The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical and Topographical Context (Saggi di storia antica 4)

SAGGI DI STORIA ANTICA 4

Diretti da AUGUSTO FRASCHETTI E ANDREA GIARDINA

Adam Ziolkowski

THE TEMPLES OF MID-REPUBLICAN ROME AND THEIR HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT

«L'ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

ADAM ZIOLKOWSKI

The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context © Copyright 1992 by «L'ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Via Cassiodoro, 19 - Roma Fotocomposizione: Centro Fotocomposizione Calagreti L. e C. s.n.c, Città di Castello (PG) Tipografìa «Ottavia», Via dei Pedagogisti, 19 - Roma Tutti i diritti riservati. E vietata la riproduzione di testi e illustrazioni senza il permesso scritto dell'Editore

ISBN 88-7062-798-5

Volume pubblicato a cura della Scuola Storica italo-polacca di Roma dell'Istituto Luigi Sturzo

INDEX

PREFACE INTRODUCTION

p. »

5 7

PART ONE

A CATALOGUE OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS I Foreword II The catalogue III The list of Mid-Republican temple foundations

» 13 » 17 » 187

PART TWO

HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS I The right to found public temples: votum, locatio, dedicatio 1. Votum 2. Locatio a) meaning of the term b) locatio-inauguratio c) selection of a temple's site 3. Dedicatio a) the law of 304 and the lex Papiria b) relationship between the two laws and the dating of the lex Papiria c) the scope of the law of 304 and of the lex Papiria

» » » » » » p. »

193 195 203 203 209 214 219 220

» 224 » 231 3

II Historical comment on Mid-Republican temple foundations 1. «Individual» versus «communal» character of Roman temples 2. The years 396-299 .'. 3. The years 298-219 a) generals' vows b) aedilician foundations c) temples ordered by the priestly colleges

» 235 » » » » » »

235 236 244 244 258 261

PART THREE

TOPOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLES FOUNDATIONS I Temples intra pomerium II Temples extra pomerium III Mid-Republican temples and the spatial development of the City

» 268 » 283 » 296

CONCLUSIONS I Recapitulation II Mid-Republican temple founding and the history of Rome

» 310

BIBLIOGRAPHY

» 319

4

» 307

PREFACE

The bulk of this work was written in 1985-1987, when I held a scholarship of the Scuola Storica Italo-Polacca di Roma dell'Istituto Luigi Sturzo. It assumed its definite form, save for a handful of last-minute alterations, in summer 1988, thanks to a grant from the Associazione Pier Giorgio Frassati. To both these institutions I am deeply grateful for their generosity which enabled me to spend a total of twenty-four months in Rome. Special words of gratitude are offered to Signora Wanda Gawronska, the acting head of the aforementioned Associazione, for her friendly consideration and generous help, so familiar to every Polish student in the Eternar City. Many were those who helped me with this work. The late Professor Ferdinando Castagnoli and Professors Filippo Coarelli, Augusto Fraschetti, Andrea Giardina, Gerhard Koeppel, Jerzy Linder ski, Russell Scott and Tadeusz Zawadzki kindly consented to read parts of the text and offered their critical comments. The heaviest burden fell upon my revered mentors, my late Mother, Dr Hanna Ziolkowska, and Professor Jerzy Kolendo, who went through the whole text. I wish to thank them all for their learned advice. Special thanks go to Alexandre Grandazzi, Simon Pratt and Brian Rose, who assisted in this work from its conception to completion and whose help never failed me, whether in sharpening the argument or polishing the form of the text. The figures were drawn by Simon Pratt, with minor changes added by Daniel PròchniaL My sister, Zofia Ziolkowska, checked the English. May they be thanked for their friendly effort. I am also grateful to the participants of the City of Rome Colloquium, held in Cambridge in April 1989, whose sympathetic reception urged me to add to Part Three of the present work the substance of the paper I had read for the occasion. It goes without saying that the blame for all the errors is mine alone. 5

Most particularly, I wish to offer my warm thanks to Professor Gabriele De Rosa, the director of the Istituto Luigi Sturzo, and to Professors Augusto Fraschetti and Andrea Giardina for helping with the publication of this volume. I dedicate this work to my wife, Maria Ziolkowska, in thanks for her patience and in recollection of the ordeal she went through during our stay in Rome and its happy outcome. A.Z.

INTRODUCTION

My original intention was to retrace the urban development of Rome in the times of the Middle Republic, yet for several reasons I have been forced to modify this project. A discussion of the urban development of a city requires a clear framework - topographical and chronological - of elements which constitute the city landscape: walls and gates, streets, public buildings, shrines and residential areas. In the case of Mid-Republican Rome the overwhelming majority of these elements about which we have some evidence are city walls and temples. And since the Republican «Servian Wall» was but a restoration and strengthening of the fortifications from the Archaic age, a study of Rome's urban development during the Middle Republic is actually little more than a study of the chronology and topography of her temples founded in that period. The other reason was the following. In spite of, or because of, the enormous literature on the subject it is well nigh impossible to indicate more than a handful of Mid-Republican constructions whose dating or location (or both) are generally agreed upon. Hence in a study of the City in that period one is constantly obliged to take sides, to make personal judgements in topographical matters. This makes some sort of declaration of an author's views on the position and dating of relevant objects a prerequisite for any discussion of more general a nature. One solution would be to base one's research on some reference book. Yet while our knowledge of Rome's topography has advanced considerably - and the progress had never been greater than after the Second World War - the only true topographical reference book of a catalogue type we possess is still the superb but sexagenerian Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome by Platner and Ashby l. The much more recent Pictoral Dictionary of 1

Platner-Ashby. 7

Ancient Rome by Nash 2, very useful owing to updated bibliography, is handicapped by its conception which takes as its starting point the existing structures or their visible remains. The vulgate of Rome's topography in general, ie. the most authoritative topographical description, region after region, of the City in Antiquity is of even earlier vintage, since it reaches back to Hülsen and his volume of Jordan's Topographie der Stadt Rom in Alterthum, published in 1907 3. Coarelli's excellent, continually updated archaeological guide of Rome (Guide Archeologiche Laterza) 4 deals mainly, like Nash's, with visible remains; besides, being addressed to the general public, it lacks the apparatus necessary for scholarly investigation. One is tempted to say that in the field of Rome's topography the broader the scope of a work, the earlier its date of publication. This paradoxical situation is well illustrated by the fact that by far the best treatment of the topography of the Campus Martius remains Castagnoli's monograph published in 1948 5, ie. twelve years before Gatti 's discovery which revolutionized our knowledge of the area 6. Recently things have begun to change: witness eg. Coarelli's volumes on particular regions of the City 7. But the regional approach does not suffice if the subject of study is the whole of Rome in a given period; in such case the formula of a dictionary is more useful. Today, Platner-Ashby written anew and not merely updated would probably be a task beyond the capacity of a single scholar (and even more so of a single volume); a catalogue, confined typologically and/or chronologically to some category of objects in a specified period seems to provide the most promising basis for further analysis. Rebus sic stantibus, the subject I have chosen to discuss in this work is Mid-Republican temple foundations. Although its opening and closing dates may vary slightly from one author to another, the Middle Republic, broadly corresponding with the fourth and third centuries, is an extremely well-defined period of Rome's irreversible political, demographic and economic expansion in the homogenous context of the Italic cultural koine before the old

2 3 4 5 6 7

8

Nash 1968. Hülsen-Jordan. Coarelli 1985A (the third edition of the Laterza guide of Rome). Castagnoli 1948. Gatti 1960. Coarelli 1983, Coarelli 1985, Coarelli 1988.

world was shattered in the Second Punic War and the cultural revolution of the second century. A Mid-Republican temple is defined in this work as the aedes publica populi Romani 8, a construction erected to a deity recognized and worshipped by the state and containing a cult statue of the deity, situated in an inaugurated templum and dedicated in the years 396-219. The terminus ante quern requires no comment; as for the terminus post quern, I have opted for 396 rather than the rival date of 367 because the fall of Veii not only marks the beginning of the ascent of Rome (the Gallic sack notwithstanding), a factor of utmost importance for temple founding, but is also of truly symbolic significance to my subject as the occasion on which the first evocatio of a foreign deity took place. My principal intention is to establish the list of Mid-Republican temples and their basic «personal files». Hence the major part of this work is a catalogue of temples certainly, probably or possibly founded in the years 396-219, together with the discussion of their locations, dies natales, chronology and, if possible, circumstances of founding. On the other hand, I am not concerned with later history of these temples or with their architecture; given this perspective, archaeological evidence is discussed only in the context of a given temple's identification, location or dating. The second aim of this work is to provide a historical and topographical setting for Mid-Republican temple foundations. I begin by trying to establish the legal framework of temple founding, namely who possessed the legal capacity of founding an aedes publica to a given deity in a given locus. Then follows a historical comment on Mid-Republican temple founding with the emphasis on the individual versus communal character of these foundations. In the topographical section I discuss the distribution of temples inside and beyond the pomerium and finally try to assess the role of temple founding in the spatial development of the Mid-Republican City. I purposely exclude from my discussion the religious context of Mid-Republican temple founding as such. This omission may look strange considering the subject of this work, but seems none the less inevitable. An adequate treatment of this aspect would lead to hypertrophy of my already lengthy work; it would therefore be better to save it for a separate study. 8 On the typology of Roman places of worship, see Jordan 1879, Castagnoli 1984.

