Part of my study abroad trip to London and Rome in September is a series of blog posts about some assigned readings, and reflections upon them. This is the fourteenth such post, and is one of one about The Marvels of Rome (of which I am uncertain on the author name).
“These are the hills within the city: the Janiculum, commonly called the Janarian; where the Church of Santa Saba is, the Aventine, which is also called the Quirinal because the Quirites were there, where the Church of Sant’Alessio is; the Caelian where the Church of Santo Stefano in Monte Caelio is; the Capitoline or the Tarpeian Hill, where the Senators’ Palace is; the Palatine where the Greater Palace is; the Esquiline which is called the highest, where the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore is; the Viminal where the Church of Sant’ Agata is and where Virgil, being taken by the Romans, escaped invisibly and went to Naples, whence it is said, ‘vado ad Napulim.’”
– except from The Marvels of Rome, bold text style added by me
I still can’t get a good sense in my head of the scale of Rome. Built around the seven hills of Rome, but how big were the hills? Were they steep ones, like the hills I grew up around, unlikely because they’d have to practically terrace them to be able to build on them, or were they lower shallower ones that stretched over a wide area?
How much of the hills are even still visible? Can you stand atop a tall building in Rome and still point to where the seven hills were or have they been flattened out by or buried beneath centuries of people living and building atop them?
Are the hills like the neighborhoods in Portland, just a few city blocks around which a name and sense of identity were layered on after the fact, or more like the boroughs of New York where each one really is functionally a small city in and of itself?
Even after all the reading for class, I still can’t picture Rome in my head. Individual buildings, yes. Starting to get a grasp on the edges of where buildings might be in relation to each other, but there is no sense of scale to it at all. I don’t know if I’ll really be able to grasp it until seeing it from above on the flight in, or finding someplace high up that overlooks the city where I can try to get an idea of how big it was (and is).
Hi Aaron,
Ah yes, the Seven Hills of Rome. Your post made me think of the medieval pilgrims, winding their way to Rome, wondering this same thing. And, if you are on foot, that would make a big difference! This text is from the 12th century, by a monk known as “Master Benedict.” He was providing the 12th century version of a Rick Steves or Lonely Planet guidebook for the devout pilgrims (and not so devout) who made their way to Rome.
I am thinking more and more, that a city needs to be walked intentionally to really start to get the “scale” of it–and then perhaps compare that walking, on-the-ground experience with a bird’s eye view map. Here is a historical map (http://worldtouristmap.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/historical-ancient-Rome-map.jpg) that I like that seems to show the hills in relation to the city (I haven’t identified the map yet). But coming from the west coast of the U.S., the hills of Rome sometimes seem little more than neighborhood hills that we might not make much of, but of course, it is a different thing when one is walking . . .