when, with his next footstep, he was stepping INTO the Forum. Its borders were known.

That it was BOUNDARIED is much more plainly stated in Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary, for "forum": "forum , i, (archaic form forus , i, m., to accord with locus, Lucil. ap. Charis. p. 55 P., and ap. Non. 206, 15; Pompon. ib.), n. etym. dub.; perh. root Sanscr. dhar-, support; dhar-as, mountain, etc.; Lat. forma, fortis, frenum, etc.; lit., a place or space WITH SET BOUNDS, Corss. Ausspr. 1, 149."

It says, "LITERALLY a place or space WITH SET BOUNDS"! Note "to accord with LOCUS." The addition of "a place or space WITH SET BOUNDS" makes it clear that the classic and even scientific usage of "accord with locus" is intended: Its meaning is actually to establish a defined space BY setting its outer bounds with precise LINES of trajectory. Let us say you wish to establish a vegetable garden, and the geometric shape of the area you intend is a rectangle, and you are planning it on paper. By placing DOTS at the four CORNERS, the garden area is roughly identifiable. But then draw precisely straight LINES between the dots to form a visible rectangle, and the BORDER or BOUNDARY is now sharply clear and established. It becomes a space with BORDERS set by LINES. THAT is what we are told here. The Forum was created with CORNERS, and precise LINES OF TRAJECTORY were sighted between them. This is what the dictionary is saying for "locus": Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition, as well as Ultralingua World-class Dictionary, and The American College Dictionary,"1. A place, 2. The LINE traced by a point which varies its position according to some determinate law; the surface described by a point or line that moves according to a given law." Says the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, "1. technical, a PARTICULAR position, point, or place. 2. Mathematics a curve or other FIGURE formed BY all the POINTS satisfying a particular condition. ORIGIN Latin, 'place'." And the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "LOCUS (Lat. for "place"), a GEOMETRICAL term, the invention of the notion of which is attributed to Plato. It occurs in such statements as these: the locus of the points which are at the same distance from a fixed point, ...The notion of a locus applies also to SOLID geometry. Here THE LOCUS OF THE POINTS satisfying a single (or onefold) condition is a SURFACE, ... ." To reiterate, the Lewis and Short refs indicating "to accord with LOCUS," and the creation of "a place or space WITH SET BOUNDS" is indicative that THESE are the meanings intended. Note as well that it says "TO ACCORD with locus. This is perfect for what we suppose: To accord is to give or to grant or to assign or to ALLOT. Our thought is that the Romans indeed ALLOTTED a "bounded" or "boundaried," identified, precise space as something.

No less an authority on Roman antiquities than Lawrence Richardson (in his New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, page 154) speaks of the Forum as "boundaried." It is an aside, but he says of a certain arch, that it was "at the east end of the Forum Romanum, regarded as ONE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FORUM." We appreciate that one who has so deeply studied ancient Rome has it NATURALLY spring to his mind that the Forum should have "BOUNDARIES" even when the matters that WE are concerned with here were probably far from his thoughts. It should be considered however that a free-standing arch needed some flat ground upon which to be constructed, by which I mean it was NOT up against the natural barrier of the hill. Richardson can only be saying that AFTER its construction it was viewed as one of the entrances into the Forum. His contribution to our thought therefore is not one of marking a spot on the actual ancient perimeter of the Forum. Rather it perhaps lets some of the ancient Roman mind seep through, and that is, yet another statement to the effect that the Romans would think of the Forum as in fact "BOUNDARIED." Discussing the other end of the Forum on page 165, he says plainly, "On the east the Forum was BOUNDED by the BASE of the Capitoline Hill." In The Approach to the Temple of Saturn in Rome Richardson states again of the same BOUNDARY of the Forum, "The facade of the CARCER probably gives us THE LINE it followed on the west side." - The Approach to the Temple of Saturn in Rome by L. Richardson, Jr., published in the American Journal of Achaeology, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 51-62. You have seen me speaking in terms of straight "lines of trajectory."

You can see that I am not the only one who has noticed that the CARCER is the perfect surveyor's position for sighting roughly SOUTHWARD down the western BOUNDARY LINE of the Forum.

We will be discussing some things that pertain to various SECTIONS of the Hill of Saturn (Capitoline Hill), and it will help the reader to know what sections of the hill are indicated. To begin, we offer here an extremely STYLIZED graphic of the terrain under discussion. This graphic does NOT attempt accurate geophysical details, but is primarily so that the reader may know what is intended when we speak of the "ARX of the Capitoline." Notice that the ONE SINGLE hill ("CAPITOLINE") has on its top THREE (3) vicinities. They are important in the history and topography of Rome. Here in this section of our treatise we are primarily focusing on the CARCER SPRING being located at the base of the hill directly below the ARX, and, focusing on the AUGURACULUM, which was ON the eastern-most EDGE of the Arx, directly overlooking the Forum, and hence situated directly above the carcer spring. Notice also in the graphic the Quirinal Hill extending off to the "right." In between the Capitoline Hill and the Quirinal Hill is that "join" or "spur" or "connection" or "ridge" of land that once existed there until the Romans completely dug it away, bringing it down to be perfectly level with the carcer.