9

PART ONE: A CATALOGUE OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS

I. FOREWORD

As has been said in the Introduction, the aim of this catalogue is to establish the list of public temples founded in the years 396219. Since the majority of Roman temples cannot be accurately dated, by necessity the catalogue contains a good number of chronologically uncertain cases: some whose yearly dates are not known and some about which it is not even certain whether their founding fell within the chronological limits defined above. Further uncertainty results from the lack of precision in the use of terms denoting various categories of sanctuaries on the part of Roman writers: hence the number of presumed temples whose typology is open to doubt. All this requires a set of rules governing the inclusion in the catalogue of those cases which are chronologically or typologically suspect. The sanctuaries included in my catalogue comprise: 1) undoubted cases: shrines known to have been aedes publicae founded in 396-219; 2) undated aedes publicae known to have existed during the Republic - within this category the question is whether a given temple dates from 292-219 or 179/166-91 (see below); 3) shrines mentioned in the calendars. The overwhelming majority of feasts to particular deities in the Roman calendar were dies natales of temples. This is especially true in those cases when the deity was not a native Roman one and when the entry's daily date has no obvious connection with the deity involved (like feasts to Jupiter on the Ides): in these instances we are almost certainly dealing with a temple; 4) shrines known to having existed during the Republic but which are denoted in our sources without a recourse to the term aedes; in this category ascertaining a shrine's typology is as important as its chronology. The following categories of shrines are not included in the catalogue: 1) Republican temples of uncertain date certainly built after 179-166: such were the two temples of Hercules Victor and 13

the temple of Castor et Pollux in Circo Flaminio; 2) temples which existed in Late Antiquity and about which nothing else is known, namely those of Minerva extra Portam Capenam and Bonus Eventus in Campo Martio; 3) sacred places of whose exact character there are no clues in the extant sources; to this group belonged the shrines of Iuno Populonia, Mefitis and Luna Noctiluca; 4) temples hypothesized by modern scholars - to a degree I am convinced by Coarelli's identification of the two structures shown on fragment 672 of the Pianta Marmorea as the temples of Dis Pater and Proserpina vowed in 249 l, but since no ancient source mentions such sanctuaries I have not included them in my catalogue; 5) the temple of Apollo whose dedication is mentioned by Livy under 353 and which can only be the temple of that god vowed in 433 and dedicated in 431 2. Also, I would like to state in advance the two basic principles on which I shall constantly draw in my catalogue. One is that in a single calendar or contemporary calendars, two entries quoting one deity on two different days testify to the existence of the deity's two separate temples. Mommsen's inconsequent reductionism, based on a fanciful assumption that a temple's constitutio and dedicatio could be separated by days or months, and that both days might or might not have figured in the official calendar 3, is methodologically unsound. The solution of Aust and Wissowa, who usually settled such cases with an all too easy explanation of an Augustan rededication following the original one on a different day, is fully legitimate only if a given temple is quoted in the Res gestae (the same applies, of course, to temples mentioned by Tacitus as rededicated under Tiberius). The second principle is that Livy duly recorded every temple's dedication, no matter whether he drew his information directly from the annates maximi or, more probably, from the earlier annalists. The result is that if a temple's dedication is not mentioned in Livy's extant books the temple can be dated only to the years 292-219, covered by Livy's lost second decade, or to the period after the final break of his narrative in 167 (or, more safely, in 180, after Book 40.37.3, the last that survived in full) and before the outbreak of the Social War in 91, which paralyzed 1

Coarelli 1968B, Coarelli 1977. For a criticism of his hypothesis, see Quilici Gigli 1983, Di Manzano 1984. 2 Platner-Ashby, p. 15 s.w. Apollo, aedes. 3 Mommsen in CIL I 2 p. 304. 14

public building activity for many years (with the return of more or less normal conditions there begins the period of Rome's history that we know best thanks to Cicero's writings). This fundamental principle, formulated by Wissowa, was still respected, though less rigorously, by De Sanctis: this is why the datings of temples proposed by these scholars are still valuable. Unfortunately, subsequent generations discarded this principle with deplorable results that are best visible in the chronological list of Roman temples in Latte's Römische Religionsgeschichte 4, full of dates not only fanciful but outright impossible - a great step backwards compared with the analogous list in Wissowa's Religion und Kultus der Römer5. The archaeologists forgot about this principle, too; hence, eg., obdurate dating Temple C of the Largo Argentina to the fourth century, though up to the first break of his narrative Livy does not say a word about any temple founded in the Campus Martius. Recently Wissowa's rule has been revived by Coarelli; let us hope that his approach is universally adopted. Finally, one more thing about the catalogue. As has been said in the Introduction, since I am not concerned with later history and architecture of Mid-Republican temples, I have not utilised all the evidence we have on them but only that part which in my view is relevant to the subject of my work. As for the rest, I have provided each entry in the catalogue with a reference to Plainer Ashby; this also exempts me from quoting earlier discussions about particular temples' locations or identifications if they had already been rejected by the time A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome made its appearance.

4 5

Latte 1960, p. 415-418. Wissowa 1912, p. 594-597. 15

II. THE CATALOGUE

AESCULAPIUS in Insula Platner-Ashby, p. 2-3 The temple of Aesculapius was vowed in 293 during a plague, on the orders of the libri fatales K In the account of de viris illustribus, Romani ob pestilentiam responso monente ad Aesculapium Epidauro arcessendum decern legatos principe Q. Ogulnio miserunt. Qui cum eo venissent et simulacrum ingens mirarentur, anguis e sedibus eius elapsus venerabilis, non horribilis, per mediam urbem cum admiratione omnium ad navem Romanam perrexit et se in Ogulnii tabernaculo conspiravit... et cum adverso Tiberi subveheretur, in proximam insulam desilivit, ubi templum ei constitutum et pestilentia mira celeritate sedata est 2. Under 1st January the Fasti Antiates Maiores read: Aescula (pio) 3 ; in Ovid's Fasti for that day we find: accepit Phoebo nymphaque Coronide natum insula, dividua quam premit amnis aqua 4 . The temple was dedicated soon after 291, but the exact year is not known 5 . The temple of Aesculapius is generally situated on the site of the present church of S. Bartolomeo 6 , in the southern part of the Insula Tiberina 7 . 1 Liv. 10.47.6-7; Oros. 3.22.5; Val. Max. 1.8.2; Strabo 12.5.3; Nepotian. Epit. 9.3; Augustin. CivDei 3.17. 2 devir.ill 22.1-3. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 2, see p. 388. 4 Ovid. Fasti 1.288-294. 5 Besnier 1902, p. 184, for no apparent reason dates the temple's dedication «sans doute deux ans plus tard, en 465/289». 6 On the continuity of the temple's site functioning as a place of healing, see Guarducci 1971.

17

7

Besnier 1902, p. 185-188, Pensabene-Rizzo-Roghi-Talamo, p. 16-

20.

BELLONA in Circo Flaminio PLATNER-ASHBY, p. 82-83

The temple of Bellona was vowed by Ap. Claudius Caecus cos. II 296 during a battle with the Etruscans and the Samnites. In Livy's account: dicitur Appius in medio pugnae discrimine, ita ut inter prima signa manibus ad caelum sublatis conspiceretur, ita precatus esse «Bellona, si hodie nobis victoriam duis, ast ego tibi templum voveo». The temple was dedicated a few years later, after 293, on 3rd June; see Ovid's Fasti for that day: Hoc sacrata die Tusco Bellona duello... Appius est auctor 2 , and the Fasti Venusini: Bellon(ae) in cir(co) Flam(inio) 3 . The Fasti Venusini and the references to the columna bellica which stood in circo Flaminio... ante aedem Bellonae 4 situate the temple in the Circus Flaminius, no doubt at one of its ends, as indicated by Ovid's opposing prospicit a tempio [Bellonae] summum brevis area Circum to altera pars Circi Custode sub Hercule tuta est 5 . Coarelli has decisively proved, on the basic of the circumstances in which Cicero delivered his lost speech de Othone, that the temple of Bellona stood at the south-eastern end of the Circus Flaminius, next to the temple of Apollo 6 . As tribune of the plebs in 67, L. Roscius Otho passed a law that reserved the first fourteen rows of seats in the theatre to the equites 7 . Consequently, when in 63 he was officiating as praetor at the ludi scaenici, the plebs' jeers and the knights' applause brought about a riot that was quelled by the consul Cicero, who led the people out of the theatre to the temple of Bellona and there delivered his speech in Otho's defence 8 . Since the only ludi scaenici given by praetors were the ludi Apollinares 9 , held in temporary theatres on the site next to the temple of Apollo, later occupied by the Theatrum Marcelli 10, the temple of Bellona - obviously the nearest available site commanding an open area large enough to accomodate the theatre audience - must have been a very close neighbour of both the theatre and Apollo's temple. The one structure that met all these requirements was the socalled «tempio sconosciuto», the podium next to the temple of Apollo, opening on the Forum Holitorium. Its identification with the temple of Bellona is thus conclusive ! l. 18

1

Liv. 10.19.17. See Inslt XIII 3, no. 12, 79. Ovid. Fasti, 6.201, 203. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 58. 4 Serv. auct. ad Aen. 9.52, see Ovid. Fasti 6.205-208. 5 Ovid. Fasti 6.205, 209. On summum circum meaning «the edge of the circus», see Wiseman 1974, p. 15. 6 Coarelli 1965-67, p. 53-72, esp. p. 67-72, Coarelli 1968C. 7 Cass. Dio 36.42.1; Asc. in Corn. 107. 8 Plut. Cic. 13.2-4, esp. (4): ènei ò'ó Kixepoov fjxe jruftójievog xal xòv òfjjiov èxxaXécag Jigóg xò xfjg 'Evuoiig tegòv... 9 Liv. 27.23.5. 10 Hanson 1959, p. 18-24. 11 I do not discuss Coarelli's other arguments, on which see Wiseman 1974, p. 14-17. 2

BONA DEA sub Saxo Platner-Ashby, p. 85 The Regionary Catalogues list aedem Bonae Deae subsaxanae in the Twelfth Region i; in Ovid's Fasti for 1st May, the temple's site is described as follows: est moles nativa, loco res nomina fecit: appellant Saxum... tempia patres illic oculos exosa viriles leniter addivi constituere iugo 2 . The temple thus stood right under the summit of the Lesser Aventine, on a gentle slope, most probably near the church of S. Saba 3 . As for the temple's dedication day, we do not find it in the calendars, but Ovid's date is corroborated by Macrobius: auctor est Cornelius Labeo huic Maiae, id est terrae, aedem kalendis Maiis dedicatam sub nomine Bonae Deae 4 . Ovid says that the temple was dedicated by a Vestal Claudia: dedicat haec veteris Clausorum nominis haeres 5 . This assertion, whatever it is worth, is of no use for dating the temple's construction. What we do know for certain is that the temple had already existed for quite a long time by the end of the first century, when it was restored by Livia 6 . In modern historiography, this temple is dated either to the fifth century 7 or to the years soon after the fall of Tarentum 8 but, as rightly pointed out by Latte 9 , the terminus post quern of its construction is 123. Cicero says that in that year, cum Licinia, virgo Vestalis... aram et aediculam et pulvinar sub Saxo dedicasset, nonne earn rem ex auctoritate senatus ad hoc collegium [pontificium] Sex. Iulius praetor rettulit? Cum P. Scaevola pontifex maximus pro collegio respondit: «Quod in loco publico Licinia Cai filia iniussu populi dedicasset, sacrum non viderier». Upon this verdict 19

a senatus consultum was issued: videtisne praetori urbano negotium datur ut curaret ne id sacrum esset et ut, si quae essent incisae aut inscriptae litterae, tollerentur. Cicero adds: post autem senatus in loco augusto consecratam iam aram tollendam ex auctoritate pontificum censuit, neque ullum est passus ex ea dedicatione litterarum exstare monumentum 10. In fact, it would be difficult to explain Licinia's building an altar, a temple and a pulvinar to Bona Dea sub Saxo, ie. in the place where our sources locate the temple of the goddess, if the temple had already been in existence, the more so as Cicero's passage makes it clear that, in the senate's opinion, the Vestal intended to dedicate an aedes publica populi Romani to Bona Dea. The reason for Ovid's making Claudia the founder of the shrine might be sought in the fate of the temple's real founder, buried alive ten years later for failing to keep her virginity 11. All that subsequent generations could do was to impose damnatio memoriae on Licinia and put forward in her stead some irreproachable paragon of chastity. It would be simplest to assume that Licinia's foundation continued as the temple of Bona Dea. Although some scholars hold the view that Licinia shrine was destroyed 12, as suggested by Cicero's senatus... aram tollendam... censuit, this is plainly contradicted by the next part of the same passage: if the temple had been destroyed, there would have been no need to erase the litterae. The wording of the senatus consultum is unequivocal, too: the praetor was obliged to remove from Licinia's foundation everything that might have suggested public character of the shrine. Even more significant is what Cicero does not say. This is true specifically because of the context of the passage, which is one of the precedents by means of which the orator strives to present as invalid the dedication of a part of his house to Libertas by P. Clodius. There is little doubt that, if Licinia's foundation had actually been destroyed, Cicero would have nagged about it ad nauseam, in de domo sua and other anti-Clodian speeches and writings. There remains the question of the temple's status: did it ever acquire the rank of aedes publica or remain a sacrum privatum! The absence of its feast from the calendars favours the latter possibility, especially in view of the quoted passage by Macrobius, which strongly suggests that this omission is not due to chance: to find the dies natalis of the temple of Bona Dea the author apparently had to dig in the antiquarian tradition. Furthermore, the worship of Bona Dea was exclusively feminine: men were not even allowed to enter her precinct 13 and the temple itself did not house any sacra publica that would have made the cult communal, as 20

was the case with the temple of Vesta. Ovid's allegation that the temple of Bona Dea was founded ex senatus consulto was probably meant, like his replacing Licinia by Claudia as its founder, to exalt the pedigree of the shrine that had just then been restored by Augustus' wife 14. One might even suggest that the senate actually issued such a decree with regard to Livia's restoration. This, however, would have only been an act of courtesy towards the emperor's wife, insufficient to raise the temple of Bona Dea to the status of aedes publica. 1

Nordh 1949, p. 92. Ovid. Fasti 5.149-150, 153-154. Merlin 1906, p. 107-110, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 181-183, Plainer Ashby, p. 85. 4 Macr. Sat. 1.12.21. 5 Ovid. Fasti 5.155. The next line (156: virgineo nullum corpore passa virum) rules out reading Crassorum in place of Clausorum (as in Teubner 1978 edition of the Fasti), see below. 6 Ovid. Fasti 5.157-158. 7 Merlin 1906, p. 171-177. 8 Wissowa in RE 3.1 (1897), c. 689-690 s.v. Bona dea, Wissowa 1912, p. 216-217, Platner-Ashby, p. 85. 9 Latte 1960, p. 229 n. 3. 10 Cic.de domo 136-137. 1l On the scandal of 114-113, see now Fraschetti 1981, passim. The sources are in Greenidge-Clay, p. 58-60. 12 Eg. Frazer 1929, 4, p. 17, Platner-Ashby, p. 85. 13 Festus 348 L. 14 Grimal 1952, p. 192, emphasizes in this context the role of the temple's rebuilder, Livia, who «reprenait une tradition de la gens Claudia, à laquelle l'avait liée son premier marriage». It would be well to add that Livia herself was a Claudia by blood, her grandfather having been a patrician Claudius adopted by the Livii Drusi (Suet. Tib. 3.1). 2 3

CONCORDIA in area Volcani PLATNER-ASHBY, P.

138

Livy records that in 304 Cn. Flavius as curule aedile aedem Concordiae in area Vulcani summa invidia nobilium dedicavit]. Pliny adds: hoc actum P. Sempronio L. Sulpicio coss. Flavius vovit aedem Concordiae, si populo reconciliasset ordines, et, cum ad id pecunia publice non decerneretur, ex multaticia faeneratoribus condemnatis aediculam aeream fecit in Graecostasi, quae tunc 21

supra comitium erat 2 . It is with this temple that the prodigies of 183 and 181, reported by Livy and Obsequens, are to be linked 3 . The Fasti Antiates Maiores for 22rd July read: [Concor] diae 4; the Fasti Pinciani: Concor (diae) [-.--] 5 . According to Degrassi 6 , this might be the dedication day of Cn. Flavius' temple, though Momigliano 7 points out that Opimius' foundation is just as good a candidate for this date, 16th January being the day of this temple's rededication by Tiberius 8 . The two views can be easily reconciled if we assume that Opimius' temple was a restoration and monumentalization of Flavius' aedicula. 1

Liv. 9.46.6. Pün. M/33.19. See below, p. 23, and Momigliano 1942, p. 116. 4 Inslt Xlll 2, p. 15. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 47. 6 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 486. 7 Momigliano 1942, p. 117. 8 See also Gros 1976, p. 32, who does not, however, take into consideration Cn. Flavius' temple. 2

3

CONCORDIA in Foro Platner-Ashby, p. 138-140 The only information about the temple of Concordia, said to have been vowed in 367 by M. Furius Camillus as a thank-offering for the reconciliation of the orders, are the passages in Plutarch: ijjtocxófievog vaòv 'Ouovoiac; iòguceiv tfjg xagaxfig xaxacxdcng... xfj ò' i3cx£Qaia cuveXdóvxeg eijmcpicavxo xfjg \iev 'Ofiovoiac; legóv, CDCJIEQ TACITO Kà\iùXoq, etg xf|v àyogàv xai xf|v exxXriciav àjrojrxov ém xotg yeyevrwiévoic, logijcacdai *, and in Ovid's Fasti for 16th January 2 : Candida, te niveo posuit lux proxima tempio qua fert sublimes alta Moneta gradus: nunc bene prospiciens Latiam, Concordia, turbam, nunc te sacratae constituere manus. Furius antiquam, populi superator Etrusci, voverat et voti solverat ille fidem. Causa, quod a patribus sumptis secesserat armis volgus, et ipsa suas Roma timebat opes. It has been conjectured that the building of the temple of Concordia by L. Opimius cos. 121 was actually a restoration of

22

Camillus' sanctuary 3. An apparent corroboration of this is the presence in the concrete core of the Opimian structure of caementa of Grotta Oscura and Fidenae tufa, which would have come from Camillus' temple 4. On the other hand, the tradition about Camillus' vow has ever been open to doubtD, most of all because Livy does not say a word about it, although in his account we find other thank-offerings decreed after the return of the concordia ordinum in the wake of the passing of the leges Liciniae Sextiae: ita ab diutina ira tandem in concordiam redactis ordinibus cum dignam earn rem senatus censeret esse... ut ludi maximi fierent et dies unus ad triduum adiceretur 6. Camillus' role in the final settlement is particularly suspect; the scholars who call the whole tradition into question reject as a matter of course the account of the old hero's vow to Concordia 7. It seems that the controversy has been settled once and for all by Momigliano 8, whose main arguments against the existence of Camillus' temple, apart from Livy's silence (and that of Zonaras as well), are as follows. First, in the extant sources all references to a temple of Concordia earlier than 121, attributed by some to Camillus' foundation 9, refer either to Cn. Flavius' aedicula 10 or (most probably) to the temple of Concordia on the Arx ! *. Secondly, the assertion that Opimius rebuilt Camillus' temple in 121 is an entirely modern conjecture: the sources which mention the temple of Opimius do not say a word about Camillus' foundation and vice versa. Thirdly, the caementa argument proves only that older material was used in the concrete of Opimius' temple; but it may have come from any earlier buldings in the neighbourhood. Much more significant is the fact that no structural element of a temple earlier than Opimius' has been found in situ 12. It would seem that the only objection one may have against Momigliano's final verdict - «a faint possibility that Camillus did in fact build a temple to Concord must be admitted but no more» 13 - is that he still allows for only just such possibility. 1 2 3