REMEMBER THE EXCAVATIONS & RE-SHAPING.

We discuss elements of this elsewhere in their place, but consider: Even vertically ABOVE the site of the carcer, we find "surveyors" sighting down lines, SOUTHWARD. The reader should understand (as discussed elsewhere in this section) that tremendous amounts of EARTH-MOVING, EXCAVATION, AND REMODLING occured at this location through the centuries. Both the top of the Capitoline Hill and the eastern foot of the hill WHERE IT MEETS the Forum floor were CHANGED BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION through the centuries. The HEIGHT of the Capitoline was greatly reduced. Not only was its height dug and scraped DOWN, but later, buildings and their foundations, and their plazas were constructed UPWARDS upon the hill, so that its true ANCIENT contours were utterly destroyed. The eastern FOOT of the hill which formed the western boundary of the Forum was dug into and carved OUT, and the foundations of walls set IN, and in other generations the foundations of temples and etc. were yet dug back into THOSE works, and massive stairways were built, etc: Probably the only two sites which remain today that give witness to the true ancient contours of the eastern side of the Capitoline Hill are, 1. the CARCER, and 2. the Clivus Capitolinus. Thus the topographers rely so heavily on the ancient records that bear witness to what was where, and archaeology plays such an important role. I have always appreciated the Scripture verse taken up by so many Christians in the study of archaeology, "The STONES shall cry out!" But to continue: Even with all the hill-carving and re-sculpting the Capitoline underwent considered, the carcer spring is roughly "BELOW" the ARX of the Capitoline Hill (now all but gone). Perhaps more precisely the carcer spring is below and a tad (a number of yards) south-southeast of what was anciently the southeasternmost cliff edge of the Arx. The historians and topographers tell us that bodies hurled from the Arx's south-east cliff edge fell IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE CARCER (or perhaps ten yards south-west of it). But read that in its place. The Etruscan and Roman AUGURS set up their square tent of divination on the Arx of the hill (roughly above the carcer spring). From THAT spot we are TOLD that they faced SOUTH and divined, looking through a square frame of sticks, with crossed sticks in the middle, which perfectly split their view into sections. This view through the "templum" had roughly the Forum air space in the quadrant on their left (east) and the southern top of the Capitoline Hill on their right (west). When you realize that this SPOT was the most important site in Rome for AUGURY, it can help you understand that Romans actually did THINK ABOUT "lines of trajectory" when they were THERE! Think of this: A Roman or an Etruscan could be standing AT the carcer spring, his very feet wet with the waters issuing out of the spring, and LOOK UP at the precise moment the AUGUR was ABOVE him on the Arx, sighting a line south. The man below at the carcer spring would most naturally then instinctively turn and look south himself, hoping to perhaps see what signs the AUGUR might be seeing. Birds, for instance, flying within one of the "lines of sight" formed by the augur's templum, were considered omens.

    

Reflect for a moment on the rectangle being formed by two squares. The Romans sought whenever possible to form open spaces in the shape of a square, or a "double-square" (a "rectangle"). And the attempt was made to so shape the Forum, as much as the natural geography would permit.

It is NOT by accident that the majority of Roman buildings, temples, lots and forums, and other landscaped areas are either squares or rectangles. RELIGION and AUGURY and the augur's TEMPLUM figured into that result. THEY TRIED TO FORCE NATURAL SPACES INTO SQUARES AND RECTANGLES AS MUCH AS THEY POSSIBLY COULD. A village designed with its four outer walls aligned perfectly at right angles to each other (hence "squared") and said walls being aligned to the cardinal points of the compass, and the square village having its two main streets crossing each other at the precise center (as depicted by the center yellow & pink graphic above) was thought to align the village with the universe, the cosmos, and in fact to mystically or spiritually make the settlement something like the "center of the universe." This same "spiritual geometry" went into the design and layout of almost every important Roman "place," as much as its geography permitted.

Notice how R. A. Adkins in the following text flows from the Roman POMERIUM to the topic of a Roman SQUARE: "In new towns the principles of classical town planning were introduced. The foundation ceremony of new Roman towns originated in Etruscan times. An augur MARKED OUT the axes of the town, the cardo maximus and the decumanus maximus, based on astronomical sightings. A RITUAL FURROW (sulcus primigenius, original furrow) was PLOWED to MARK THE LINE of the WALL or rampart. The strip of land immediately outside the town WALL (pomerium) was the formal and RELIGIOUS BOUNDARY of the town and was not allowed to be inhabited or plowed. In their developed form Roman towns consisted of a SQUARE or RECTANGULAR perimeter with two axes (usually the main streets, decumanus maximus, and cardo maximus intersecting at RIGHT ANGLES in the town CENTER." Handbook to life in ancient Rome by Roy A. Adkins page 131, in the chapter on PLANNED and UNPLANNED towns.