Plut. Cam. 42.4, 6. Ovid. Fasti 1.637-644. See eg. Jordan 1871-85, I 2, p. 336-339, Aust 1889, p. 9-10, Wissowa 1912, p. 328, Guarducci 1961-62, p. 102. 4 Rebert-Marceau, p. 53-57. 5 For a bibliography of the controversy, see Fears 1981 A, p. 848 n. 77. 6 Liv. 6.42.12. Compare Plutarch's passage quoted above and its 23

sequence: xalg òè KaXov\iévai<; Aaxivcag jxtav r)\iéQCty Jigocfrevxag éoQxà£eiv xéxxagag (Plut. Cam. 42.6). On the confusion of the character of the games by Plutarch, see Latte 1960, p. 145, n. 4. 7 Hirschfeld 1913, p. 285-286, Hoffman 1934, p. 89-90. For the defence of the tradition as handed down by Plutarch and Ovid, see De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 298 n. 781, although even he is not certain whether it was Camillus who vowed the temple. 8 Momigliano 1942, p. 115-117. 9 See n. 3 and Platner-Ashby, p. 138. 10 Liv. 39.46.5, 40.19.2 (see also 39.56.6); Obseq. 4, 6 (contra Platner-Ashby, p. 138). 11 Liv. 26.23.4; see Platner-Ashby, p. 140. 12 As corroborated by recent findings, see Gasparri 1979, p. 60-61. 13 Momigliano 1942, p. 117. 14 For a possible reason of the appearance of Plutarch's and Ovid's version, see below, p. 244, n. 217.

CONSUS in Aventino Platner-Ashby, p. 141 In the Fasti Vallenses for 21st August we find: Conso in Aventino sacrifìcium l; under 12th December the Fasti Ostienses read: [Co]nso [in Aventinjo2, and the Fasti Amiternini: Conso in Aventino) 3 . Wissowa suggests that the two dates are the result of an Augustan rededication 4 . However, it is much more probable that the compiler of the Fasti Vallenses mistakenly, as he often does, put the dies natalis of the temple of Consus on the day of Consualia priora. The only other mention of the temple of Consus in Aventino is a passage in Festus on pietà: Eius rei argumentum est... pictum in aede Vertumni et Consi, quarum in altera M. Fulvius Flaccus, in altera [L.] [in Lindsay's edition: T., as in Mss.] Papirius Cursor triumphantes ita picti sunt5. Since Flaccus triumphed over Volsinii on whose territory stood the pan-Etruscan sanctuary of Vortumnus, there is little doubt that he was the founder of the temple of Vortumnus 6 . This would imply than the temple of Consus was built by L. Papirius Cursor cos. 293, 272, certainly during his second consulate when he accepted the capitulation of Tarentum 7 since during his first he had dedicated the temple of Quirinus, vowed by his father in 325 8 . 1 2

24

//«ft XIII 2, p. 148-149. Inslt XIII 2, p. 106.

3 4

Inslt XIII 2, p. 198-199. Wissowa 1912, p. 202. See Degrassi in Inslt III 2, p. 500, 537, Gros 1976, p. 33 and n. 124. 5 Festus 228 L. 6 See Torelli 1968 and below, p. 183-184. 7 Torelli RRF, p. 224-225. 8 Seep. 139.

FERONIA in Campo Martio Platner-Ashby, p. 207 The only mention of the temple of Feronia in ancient literary sources is a passage in Livy which refers to special offerings Roman women were bound to donate in the disastrous year 217: ut libertinae et ipsae, unde Feroniae donum daretur, pecuniam pro facultatibus suis conferrent K In the Fasti Antiates Maiores for 13th November we find [F]eron(iae) 2, in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: Feroniae in [Ca]mp(o) 3. The absolute chronological limits for the introduction of the cult of Feronia are those of the lost second decade of Livy: 292219. According to De Sanctis, Feronia came to Rome before the evocatio of Vortumnus: this would narrow the time limits of her arrival to the years 292-265 4. De Sanctis' view has been accepted, albeit with caution, by Castagnoli 5; Coarelli links the vowing of the temple of Feronia with the conquest of the Sabines in 290 and its construction with the censorship of that people's conqueror M'. Curius Dentatus in 272 6. De Sanctis' assertion that no Etruscan deity would have been brought to Rome after the fall of Volsinii and the (presumed) evocatio of the main deity of the Etruscan League, is, of course, of no consequence. The assumption that the cult of Feronia was brought to Rome after the conquest of the Sabines also raises some doubts. Dentatus' swift and easy victory left no room for any of the classic circumstances leading to the introduction of an enemy cult into Rome, namely a pitched battle or the siege of a city 7. Besides, although not a native Roman deity, Feronia was not a stranger either: witness her ancient cult in Terracina and especially in the lucus Feroniae, where, for ages, Latins, Sabines, Etruscans and Falisci met in peace under her protection 8 . The cult of the goddess in the lucus Feroniae and in Rome displays a number of similarities 9, it is therefore much more probable that the worship came to the City from the Capenate territory, a 25

Roman possession since the beginning of the fourth century. This would deprive early dating of the introduction of her cult of its main premise. On the contrary, the thesis that the cult of Feronia came to Rome from the lucus Feroniae, if correct, would provide an argument for ascribing that event to the closing years of the period covered by Livy's second decade. Feronia would then have been the first non-Roman yet friendly deity introduced into Rome through a general's vow. Dedications of this kind were a comparatively late phenomenon, first attested in 204, when the consul P. Sempronius Tuditanus vowed a temple to Fortuna Primigenia 10. His example was followed seven years later by C. Cornelius Cethegus cos. 197, the founder of the temple of Iuno Sospita n , and after him by other generals. As can be seen, these temples were dedicated to the chief deities of Rome's close neighbours, Praeneste and Lanuvium; the temple of Feronia, the main deity of another neighbour, Capena, could evidently have set that trend. Elsewhere I have tried to demonstrate 12 that the very idea of founding temples to neighbouring non-Roman deities may have originated in the years 228-225, in the oppressive atmosphere of the metus Gallicus, together with the emergence of the notion of terra Italia, or Italy proper, restricted to the cisappennine part of the peninsula and thus opposed to «transappennine» Italy inhabited by aliens, Greeks and Gauls 13. Feronia, a Sabine goddess worshipped in a Latin-speaking Etruscan city, fitted perfectly as the symbol of the unity of that terra Italia in the face of the danger from the North. In particular, her double ethnicity, Etruscan and Sabine (at least in Roman perception), points more explicitly to the first, decisive yet essentially defensive, campaign of the Great Gallic War of 225-222. It is probable that at Telamon up to a half of the combined Roman forces consisted of the Etruscans and the Sabines from the exercitus tumultuarius which, in spite of its initial defeat, would thus have played the decisive role in Rome's final victory. A vow to dedicate a temple to Feronia who, to Roman eyes, was the goddess of both those peoples, would have been perfectly consistent on the part of the victor, L. Aemilius Papus cos. 225 14. It would seem that this inference is supported by the context of the above mentioned offering to Feronia in 217. Livy says that after the announcement of the portents decretum, ut ea prodigia partim maioribus hostiis, partim lactentibus procurarentur, et uti supplicatio per triduum ad omnia pulvinaria haberetur; cetera, cum decemviri libros inspexissent, ut ita fìerent quem ad modum 26

cordi esse divis a carminibus praeferentur. Decemvirorum monitu decretum est Iovi primum [donum] fulmen aureum pondo quinquaginta fieret et lunoni Minervaeque ex argento dona darentur, et lunoni reginae in Aventino Iunonique Sospitae Lanuvii maioribus hostiis sacrificaretur matronaeque pecunia conlata, quantum conferre cuique commodum esset, donum lunoni reginae in Aventinum ferrent, lectisterniumque fieret, et ut libertinae et ipsae, unde Feroniae donum daretur, pecuniam pro facultatibus suis conferrent 15. It is striking that the senate's decree, issued decemvirorum monitu, honoured, apart from the Capitoline Triad, only Feronia. This extraordinary treatment suggests that in this particular moment Feronia's blessing was as eagerly sought as Jupiter's and even Juno's, specially «exorated» as the chief deity of the enemy. In the beginning of 217, when these measures to appease the gods were being undertaken, the situation was very similar to that of eight years before: once again the Romans were faced with a mortal danger coming from the North. The special honours decreed for Feronia in 217 would best be explained if for the Romans it had been her assistance that had helped to overcome the invaders in 225. The earlier dating of the introduction of the cult of Feronia has been one of the main reasons for Castagnoli's and Coarelli's identification of her sanctuary with the earliest of the temples of the Largo Argentina (Temple C) 16. But, apart from the historical considerations noted above, there are weighty archaeological arguments against this identification. The most important is the elaborate water system within the precinct of Temple C, which indicates that the temple belonged to a water deity, most probably Iuturna 17. The temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure cannot be that of Feronia either, having been built only in the second century 18. There remains Temple A of the Largo Argentina, securely dated to the third century 19 and identified by Castagnoli with the temple of Iuno Curritis 20 and by Coarelli with that of Iuturna 21. But if Temple C is the temple of Iuturna, then both these identifications should be discarded: Coarelli's for obvious reason and Castagnoli's because whereas the temples of Iuturna and Iuno Curritis were built at the same time, having most probably been vowed by the consuls of 242 and 241 respectively 22, Temple A is undoubtedly, if slightly, later than Temple C. Temple A would thus have been built a short time before the resumption of Livy's extant narrative, i.e., some time in the years 230-220. This dating fits perfectly with the person of L. Aemilius Papus cos. 225 as the founder of the temple of Feronia. 27