Likewise, Francis John Haverfield in Handbook to life in ancient Rome, pages 62-3: "These customs belong to the three fields of religion, agrarian land settlement and war. ALL THREE exhibit the SAME principle, the division of a DEFINITE SPACE BY ... straight lines. The Roman AUGUR ... marked off a SQUARE piece of sky or earth - his templum - into FOUR QUARTERS. In them he sought for his signs. The Roman general who encamped his troops, laid out their tents on a RECTANGULAR pattern governed by the SAME IDEA. The commissioners who assigned FARMING PLOTS on the public domains ... planned THESE plots on the SAME rectangular scheme. ... THESE Roman customs are VERY ANCIENT. Later Romans deemed them AS ANCIENT AS ROME ITSELF. ... These are Italian customs, FAR OLDER than the BEGINNINGS of Greek influence on Rome, OLDER than the systematic town planning of the Greek lands, and OLDER also than the Etruscans. They should be treated as an ANCESTRAL HERITAGE of the Italian TRIBES kindred with Rome."

Our focus here is on the Forum Romanum (and in particular the location of the carcer). The NATURAL valley in which the Forum was built was certainly not a neat rectangle or a square before human inhabitants came. As with ANY valley, its shape was quite irregular. In its natural state, it was bounded by the Capitoline Hill on its west, the Palatine Hill on its south, and the slopes of the Quirinal on its north. As discussed already, the valley's eastern two-thirds was a marsh. This is hardly amenable to a surveyor laying out a rectangle. But the inhabitants DID WHAT THEY COULD, to stake out a bounded SHAPE in this valley: Adkins, just cited, says further on the same page, that perimeters "were usually square or rectangular and of equal size. Often HOWEVER, the plan of a town had to be adapted to the topography so that the perimeter was irregular, the streets were NOT evenly spaced or always parallel, and the size and shape of insulae varied. Even so, a grid of streets and insulae was laid out AS FAR AS POSSIBLE."

I would point out for the discerning that AUGURIES were taken from the ARX of the Capitoline Hill (Hill of Saturn), which technical research has established was on the EASTERNMOST edge of the Arx. It is significant that this very IMPORTANT site for taking auguries was VERTICALLY ALMOST DIRECTLY ABOVE THE CARCER spring! It is furthermore known and undisputed that the auguries established a vista to the SOUTH, or, a line of view going southward, and that from there (looking south) they divined. Let me point out that this "southward vista" afforded a "line" of sight that roughly tracked above the "border" of the Forum as it runs along the base of the foot of the Hill of Saturn (Capitoline Hill)! The line of view of the augur upon the Arx southward just barely "scraped" the Palatine Hill, which (in line of sight) was just on the left (east) to the viewer (the augur). I believe there is every reason to suppose that the westernmost border of the "Forum" valley was established IN LINE WITH the view of the augur atop the eastern-most reach of the Arx (as much as the natural geography of the valley allowed) Further reading brings to light that this same "trajectory" line is that "line" which was the "base" of the Hill of Saturn, UPON which the EARLIEST DEFENSIVE WALL of the Capitoline was built and along which the wall of the Tabularium was later built. That SAME line is accepted as being identical to the line of the POMERIUM and the line of the "Roman Quadrata." But, as this requires explanation, we speak more, in its place, on the issue of the connection of the Roman Quadrata and Pomerium with the Hill of Saturn.


The above graphic simply demonstrates the auguraculum positioned on the Arx above the carcer spring, and, how each is situated in a northwest corner. The augurs, in keeping with ritual, face east & south, and frame their "templum" around that which lies within that vista. The graphic below accentuates something else. I differ with this artist's conception on one thing: I maintian that the red dot indicating the auguraculum should not be as distant from the carcer as it appears in this sketch. Authorities on the shape of the Arx tell us that it was carved and re-shaped beyond all recognition, and so this is an artist's "conception." I maintain that the descriptions of things in the histories gives evidence that the edge of the cliff on which sat the auguraculum was more toward (and above) the carcer spring than imagined in this sketch. But for OUR purposes here, we would have the reader look at our superimposed yellow lines. It readily appears that the north-to-south vista demanded by the laws of the auguraculum cause the augur to look directly over the Altar of Saturn. Further, the PHYSICAL border of the Forum ran directly from the carcer spring to the Altar of Saturn. The student who spends even an hour in study of the auguries and "Roman way" of alignments and trajectories will conclude that this would NOT have gone un-noticed by the Romans, and certainly not by the augurs. We have more to say on this below, but the carcer spring and the Altar of Saturn were THE TWO MOST ANCIENT LANDMARKS in the Forum valley. That they might be used for "sight-lines" should come as no surprise.


There is ample reason (derived from understanding the "Roman way") for scholars to look for planned conformity to RECTANGLES and SQUARES and RIGHT ANGLES and their CORNERS as much as possible in the landscape of the Forum. We believe that when this "Roman way" is understood it becomes impossible to dismiss the importance of the carcer spring's LOCATION, being situated where the two MOST PREDOMINANT border lines of the Forum joined at their right angles.

For the NATURAL (geographic) bounds, let me borrow from Landscape Symbolism of Imperial Rome, 2006, by Christopher J. Tuccio: "During the Republic, the marshy plain adjacent to the Palatine became the center of Roman judicial, economic, and RELIGIOUS activity. The field was DEFINED on four sides by the hills of primitive Rome. The CAPITOLINE and Quirinal hills established the western BOUNDARIES, joined by a hill-saddle known as the Velia(*), while the eastern portion of the forum was BOUND by the connection of the Palatine and Esquiline hills. This SPACE was originally used for burials by the inhabitants of the Palatine Hill." Speaking of a later time in history he says "Until this point in Roman history, the central Forum had always been defined by the natural hills which surrounded it, PREDOMINANTLY the Palatine's connection to the Esquiline, AND THE CAPITOLINE'S CONNECTION WITH THE QUIRINAL." He goes on to say that the Forum area extended "FROM THE TABULARIUM to the Regia." Observe a couple of things: At the Forum's western end he gives the base of the CAPITOLINE HILL as it boundary. There is nothing new in this, for one-hundred percent of scholars on the Forum say the same thing. I will point out however his addition of the TABULARIUM, which was dug into that hill base. Neither would anyone disagree with that observation. But I appreciate the focus for a couple of reasons: Using the straight stone wall of the Tabularium more distinctly gives the observer a "straight line of trajectory." I am leaping ahead of myself here, but, the straight wall of the Tabularium (which formed the Forum's western BOUNDARY extended directly toward the CARCER just beyond that wall's northernmost end. But as I said, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's continue extracting from Tuccio: He has said, the "Forum had always been defined by the natural hills which surrounded it, PREDOMINANTLY the Palatine's connection to the Esquiline, AND THE CAPITOLINE'S CONNECTION WITH THE QUIRINAL." If you were following in a "visual," say on a map of the Forum on which these landmarks are visible, we have here TWO (2) of the Forum's boundary ANGLES supplied; 1., the straight line of the Capitoline's base (Tabularium wall) and the "CORNER" if you will, where that "line" meets what Tuccio calls "the Capitoline's CONNECTION WITH THE QUIRINAL." The Quirinal Hill at THAT point (or corner) starts forming the boundary on the Forum's NORTHERN side. But we have already noted that the Tabularium wall runs toward the CARCER, which is just AT that point WHERE the boundary "TURNS" to begin making the northern boundary. Tuccio helps us further by narrowing the focus. He does NOT merely speak of the Quirinal, but rather "the Capitoline's CONNECTION with the Quirinal." Elsewhere in its place we have discussed this "CONNECTION" in more detail. This is that "SPOT" precisely AT the CARCER which is variously called a "ridge" or "spur" or "saddle" of land that once "joined" the Capitoline Hill and the Quirinal Hill. HERE men walked directly past the CARCER if they were walking out of the Forum at its northwest corner "exit," and could TOUCH the carcer's stonework as they passed it. To draw one last particle from Tuccio, me may appreciate his saying the Forum "had always been DEFINED by the natural hills" which surrounded it, "PREDOMINANTLY", he says, "THE CAPITOLINE'S CONNECTION WITH THE QUIRINAL" as well as "the Palatine's connection to the Esquiline." Tuccio here makes the site of the CARCER and a point where the Palatine meets the Esqiline, the Forum's two most PREDOMINANT "bounds" since the most ancient times. * Note: Tuccio's use of the term "Velia" is perhaps unfortunate as it can gender confusion. Samuel Ball Platner in his Topography (page 550) says that Velia might be any number of locations as it is used "in the PLURAL (Varro, loc. cit.; Non. 531; Fest. 154; Asc. in Pison. 52; Dionys. I.68 )." And while Platner cites some of the theories that exist as to where a "Velia" in the singular MIGHT have been, he concludes, "The meaning and derivation of the Velia is as uncertain now as it was in antiquity." So it is not helpful that Tuccio should say "Velia" here to indicate the "hill-saddle" joining the Capitoline and the Quirinol. But it does not matter to what we are considering here whether he should or shouldn't call this "hill-saddle" a "Velia." He is CLEAR enough on the SPOT that he is discussing: That "hill-saddle" at the Forum's BOUNDARY, further explained as "the Capitoline's connection with the Quirinal." We might well have replaced "Velia" with "ridge" but we preferred our reader to see the text we were citing.