It would thus seem that the political, religious and ideological circumstances of the introduction of the worship of Feronia into Rome point to the victor of Telamon as the most likely founder of her temple. As for the temple's location, the present state of our knowledge of the topography of the Campus Martius, and especially the proposed identification of Temple C of the Largo Argentina with that of luturna, would imply identifying the temple of Feronia with Temple A of this area sacra. 1

Liv. 22.1.18. Irish XIII 2, p. 22. 3 Irish XIII 2, p. 42-43. 4 De Sanctis 1953-68, II, p. 508. 5 Castagnoli 1948, p. 171. 6 Coarelli 1981, p. 41. 7 On Dentatus' victory over the Sabines, see Torelli RRF, p. 52-64. 8 Liv. 1.30; Dion. Hal. 3.32. See also Wissowa 1912, p. 285-287, Taylor 1923, p. 45-49, Evans 1939, p. 155-159, Dumézil 1966, p. 402409. 9 Jones 1962, p. 192-193. 10 Liv. 29.36.8. 11 Liv. 32.30.10. 12 Ziolkowski 1986, p. 635-636. 13 Mazzarino 1966, II 1, p. 214-216, see also Fraschetti 1981, p. 55-57. 14 Ziolkowski 1986, p. 637-639. 15 Liv. 22.1.15-18. 16 See n. 5, 6. Coarelli's other argument is that water system on the northern side of the podium of Temple C (see below) which in his opinion corroborates the identification of that structure with the temple of Feronia, an «aquatic» deity (Coarelli 1981, p. 42). See below and the following note. 17 See below, p. 96, Ziolkowski 1986, p. 631-632. 18 See below, p. 121. 19 Marchetti Longhi 1936, p. 138, Castagnoli 1948, p. 172. 20 Castagnoli 1948, p. 171-174. 21 Coarelli 1981, p. 40-46. 22 C. Lutatius Catulus cos. 242 (see below, p. 94) and his brother Q. Lutatius Cerco cos. 241 or the latter's colleague A. Manlius Torquatus (see below, p. 64). 2

FIDES in Capitolio Platner-Ashby, p. 209 The temple of Fides in Capitolio was built by A. Atilius Caiatinus cos. 258, 254, possibly on the site of an earlier shrine tradi-

28

tionally ascribed to Numa '. Cicero mentions ut Fides ut Mens, quas in Capitolio dedicatas videmus proxume a M. Aemilio Scauro, ante autem ab [A.] Atilio Calatino erat Fides consecrata 2. Under 1st October the Fasti Antiates Maiores read: Fidei 3; the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: Fidi in Capitolio 4, the Fasti Paulini: Fidei in Capitol (io) 5, and the Fasti Amiternini: Fidei in Capitolio 6. It is impossible to establish when Caiatinus, who apart from two consulates held imperium in Sicily as praetor in 257 and as dictator in 249 7, vowed this temple, especially considering that he also built a temple to Spes 8. All that can be said is that, whereas during his second consulate he apparently did not achieve anything spectacular 9, in 258-257 he earned a triumph 10 and in 249 primus dictator extra Italiam exercitum duxit 11. In the wake of the disasters suffered by the consuls of that year dedications both to Fides and Spes would have been quite à propos 12, though Zonaras explicitly states that the dictator and his master of horse did not achieve anything worth remembering 13. The sources generally locate the temple on the Capitol14; Cicero gives its position as vicinam lovis optumi maxumi15. During the clearance of the site around the church of S. Omobono, a number of fragments of inscriptions set up by Rome's eastern allies were found 16 in the area where fragments of similar kind had earlier come to light 17. These findings might point to the temple of Fides; we know in fact that bronze tablets had been fastened in the temple, most probably of the same kind as that with the text of the lex Antonia de Termessibus found in that very area 18. On the same site two great blocks of opus caementicium were found together with a number of architectural elements, including parts of two travertine columns 19, whose diameter of 1.05 m. implies that the building to which they belonged, no doubt a temple, was of considerable dimensions 20. Colini rightly observes that the large blocks must have fallen from above, ie. from the southern spur of the Capitol which even today extends towards S. Omobono 21; he also emphasizes the link between the epigraphic material found in this area and the cult of Fides. And yet Colini identifies the temple itself with that of Ops since, in his view, the location of the temple of Fides vicinam lovis optumi maxumi rules out its identification with the sanctuary which would have stood just above the Vicus Iugarius 22. Arguing against Colini' s attribution, Coarelli astutely notices that the text whose aim was to stress the links between Faith and Jupiter should not be accepted literally. He also points out that the accounts of the last contio of Ti. Gracchus suggest a considerable 29

distance between the precinct of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, where the people were gathered, and the temple of Fides, out of which rushed the senators 23 . Besides, the large dimensions of the temple on the southern spur of the Capitol fit well with the fact that the temple of Fides was used for meetings of the Senate 24 . Finally, Coarelli observes that some copies of tabulae honestae missionis specify that their originals were fastened in Capitolio intro euntibus ad sinistram in muro inter duos arcus 25 or in Capitolio post aedem Videi p(opuli) R(omani) in muro 26 . The murus in question could only have been the wall enclosing the area Capitolina pierced by the Clivus Capitolinus. We know that the clivus entered the area Capitolina right against the facade of the temple of Jupiter; ad sinistram in muro can thus only mean «west of the entrance». As for the second inscription, post aedem Videi p.R. in muro indicates that the temple stood close to the wall which marked the limits of the area Capitolina. Both these indications tally extremely well with the temple whose remains have been found east of the church of S. Omobono 27 . Taking all this into consideration, it seems highly probable that the temple of Fides stood on the southern spur of the Capitol, just above the Vicus Iugarius. 1

On Numa and his shrine, see Liv. 1.21.4; Dion. Hal. 2.75.2-3; Plut. Numa. 161. 2 Cic. de nat. deor. 2.61. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 20. 4 Inslt Xlll 2, p. 36-37. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 153. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 194-195. 7 Broughton 1951-52, I p, 206-215. 8 Seep. 152. 9 The capture of Panormos, attributed by Pol. 1.38.6-10, to both consuls of 254, should rather be ascribed to Caiatinus' colleague Cn. Cornelius Scipio Asina; see De Sanctis 1953-68, III 1, p. 157 n. 32 contra Pais 1920, p. 97, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 1, p. 548-549. 10 Broughton 1951-52, I p. 206, 208, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 1, p. 548. 11 Liv. per. 19. 12 Thiel 1954, p. 271-293, see also below, p. 250-251. 13 Zon. 8.15.14 (Ip. 170Boiss.). 14 See also Plin. NH 35.100: spedata est et in aede Videi in Capitolio senis cum lyra puerum docentis. 15 Cic. de off. 3.104. 16 Colini in BC 66 (1938), p. 281-282, see also Mellor 1978 and below, p. 145-146, 147 n. 29.

30

17

NS, 1886, p. 418, NS 1887, p. 16, NS 1888, p. 134, 189. CIL I 2 589, see I 2 587. 19 Colini in BC 69 (1941), p. 88-89. 20 One of these findings, a marble head of a female deity (see Squarciapino 1942, p. 87) could well have belonged to the cult statue of the temple, see Coarelli 1969, p. 157. 21 Colini in BC 69 (1941), p. 88. 22 Colini in BC 69 (1941), p. 89. 23 Coarelli 1969, p. 157. 24 Ibid. 25 CIL XVI 20. 26 CIL XVI 26. 27 Coarelli 1969, p. 158-159. 18