In the above graphic of the "central forum area" the particular "squares" or "rectangles" of which we speak are not demonstrated by the artist, but this widely used depiction can be used to demonstrate what we mean. Several things in this graphic were the cause of it not precisely showing OUR point: For one, you can see that the red line at the right used the Temple of "Divine Caesar" as it's edge, and at the left the Rostra. The thing that is "wrong" with this, is that the artist happened to only be referencing that period in history when a CROWD, an AUDIENCE, would assemble in that area before the Rostra (the great speaker's platform), and yes, in that period of history, the area delineated by the artist was the most active "central forum" area. But OUR study discusses the carcer at the "Forum" in a much earlier period, when in fact the Rostra in the depiction had not yet been placed there, and NEITHER did the Temple of "Divine Caesar" yet EXIST in the Forum. Notice in the graphic the Carcer at the upper left, and in the lower left the Temple of Saturn. The true ORIGINAL Forum with which we deal in this treatise had for the line of its western boundary a "line" running from the Carcer down to the west (left) side of the Temple of Saturn.

And SO we would have you extend the artist's red rectangle LEFTWARD to where you see the "Clivus Capitolinus" indicated.

HOWEVER, FOR OUR USES, WE APPRECIATE THIS ARTIST'S DEMONSTRATION OF THE "CENTRAL FORUM" AREA FOR PRIMARILY ONLY ONE THING: IT IS ONE OF THE FORUM DEPICTIONS THAT RIGHTLY SHOWS THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE FORUM PASSING STRAIGHT THROUGH THE BASILICA AEMILIA'S PORTICO, AND HEADING WEST DIRECTLY TOWARD THE CARCER. THIS IS OUR OWN BELIEF AS WELL, AS SHOWN BELOW WITH THE RED LINE:

Depicted we see the Basilica Aemilia situated on the north boundary line. It should be understood that the Basilica Aemilia was a "late" construction in the Forum. The site upon which it was built was PREVIOUSLY occupied by rows of shops such as butcher shops, money lenders, and bankers. Further, the "Basilica Aemilia" so-called, after it WAS eventually built there, was rebuilt and remodeled about three times. The first Basilica Aemilia in fact did not displace the merchants shops. Rather, it was built BEHIND them. In that first "incarnation" we would possibly see an "alley" of sorts between the shops and the basilica, and the alley would be running straight along the depicted red line, directly to the carcer spring. It is my understanding that the basilica was destroyed at least twice by fires, and eventually rebuilt more substantially.


Our study is focused on the Carcer, and therefore only on the Forum boundaries associated WITH the Carcer, which is why we do not attempt to treat of the Forum's south or east. But we hope the above depictions assist in showing the reader how in our view the carcer spring at the Forum's uppermost CORNER was a DISTINCT AND OBVIOUS BOUNDARY-LINE LANDMARK of the Forum.

Tarquinius Priscus (one of the kings of Rome known as "the Tarquins") reigned in approximately 616 BC. While I am skeptical regarding some of the works attributed to the Tarquins, the following assertions are interesting for their mention of the Forum, its shape, and boundaries: "The Tarquins drained the land, transformed the unruly river Spinon into the Cloaca Maxima, gave the Forum a REGULAR (trapezoidal) SHAPE, divided the space around ITS BORDERS into building-lots, and sold them to private speculators for shops and houses, the fronts of which were to be lined with PORTICOES." Source: The Ruins of Ancient Rome, page 233, by Rodolfo Lanciani. I do not disagree so much with saying the Tarquin kings controlled and managed the Forum area in that way. Rather, I think Lanciani's statement may give some readers the wrong impression that order and design was non-existent before the Tarquins. That simply is not the case. To be fair, Lanciani did not actually say that design and order in the Forum was previously non-existent. His wording, even if accidentally, does however suggest the Forum's sharp and distinct shape and ITS BORDERS are owing to the Tarquins. I would suggest rather that the Tarquins only TOOK OVER the Forum and ACCENTUATED or sharpened its existing borders and shape, and MAPPED OUT lots and properties according to more clear lines and divisions. But I appreciate the additional "witness" of Lanciani that the Forum had distinct recognized shape and "BORDERS" by at least circa 616 BC. I say much earlier, but it's not that important. At least take from Lanciani that the Forum's "BORDERS" were SO clearly known and marked that footage of "PROPERTY FOR SALE" could be measured FROM those BOUNDARY LINES. If it were you or I that were PURCHASING such a lot we would be keenly aware that how much "square footage" marked off from the Forum Border we are getting for our money is not a thing to "approximate" or to be vague about. We'd want precise measurements.

We have many MORE reasons for believing that the carcer spring was AT, was ON, and was considered to BE the marker OF, the boundary of this place.