FLORA ad Circum Maximum Platner-Ashby, p. 209-210 The Aventine temple of Flora was vowed by the aediles L. and M. Publicii. Tacitus says that in A.D. 17 Tiberius deum aedes vetustate aut igni abolitas coeptasque ab Augusto dedicavit, Libero Liberaeque et Cereri iuxta Circum Maximum... eodemque in loco aedem Florae, ab Lucio et Marco Publiciis aedilibus constitutam l. This information seems to suggest that the temple of Flora stood near the great sanctuary of Ceres, ie. by the western end of the Circus Maximus, most probably on the lowest section of the Clivus Publicius 2 . In the Fasti Allifani for 13th August we find: Flo[rae] ad C(ircum) Maximum 3 . However, this date is almost certainly that of Tiberius' rededication 4 , the original dies natalis having no doubt been the first day of the Floralia, 28th April, as indicated by a note by Verrius Flaccus for that day in the Fasti Praenestini: eodem die aedis Florae, quae rebus florescendis praeest, dedicata est propter sterilitatem frugum 5 . The year of the aedilship of the Publicii is not known, but since one of them became consul in 232, the construction of the temple of Flora should be dated to the first celebration of the ludi Florales. Our sources differ as to the exact date of that event. According to Velleius, the games were celebrated for the first time three years after the consulate of A. Manlius Torquatus and C. Sempronius Blaesus (244): proximoque anno Torquato Sempronio consulibus Brundisium et post triennium Spoletium, quo anno Floralium ludorum factum est initium 6 ; this could be either 241 7 or 240 8 . According to Pliny, most probably quoting Varrò, itaque iidem Floralia IV kal. easdem instituerunt urbis anno DXVI ex 31

oraculis Sibyllae ut omnia bene deflorescerent 9 , which would yield the year 238 10 . Broughton is no doubt right when he says that in this case certainty is impossible u , but it is no less obvious that a confusion of numerals in Pliny 12 is more probable than a factual error in Velleius. It is thus more probable that the first celebration of the Floralia took place in 241 or 240. The question is, however, what was the actual relationship between the first celebration of the ludi Florales and the vowing of the temple of Flora. According to Pliny, the games were instituted on the order of the libri fatales at a time of food-shortage. However, the temple must have been built out of money exacted from the pecuarii, since, as shown by a passage in Festus: Publicius clivus appellatur, quern duo fratres, L. M. Publici Malleoli aediles curules pecuaris condemnatis ex pecunia, quam ceperant, munierunt 13, it was from this source that the other work of the Publicii, the Clivus Publicius, was financed. Festus' report is corroborated by a passage in Ovid's Fasti, which also provides another trait d'union between the temple and the ludi 14: «Die dea», respondi, «ludorum quae sit origo». Vix bene desieram, rettulit ilia mihi: «Cetera luxuriae nondum instrumenta vigebant, aut pecus aut latam dives habebat humum; hinc etiam locuples, hinc ipsa pecunia dicta est. Sed iam de vetito quisque parabat opes. Venerat in morem populi depascere saltus, idque diu lieuit, poenaque nulla fuit. Vindice servabat nullo sua publica volgus; iamque in privato pascere inertis erat. Plebis ad aediles perducta licentia talis Publicios: animus defuit ante viris. Rem populus recipit, multam subiere nocentes: vindicibus laudi publica cura fuit. Multa data est ex parte mihi, magnoque favore victores ludos instituere novos. Parte locant clivum, qui tunc erat ardua rupes: utile nunc iter est, Publiciumque vocant...» Thus, in Ovid's account, the Publicii not only built the Clivus Publicius but also offered games to Flora, both financed by the multae exacted from the pecuarii. Another link between the temple and the games is the quoted comment by Verrius Flaccus, in which the temple of Flora is dedicated propter sterilitatem frugum, ie. for the very reason for which, in Pliny's account, the ludi Florae were instituted.

32

The train of events that led to the construction of the temple of Flora would thus be as follows. Some time in 241/240, an extremely bad harvest followed by an acute foot-shortage forced the senate to consult the libri fatales. The answer of the decemvirs was to celebrate games in honour of Flora ut omnia bene deflorescerent. But the plebeian aediles L. and M. Publicii Malleoli 15 took advantage of the unrest among the people to launch an all-out attack on the pecuarii, by definition members of the upper strata of the society. Ovid's remark about the people's pusillanimity and the daring action of the aediles may well be true - that it required a good deal of courage to wage war on graziers is one of the common truths in Rome's history - but the moment was particularly well-chosen. Apart from the food-shortage itself, the Republic had just then got out from a war unbelievably long and costly in men's lives and money. During such a war, the demands of social peace at home on one hand and, on the other, the necessity of placating the propertied classes on whose contributions depended the existence of the Roman fleet, especially in the last years of the war 16, would have made encroachments on the public land relatively easy. But once the war ended, the action of the Publicii was so successful that they were able not only to finance the ludi Florales out of the fines imposed on the pecuarii, but also to build the temple of Flora and the Clivus Publicius. 1

Tac. Ann. 2.49.1. Merlin 1906, p. 95, Platner-Ashby, p. 210. 3 Inslt XIII2, p. 180-181 ; see the newly publixhed framgent of the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for this day: [--~Fl]ora(e) ad Circ(um) Max(imum), in MEFRA 98 (1986), p. 401-402. 4 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 496. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 132-133. 6 Veil. 1.14.8. 7 Broughton 1951-52, I p. 219; see also Münzer in RE 23.2 (1959), c. 1901 s.v. Publicius 22. 8 Merlin 1906, p. 189 and n. 1, Seidel 1908, p. 18-19. See also Le Bonniec 1958, p. 200, Cels Saint-Hilaire 1977. 9 Plin. NH 18.286. 10 Favoured by Wissowa 1912, p. 163, Le Bonniec 1958, p. 202. 11 Broughton 1951-52, I p. 220 n. 3. 12 DXVI and DXIII or DXIV. 13 Festus 276 L. 14 Ovid. Fasti 5.277-294. 15 Festus calls the Publicii curules aediles (see above and n. 13), Ovid (Fasti 5.287-288, see above) and Varrò (LL 5.158: clivos Public[i]us ab aedilibus plebei Publici[i]s qui eum publice aedificarunt) - plebeian aediles. 2

33

Varro's authority should be preferred over Festus', the more so as Cicero, who as aedile held the ludi Florales and the unmistakably plebeian ludi Ceriales (Cic. Verr. 2.5.36), was almost- certainly a plebeian aedile. See Taylor 1939. 16 Thiel 1954, p. 302-305. .

FLORA in Colle Quirinali Platner-Ashby, p. 210 The temple of Mora on the Quirinal dated back to the Republican period. It is mentioned by Varrò (clivus proximus a Flora susus versus Capitolium vetus, quod ibi sacellum Iovis, Iunonis, Minervae) l and Vitruvius, who locates the officinae minii inter aedem Florae et Quirini2. The temple probably replaced the ancient altar said to have been set up by T. Tatius 3 ; the office of flamen Floralis testifies to the antiquity of the cult which should probably be linked with the obscure rite of Florifertum 4 . The Quirinal Flora would therefore have been an ancient Italic deity whose cult was eclipsed, but never wholly replaced, by her helle nized namesake from the Aventine 5 . On 3rd May, the last day of the Floralia, the Fasti Venusini read: Florae6; according to Degrassi this is the dedication day of the Quirinal temple of Flora 7 . Although the cult of Flora on the Quirinal was much more ancient than her worship on the Aventine, this does not mean that the temple built by the Publica was necessarily the later of the two 8 . The Quirinal temple was constructed either between 292 and 219 or after 180/167. The earlier dating seems preferable since the founding of the temple to a deity as archaic as the Quirinal Flora would have been less probable with the advent of the first thoroughly hellenized generation of Romans after the Third Macedonian War. The last temples dedicated to purely Italic and Roman deities of lesser stature, F.aunus and Veiovis, were vowed in 200-196, in the immediate aftermath of the traumatic experience of the Second Punic War. The Quirinal temple of Flora would thus have been built some time between 292 and 219. The exact position of the temple is unknown since none of the sites quoted by our sources as its neighbours - the temple of Quirinus, the Capitolium vetus, the pila Tiburtina and the balnea Stephani - can be located with absolute certainty 9 . What is known is that it stood at the foot of a clivus and that Martial, who

34

lived nearby, could see from his window the greenery of the Campus Agrippae 10. These two indications have led the majority of scholars, from Hülsen onwards n , to locate the beginning of the proximus clivus which led from the temple of Flora up to the Capitolium vetus - and thus the temple itself - in the valley between the Quirinal and the Pincio. A further argument in favour of this location are the officinae minii, which for obvious reasons might be expected to have been situated outside the urban area. But, as noted by Hackens, a temple which most probably stood en the site of an archaic altar, and which housed a cult presided over by the flamen, would hardly have been located outside the Servian Wall 12. In his view, we should look for the temple of Flora in the valley between the Quirinal and the Viminal - at the foot of an eminence and yet within the walls 13. This location is, however, problematic considering that the greenery of the Porticus Vipsania could be seen from the house of Martial, situated close to the temple. Even though the poet lived on the third floor 14, he would hardly have been able to contemplate laurel trees of the Campus Agrippae had his house stood south-east of the ridge of the Quirinal 15. Three texts crucial to the reconstruction of the topography of the Quirinal in general, and to the positioning of the temple of Flora in particular, are the list of objects of the Sixth Augustan Region in the Regionary Catalogues and the Quirinal part of the list of sacraria Argeorum as transmitted by Varrò. The list in the Regionary Catalogues is as follows 16: Notitia: Templum Salutis et Serapis. Templum Florae. Capitolium antiquum. Statuam Mamuri. Templum dei Quirini. Malum punicum. Hortos Salustianos. Gentem Flaviam. Thermas Diocletianas et Constantinianas. Castra praetoria. X tabernas. Gallinas albas. Aream Candidi. Curiosum: Templum Salutis et Serapis. Floram. Capitolium antiquum. Thermas Constantinianas. Statu [a]m Mamyri. Templum dei Quirini. Ortos Salustianos. Gentem Flabiam. Thermas Diocletianas. Cohort. Ill vigilum. X tabernas. Gallinas albas. The relevant part of Varrò's list of the Argei is included in the passage dealing with the significance of the appellation «Quirinalis» 17: quod vocabulum coniunctarum regionum nomina obliteravit. Dictos enim Collis pluris apparet ex Argeorum sacrificiis, in quibus scriptum sic estCollis Quirinalis: terticeps uls aedem Quirini. 35