BACK TO PAGE 2 OF THE "CHURCH VS THE EKKLESIA" (which also contains the first section on carcer)


































END.









































































































These words and phrases are merely here to help people using a search engine to research THIS topic, in finding this page. So here goes, words to help people get here ... Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Bible, Scriptures, truth, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ,saved, blood of Jesus, cross, calvary, golgotha, Apostolic, sinners, Affliction, admonition, lamb, apostles, sound doctrine, Baptist, Spurgeon, Andrew Murray, inspired, inerrency, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, People have called it organized religion or the religious sytem or churchianity, People have called it religiosity or the church system, People have called it the traditions of man, the traditions of men, manmade tradition, People have refered to this sort of thinking as outside the box, outside the box Christianity, Christianity outside the box, tec., and there is a service on the web called Meetup or Meet Up. Any special interest groups can form their own groups and then literally meet up in person. One of the groups tragically got saddled with a rotten name at its inception, which completely misrepresents what the group is about. It got named the AntiChristian-Christians Meetup. Truly a tragedy, because this group is not in any way against Christians. They are not anti Christian, nor AntiChristian. Hardly! They ARE Christians! What the not-too-bright guy who started it under that name MEANT by it, was that it was non-traditional, or non-conformist Christian, was contrary to traditions of men, contrary to or anti Christian formality, against the USUAL or COMMON way you see Christians DO their Christianity. In other words, to choose a better term, OUTSIDE THE BOX Christians. A more misleading term than AntiChristian could not have been used. So, these geat outside the box thinking Christians were stuck with coming into that group and having to tolerate it being called the AntiChristian-Christians Meetup. Im not sure, but recently it looks like maybe the group has finally accomplished getting the AC name discarded. I see the name Progressive Christians Meetups being used. Not sure if this is an actual name change, or a different group. But unfortunately, the service, Meetup, has not permitted a URL change, so it still has ac in it. Last time I checked I found them at http://ac-christians.meetup.com and it might be worth your time to check it out. Another outside the box thinker is Len Hjalmarson who is associated with a movement and a website called NextReformation at http://nextreformation.com/wp-admin/general/transition.htm There is much I disagree with in it, because the website is vast and contains so much, I couldnt possibly agree with ALL of it. But Len is onto something when it comes to the traditional concept of going to church inside a building every Sunday morning. It is worth reading him on that issue. House2House Ministries, Worshiping Outside the Traditional Church Walls, By Paul Strand, pollster George Barna, Revolution, Barna Research Group, conventional church, Tony Dale, Felicity Dale, article titled Why I Don't Go To Church Anymore!, By Wayne Jacobsen, BodyLife, the Relational Church, Where do you go to church, institutional church, institutional religion, institutional Christianity, institutional worship, institutional churchianity, not the same as house churches, meet in houses, meet in homes, meet in our house, not the same as the house church movement, not the same as a cell church, not the same as cell churches, home Bible groups, home Bible study, not the same as Bible study in the home, Lifestream Ministries, Wayne Jacobsen, Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matt 18:20, Mat 18:20, 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, creation research, intelligent design, virgin birth, five fundamentals, the fundamentals, iniquity, transgressions, nails, faith, believeth, verse, Word of God, literal, Christian apologetics, Noahs flood, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Apostle Paul, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Chronicles, Impute, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Psalms Proverbs, Solomon, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obabdiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Galatians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Apocalypse, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, spake, hear people tell you, I dont go to church anymore, hear people tell you, I dont have to go to church, hear people tell you, they dont have to go to church, hear people tell you, going to church is not necessary, hear people tell you, Im a Christian but I dont go to church, hear people tell you, you dont have to go to church to be a Christian, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, II Thes. 2:1, 2nd Thess. 2:1, 2 Thes. 2:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2nd Thessalonians 2:1, ll Thes. 2:1, 2nd Thess. 2:1, 2 Thes. 2:1, 2 Thes 2:1, Hebrews 10:25, Heb. 10:25, Heb 10:25, Hebrews chapter 10, Hebrews Chapt 10, Hebrews tenth chapter, commentary of Hebrews 10, cleansed, leper, angel, Gabriel, satan, devil, possessed, resurrected, resurrection, judgement, throne, spirit, soul, demonic, Frank Viola, house2house, Melchisedec, Melchizedek, Noah, Babel, Nimrod, Semiramis, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Ascension, organized religion, false, Reformed, non denominational, covering, covenant, crucified, crucifixion, tomb, raised, spirit, Christianity, contend for the faith, sword, gird, hasten, as the manner of some is, Lord Jesus Christ, Moses, tabernacle, ark, Jordan, Sinai, testament, testimony, Canon, seraphim, holy, Aaron, millstone, brimstone, wrath, redeemer, saviour, beloved, believeth, prophesied, prophecy, prophecies, prophets, congregation, saints, Zwingli, Knox, Melancthon, Hus, Wesley, saith, speaketh, Absalom, Jericho, chosen, priesthood, arise, conquerors, Pharisees, Sanhedrin, Saduccees, Zealotes, pillar, reverence, worshipped, servant, plagues, unclean, temple, synagogue, commandeth, commandments, ministering, sceptre, begotten, reproof, righteousness, evermore, everlasting, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Melchisedec, Jewish custom, religious custom, religious rite, Jewish religious custom, Jewish religious rite, heavens, declare, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, fellowlabourers, yoke, antichrist, biddeth, elect, election, advent, Alpha, Omega, Thyatira, candlesticks, waters, censer, woe, Wormwood, lamp, supplications, perseverance, manifold temptations, succour, sojourning, idols, idolatries, idolatry, Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, Abstinence, baptism, baptized, ecclesia, mortal, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Bible, Scriptures, truth, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, saved, Is the church age over Some people teach that the church age is over, Some people say that the church age is over, Some people claim that the church age is over, Obabdiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Galatians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Apocalypse, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, spake, Holy Ghost, sacrifices, Christians, pray, prayers, intercession, worship, presence, healed, miracle, glory, praise, historicism, historicist, Elliott Vitringa, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, John Calvin, John Knox, Damnation, Philip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Atonement, Wickedness, Thomas Cranmer, Benjamin Keach, John Wesley, Joseph Mede, Jonathan Edwards, Condemnation, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Discernment, Dr. A. B. Simpson, Grattan Guinness, Johann Heinrich Alsted, Hendrikus Berkhof, Destruction, William Whiston , Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Exceeding abundantly, Bishop J.C. Rylie, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Albert Barnes, J. A. Bengel, King James Bible, popery, papists, indulgences, Gianavel, Rora, Waldensian, Walloons, Piedmont, Waldenses, Reformation, priestcraft, Strongs concordance, theological, hermeneutics, exigesis, Progressive Dispensationalism, Archangel, Saucy, Blaising, Bock, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, salvation, George Ladd, George E. Ladd, Kingdom, kirk, kirke, circ, circe, cirk, circle, congregation, assembly, assemble, gather, gathering, sword, gird, hasten, forth, hitherto, commentary, heresy, heretics, twain, asunder, church, fellowship, supper, blessed, Jerusalem, Canaan, Zebulon, Naphtali, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Moses, tabernacle, ark, Jordan, Sinai, testament, testimony, Canon, seraphim, holy, Aaron, millstone, brimstone, wrath, redeemer, saviour, beloved, believeth, prophesied, prophecy, prophecies, prophets, congregation, saints, Zwingli, Knox, Melancthon, Hus, Wesley, saith, speaketh, Absalom, Jericho, chosen, priesthood, arise, conquerors, Pharisees, Sanhedrin, Saduccees, Zealotes, pillar, reverence, worshipped, servant, plagues, unclean, temple, synagogue, commandeth, commandments, ministering, sceptre, begotten, reproof, righteousness, evermore, everlasting, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Harold Camping claims the Church Age is over, ... what I believe is not the same thing ... many who believe that the church age has ended ... Harold Camping says the Church Age is over, Harold Camping claims the Church Age ended, Harold Camping says the Church Age ended, Harold Camping claims the Church Age has ended, ... what I believe is not the same thing ... Harold Camping says the Church Age is over, Harold Camping claims Christians should get out of their churches, ... what I believe is not the same thing ... Harold Camping says Christians should get out of their churches, ... many who say that the church age has ended ... People say Harold Camping is a heretic, ... many besides Harold Camping who say that the church age has ended ... People say Harold Camping is wrong, ... many who teach that the church age has ended ... Whats up with Harold Camping ... many who say that the church age is over ... what I believe is not the same thing ... Is Harold Camping just another date setter ... many who say that the church age ended ... Am I a follower of Harold Camping Do I believe what Harold Camping teaches ... many who think that the church age has ended ... Is this a pro-Harold Camping website ... not just Harold Camping. ... what I believe is not the same thing ... Many teach that the Church Age is over. Just open a Google search and put in quotes the phrase the Church Age is over and youll get about 225 hits. Do the search with -Camping and youll still get something like 175., ... what I believe is not the same thing as Harold Camping was not the first to teach that the church age has ended. He is only one of many. Others have OTHER scriptures, other reasons for believing it, that have NO connection to what Camping teaches, and yet what I believe is not the same thing as the others, either ... creation research, intelligent design, virgin birth, five fundamentals, the fundamentals, iniquity, transgressions, nails, faith, believeth, verse, Word of God, literal, Christian apologetics, Noahs flood, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Apostle Paul, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Chronicles, Impute, Ezra, Nehemiah, What