Collis Salutaris: quarticeps, adversum est Apollinar [or pulvinari, uls aedem Salutis. Collis Mucialis: quinticeps apud aedem Dei Fidi, in delubro, ubi aeditumus habere solet. Collis Latiaris: sexticeps in vico Insteiano summo, apud auguraculum; aedifìcium solum est. The fact that the Quirinal was a chain of separate colles 18, linked by saddles lower than the summits but higher than the valleys separating the ridge from the Viminal to the south-east and the Pincio to the north, renders superfluous the basic premise, accepted both by Hülsen and Hackens, for locating the temple of Flora in one of these valleys. A site within the Servian Wall and at the lower end of a clivus, from which (probably) the Campus Agrippae could be seen, should rather be looked for on one of the saddles joining the colles. As for the exact spot where the temple of Flora should be located, the Regionary Catalogues list it after the temple of Salus and before the temple of Quirinus, which would suggest the saddle between the colles: Salutaris and Quirinalis proper. Yet in the Catalogues the very next place quoted after the temple of Flora is the Capitolium antiquum or vetus which, although not quoted in the list of the Argei, must have been another eminence of the Quirinal. The question is whether the Capitolium vetus was a link in the chain of summits and saddles stretching from the Esquiline Plateau to the Capitol or whether it stood apart, off the main line of the ridge. Topographical allusions in Martial seem to favour the latter hypothesis, although the original configuration of the Quirinal cannot be reconstructed with any certainty owing to the levelling carried out in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries A.C. The poet lived near both the temple of Quirinus (vicinosque tibi, sancte Quirine, Lares 19, vicini pete porticum Quirini 20) and Flora (bis vicine Nepos - nam tu quoque proxima Florae incolis 2 1 ); his only allusion to the Capitolium vetus is: sed Tiburtinae sum proximus accola pilae, qua videt anticum rustica Flora Iovem 22. Together with Varrò's quoted passage on the clivus proximus, this would signify that the temple of Flora was a pretty close neighbour of both the Capitolium vetus and the Collis Quirinalis. As the simplest inference - that the temple stood between these two summits can only with difficulty be reconciled with the order of the monuments of the Sixth Region in the Regionary Catalogues, it seems more probable that the eminences of the Capitolium vetus and the Collis Quirinalis did not align with the latterà neighbour in the list of the Argei, the collis Salutaris. This would not be surprising 36

considering how irregular the ridge of the Quirinal was and still is. The temple of Flora should therefore be located in the northeastern part of the saddle between the collis Salutaris and the Collis Quirinalis, much closer to the latter and to the Capitolium vetus slightly off the line 23 . A more precise location of the temple depends on where are we to situate the two great sanctuaries which seem to have been its (relative) neighbours, those of Salus and Quirinus. If the former occupied the site of the Palazzo Barberini and not of the Quirinal Palace, and the latter stood in the zone of the Largo di S. Susanna rather than west of the intersection of the Via XX Settembre and the Via delle Quattro Fontane, the temple of Flora might be situated in the neighbourhood of the church of S. Susanna. If we follow the orthodox placement of the temples of Salus and Quirinus, the temple of Flora would have to be sought for somewhere along the axis of the Via del Quirinale. In my opinion, the former proposal is preferable 24 . 1

Varrò LL 5.158. Vitr. 7.9.4. Varrò LL 5.1 A. 4 Festus 81 L: Florifertum dictum, quod eo die spicae feruntur ad sacrarium. See Delatte 1936, p. 400-404, Le Bonniec 1958, p. 197-198. 5 Merlin 1906, p. 188-192, Wissowa 1912, p. 163-164, Le Bonniec 1958, p. 195-202. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 56. 7 Inslt XIII 2, p. 454. 8 As e.g. maintained by Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 452, 454. 9 See Hackens 1961, p. 75. 10 Mart. 1.108.3-4, 3.58.45-46; see Rodriguez Almeida 1980-81, p. 79. 11 Hülsen 1894, p. 407-408, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 412, Platner-Ashby, p. 210, Santangelo 1941, p. 135-136. 12 Hackens 1961, p. 77. 13 Hackens 1961, p. 77-79. 14 Mart. 1.117.7. 15 For the location of the Campus Agrippae and the Porticus Vipsania, see Platner-Ashby, p. 90, Coarelli 1985A, p. 241, 304. 16 Nordh 1949, p. 81. 17 Varrò LL 5.52. 18 Poucet 1967, p. 101-104. 19 Mart. 10.58.10. 20 Mart. 11.1.9. 21 Mart. 6.27.1-2. 22 Mart. 5.22.3. 23 An alternative proposition by Coarelli 1985A, p. 238, locating the 2

3

37

Capitolium vetus (i.e., in his opinion, just the shrine of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva) on the collis Quirinalis by the temple of Quirinus, would at one stroke eliminate the dilemma. Since, however, extant ancient sources never mention the Capitolium vetus and the temple of Quirinus in the same topographical context (as they link the former with the temple of Flora), it rather seems that the Quirinal-located Capitolium, like its illustrious namesake, was an appellation of both the shrine and the hill which, in that case, would have been a separate summit. 24 See below, p. 140-148. FONS extra Portam Fontinalem Platner-Ashby, p. 210 The temple of Fons was vowed and dedicated ex manubiis by C. Papirius Maso cos. 231 - Cicero says: itaque et Fontis delubrum Maso ex Corsica dedicavit x - in thanksgiving for the miraculous discovery of water in the Corsican mountains, which saved his army from dying of thirst 2 . The temple stood outside the Porta Fontinalis, as shown by the entries for 13th October in the Fasti Viae Ardeatinae: [Fo]nti extr(a) port(am) Font(inalem) 3, the Fasti Viae dei Serpenti: Fonti ex[t]ra p[ortam Font(inalem)] 4 , and Paulus' entry on Fontinalia: fontium sacra. Unde et Romae Fontinalis porta 5 . The Porta Fontinalis has convincingly been located by Hülsen on the saddle between the Arx and the Quirinal, at the beginning of the later Via Flaminia 6 . The city-street which led to the gate has been identified with the so-called «clivus Argentarius» or «clivus Lautumiarum» 7. 1

Cic. de nat. deor. 3.52. Zon. 8.18.14 (Ip. 179 Boiss.). 3 InsItXm 2, p. 154. 4 Insit XIII 2, p. 214-215. 5 Festus 75 L. 6 Hülsen 1894, p. 411-413. Säflund 1932, p. 207, agrees with him, puzzled as he is by «il fatto che non si sia trovato né un portico né delle fonti». 7 Platner-Ashby, p. 121-122. 2

FORS FORTUNA trans Tiberim Platner-Asby, p. 212-214 Livy says that Sp. Carvilius Maximus cos. 293,272 during his first consulate aedem Fortis Fortunae de manubiis faciendam locavit prope aedem eius deae ab rege Servio Tullio dedicatam l.

38

Varrò mentions under 24th June the Servian foundation only (dies Fortis Fortunae appellatus ab Servio Tullio rege, quod is fanum Fortis Fortunae secundum Tiberim extra urbem Romam dedicavit lunio mense 2) but in the calendars we find on that day both the temples of Fors Fortuna located on the first and sixth milestones of the Via Campana. The Fasti Esquilini read: Fort(i) Fort(unae) tirans) T(iberim) ad mil(iarium) I et [VI]3; the Fasti Magistrorum Vici: Forti Fortun(ae) t(rans) T(iberim) ad lap (idem) I et VI4; the Fasti Amiternini: Ford Fortunae trans Tiber(im) ad milliar (ium) prim (um) et sext(um) 5 . One of these temples is to be identified with Carvilius' foundation 6 . Savage 7 points out that the discovery, between the fifth and sixth milestones of the Via Campana, of a Late Republican travertine slab with a dedication to Fors Fortuna 8 by members of conlegia aerariorum, among whom are mentioned a magister C. Carvilius M.l. and a minister T. Mari Carvil.m. (?) 9 , implies that Carvilius built the temple ad milliarium sextum 10 . Three other inscriptions dedicated to Fors Fortuna were found in that area 11 ; the discovery at the same site of a terracotta antefix featuring a female bust seems to confirm Savage's thesis 12. 1

Liv. 10.46.14. Varrò LL 6.17. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 88. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 92. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 186-187. See also Fasti Venusini (Inslt XIII 2, p. 59), Fasti Filocali (Inslt XIII 2, p. 248-249), Menol. Rusticum (Inslt XIII 2, p, 288). 6 Ovid (Fasti 6.783-784) ascribes both the temples of Fors Fortuna to Servius Tullius. 7 Savage 1940, p. 32. 8 CIL I2 977= VI 36771 =ILLRP 96. 9 Gatti 1904. 10 The link between this inscription and Carvilius' foundation had already been postulated by Wissowa 1912, p. 256 and n. 7, who accordingly identified the temple ad milliarium sextum as the one built by Carvilius. 11 CIL I 2 978-980 = VI 167 ( = 30707)-169 =ILLRP 97-98. See Henzen 1868, p. 100-101, Henzen 1869, p. 124-125. 12 Schied-Broise, p. 77. See also Champeaux 1982, p. 199-207. 2