is church What is ekkelsia What is the ekklesia What is ecclesia What is the ecclesia study on the word church, study on the word ekklesia, study on the word ecclesia, commentary on Hebrews 10:25, study on Hebrews 10:25, Grattan Guinness, Johann Heinrich Alsted, Hendrikus Berkhof, Destruction, William Whiston , Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Exceeding abundantly, Bishop J.C. Rylie, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Albert Barnes, J. A. Bengel, King James Bible, popery, papists, indulgences, Gianavel, Rora, Waldensian, Walloons, Piedmont, Waldenses, Reformation, priestcraft, Strongs concordance, theological, hermeneutics, exigesis, Progressive Dispensationalism, Archangel, Saucy, Blaising, Bock, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, salvation, George Ladd, George E. Ladd, Kingdom, millenial, People argue, saying They tell you to go to church, They teach that everyone must go to church, People argue, saying They say that going to church is mandatory, They say you must go to church, Huguenots, Rochelle, Languedoc, Protestant, wherefore, hitherto, wither soever, withersoever, regeneration, thee, thy, thine, ye, lest, hearken, sins, cleansed, leper, angel, Gabriel, satan, devil, possessed, resurrected, resurrection, judgement, throne, spirit, soul, demonic, Frank Viola, house2house, Melchisedec, Melchizedek, Noah, Babel, Nimrod, Semiramis, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Ascension, organized religion, false, Reformed, non denominational, covering, covenant, crucified, crucifixion, tomb, raised, spirit, Christianity, contend for the faith, sword, gird, hasten, forth, hitherto, commentary, heresy, heretics, twain, asunder, church, fellowship, supper, blessed, Jerusalem, Canaan, Zebulon, Naphtali, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, People ask, is church mandatory Is going to church mandatory People ask, Do I have to go to church People ask, Do I have to go to church to be a Christian People ask, Do I have to go to church to be a good Christian Do we have to go to church People ask, Do Christians have to go to church, People ask, Is church attendance mandatory Is going to church mandatory People ask, Do I need to go to church Do Christians have to go to church People ask, Do Christians have to attend church idolatry, Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, Abstinence, baptism, baptized, ecclesia, mortal, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Bible, Scriptures, truth, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, saved, blood of Jesus, cross, calvary, golgotha, Apostolic, sinners, Regarding the prefix EPI in front of the word, a webpage by someone named L. Ray Smith said, I never saw it myself until I read a paper by J. Preston Eby, entitled: "FORSAKE NOT THE ASSEMBLING. Smith quotes Eby as saying, EPI means super-imposition that which is above, higher than, highest, upon. ... EPI-SUNAGOGE means THE ABOVE SYNAGOGUE, THE HIGHER MEETING, THE HIGHEST ASSEMBLY, THE HIGHER-THAN-ALL-GATHERINGS! This represents at least one source out there that (in part) says the same thing I am saying on this, Greek word, in the Greek, the Greek meaning, Lord Jesus Christ, Chronicles, Impute, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Psalms Proverbs, Solomon, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obabdiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Galatians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Apocalypse, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, spake, Holy Ghost, sacrifices, Christians, pray, prayers, intercession, worship, presence, healed, miracle, glory, praise, historicism, historicist, Elliott Vitringa, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, John Calvin, John Knox, Damnation, Philip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Atonement, Wickedness, Thomas Cranmer, Benjamin Keach, John Wesley, Joseph Mede, Jonathan Edwards, Condemnation, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Discernment, Dr. A. B. Simpson, Grattan Guinness, what does episunagoge mean what does Hebrews 10:25 mean what does gathering mean what does not forsaking mean the meaning of Hebrews 10:25, the meaning of gathering, the meaning of not forsaking, hasten, forth, hitherto, commentary, heresy, heretics, twain, asunder, church, fellowship, supper, blessed, Jerusalem, Canaan, Zebulon, Naphtali, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Moses, tabernacle, ark, Jordan, Sinai, testament, testimony, Canon, seraphim, holy, Aaron, millstone, brimstone, wrath, redeemer, saviour, beloved, believeth, prophesied, prophecy, prophecies, prophets, congregation, saints, Zwingli, Knox, Melancthon, Hus, Wesley, saith, speaketh, Absalom, Jericho, chosen, priesthood, arise, conquerors, Pharisees, Sanhedrin, Saduccees, Zealotes, pillar, reverence, worshipped, servant, plagues, unclean, temple, synagogue, commandeth, commandments, ministering, sceptre, begotten, reproof, righteousness, evermore, everlasting, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Melchisedec, similitude, Levitical, offerings, perfect, unholy, weary, confidence, perdition, heavens, declare, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, fellowlabourers, yoke, antichrist, biddeth, elect, election, advent, Alpha, Omega, Thyatira, candlesticks, waters, censer, woe, Wormwood, lamp, supplications, perseverance, manifold temptations, succour, sojourning, idols, idolatries, idolatry, Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, Abstinence, baptism, baptized, ecclesia, mortal, Gospel, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

















































































































































































Back to Top of Page