FORTUNA in Foro Boario Platner-Ashby, p. 214-215 see MATER MATUTA in Foro Boario

39

FORTUNA PUBLICA POPULI ROMANI QUIRITIUM in Colle Quirinali FORTUNA PUBLICA POPULI ROMANI QUIRITIUM citerior Platner-Ashby, p. 216-217 s.v. Fortunae (tres) aedes Vitruvius mentions three temples of Fortuna inside the Porta Collina: huius [aedis in antis] exemplar erit ad tres Fortunas ex tribus quae est proxime portam Collinam 1. His account is corroborated by an epigram by Krinagoras: TeiToveg òv XQiccal [xovvov Tuxca ejrgejtov eivai, KQICJIE 2. Dedication days of these temples are to be identified with the following entries in the Roman calendar: 5th April - Fasti Antiares Maiores: Fort(unae) Publ(icae); Fasti Praenestini: Fortunae Publicae citeriori] in colle3; see Ovid's Fasti for that day: colle Qurini hac Fortuna die Publica 4. 25th May - Fasti Antiares Maiores: For[t(unae)] P(opuli) R(omani) Q(uiritium); Fasti Venusini: Fortun(ae) Prim(igeniae) in col(le); Fasti Caeretani: Fortunae P(ublicae) P(ppuli) R(omani) Q(uiritium) in colle Quirinali); Fasti Equilini: Fortun(ae) Public (ae) P(opuli) R(omani) in collie); Fasti Magistrorum Vici: Fortunae P(ublicae) P(opuli) R(omani) Quirit(ium) in coll(e) 5; see Ovid's Fasti for that day: populi Fortuna potentis Publica 6. 13th November - Fasti Antiates Maiores: Fort(unae) Pr(imigeniae); Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: Fortun(ae) Prim(igeniae) in c(olle) 7. For only one of these temples are the year of vowing and the name of the founder known. Livy relates that in 194 the duumvir Q. Marcius Ralla dedicated the temple of Fortuna Primigenia in colle Quirinali, vowed ten years earlier by P. Sempronius Tuditanus 8. The traditional view, tentatively formulated by Mommsen 9 and repeated ever since 10, maintains that Tuditanus' temple was the earliest among the tres Fortunae and that it should be identified with the one whose dedication day was 25th May; the full name of the goddess has been reconstructed as Fortuna Publica Populi Romani Quiritium Primigenia. The argument for this runs as follows. The temple, dedicated to Fortuna Publica Populi Romani Quiritium in the Fasti Antiates Maiores, Caeretani and Esquilini, figures in the Fasti Venusini as that of Fortuna Primige40

nia. This is held to signify that Fortuna Publica Populi Romani Quiritium (hereafter: Fortuna Publica) was the Praenestine Fortuna Primigenia, introduced into Rome as such, without losing her original character embodied in the surname Primigenia. In other words, it is supposed that the two cults were one. It is known that in 241 the Romans still considered the Praenestine Fortuna as an alien (and so inimical) deity 1 ] . Tuditanus' vow, the first mention of the cult of Fortuna Primigenia in Republican Rome, would therefore be tantamount both to the introduction of the Praenestine Fortuna into Rome and to the creation of the worship of Fortuna Publica. Such a change of attitude would not be surprising, considering the heroism and loyalty displayed by the Praenestinians during the Second Punic War. This reasoning is, however, unacceptable because it is based on an obvious mistake. The cult of that strange hybrid, Fortuna Publica Populi Romani Quiritium Primigenia, unknown to the ancient sources, is an invention of the modern historiography. Roman calendars always distinguish Fortuna Primigenia from Fortuna Publica: the entry in the Fasti Venusini is therefore an error, not uncommon in Roman calendars. As for literary sources, Livy explicitly states that Tuditanus' temple was dedicated to Fortuna Primigenia, not to Fortuna Publica. Ovid expresses himself no less unequivocally when he says that 5th April and 25th May were the dies natales of the temples of Fortuna Publica, without a slightest allusion to Fortuna Primigenia. It is pretty obvious that, in keeping with Livy's words, Tuditanus' temple was dedicated solely to Fortuna Primigenia, its dies natalis was 13 th November and the cult was distinct from the worship of Fortuna Publica 12. If this is so, then the assertion that Tuditanus' temple was the earliest of the ires Fortunae in Colle is groundless. On the contrary, there exist strong arguments for considering it the latest of the three. The two temples of Fortuna Publica could not have been founded in the years 218-180, since Livy's full text does not record the fact. The hypothesis that they were founded after 180 and before the compilation of the Fasti Antiates Maiores is very dubious, especially in view of the evolution of Fortuna's cult in Rome. In the second century the images of Fortuna became increasingly varied, as indicated by separate foundations to Fortuna Equestris and Fortuna Huiusce Diei. The introduction of a concept such as Fortuna Publica should be dated to a much earlier period, and this can only mean the years 292-219. I would also suggest, very tentatively, that among our sources there is one which might help us to fix more precisely the date of 41

introduction of the cult of Fortuna Publica into Rome. The text in question is Valerius Maximus 1.3.2, where it is said that Lutatius Cerco, qui primum Punicum bellum confecit, a senatu prohibitus est sortes Fortunae Primigeniae adire: auspiciis enim patriis, non alienigenis rem publicam administrari iudicabant opportere. The opening phrase of this passage suggests that the controversy between the consul and the senate was connected with the ending of the First Punic War 13, which tallies well with hints in other sources. We read in Cassius Dio that C. Lutatius Catulus cos. 242 desired to end the war as soon as possible, immediately after the battle of the Aegates Isles and the Carthaginian offer of peace, and especially before the expiry of his consultate, but that the people, elated by the victory, strove to reject the terms negotiated by the consul 14. It seems obvious that in this case «Roman people» read «one of the consuls of the following year» 15, and since Q. Lutatius Cerco undoubtedly defended the peace concluded by his brother, the bellicose consul was certainly his colleague, A. Manlius Torquatus. Cerco's victory over his colleague was not an easy one, as demonstrated by the aggravation of the terms negotiated by Catulus and Hamilcar with its inherent risk of restarting fighting in spite of the total exhaustion of the antagonists 16. That was not all, however: just before the battle of the Aegates Isles there occured a catastrophic flood of the Tiber, followed by a series of fires which, among others, nearly destroyed the holiest sacra kept in the temple of Vesta 17. These portents were dire enough in their own right; added to the uncertainty over the peace with Carthage, they must have created in Rome an atmosphere of suspence, if not outright panic. In this context the account of Valerius Maximus becomes clear, though his assertion that the senate «forbade» Cerco to appeal to Fortuna Primigenia is technically incorrect since the senate had no power to «forbid» the consul anything. Cerco resolved to appeal to the sortes of Fortuna Primigenia to learn the future, and so break the stalemate over the question of peace with Carthage, aggravated also by the uncertainty over the meaning of the natural disasters that were plaguing the City at the same time. Such an appeal would, however, have created a major constitutional crisis, since in the Roman state religion there was no place for prophesying about the future. In these circumstances, a senatus consultum calling upon the consul to govern the Republic only through the patria auspicia would have been inevitable, although Cerco would probably have given up his intention not 42

out of respect to the patres but because the senate had in its turn persuaded his opponents to cease their obstruction to the peace. Cerco may have defended his appeal to Fortuna Primigenia by claiming that the Praenestine Fortuna and her Roman namesake, venerated in the City from time immemorial, were one and the same deity, and that the sortes Fortunae Primigeniae were complementary to the patria auspicia 18. Be that as it may, it is striking that the notion of Fortuna Publica is implied à rebours in Valerius Maximus' account. Cerco would have considered the Fortuna to whom he appealed as consul - hence Fortuna Publica - as the Fortuna Publica Populi Romani Quiritium, which was rejected by his opponents (auspiciis... alienigenis). The notion of Fortuna Publica may therefore have been first defined during the controversy brought about by Cerco's decision to appeal to Fortuna Primigenia in order to secure divine approval for the peace with Carthage. This line of reasoning might be developed further. The only campaign of the year 241, the war with the Falisci, was fought by both consuls 19, one of whom must have been the founder of the temple of Iuno Curritis 20. His colleague would in all probability have done likelwise since it is difficult to imagine one of the quarrelling parties vowing a temple, i.e. a visible token of victory, with his fellow victor disdaining to follow suit. My proposition is as follows. Both consuls founded temples: Torquatus introduced into the City the cult of Iuno Curritis «evoked» from Falerii, Cerco made a vow to the patron deity of his consultate - Fortuna. By doing so the former commemorated the only success of his consulate, which incidentally he had to share with his colleague; to the latter the easy victory over the Falisci was but a pretext to emphasize achievements infinitely more important and accomplished in the teeth of the opposion - under the protection of the Praenestine Fortuna who for the occasion had been turned into Fortuna Publica Populi Romani Quiritium 21. This would explain the unquestionable link between Fortuna Primigenia and Fortuna Publica, testified by the location of their respective temples side by side on the Quirinal. Fortuna Publica would in fact have been the Praenestine Fortuna naturalized in Rome; but in the process of naturalization she would have had to cease being Praenestine. It was only with Tuditanus' vow that Fortuna Primigenia entered Rome in her original guise. As noted above, the three temples of Fortuna on the Quirinal stood just inside the Porta Collina. Lanciani identifies one of these temples with a large podium (33 X27 m.) found under the inter 43

section of the Via Flavia and the Via Servio Tullio less than hundred metres from the Porta Collina 22 . Hülsen adds, very sensibly, that because of its large dimensions this podium cannot belong to the temple mentioned by Vitruvius as an example of a temple in antis 23 . 1

Vitr. 3.2.2. Anth. Plan. ep. 40 (ed. Belles Lettres). 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 8, 126-127, 437. 4 Ovid. Fasti 4.375-376. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 11, 57, 67, 87, 91, 461. 6 Ovid. Fasti 5.729-730. 7 Inslt XIII 2, p. 22, 42-43, 530. 8 Liv. 34.53.5, see 29.36.8. 9 Mommsen in CIL I 2 p. 319. 10 See eg. Wissowa 1912, p. 261, Santangelo 1941, p. 137, Champeaux 1982, p. 198, 403, Champeaux 1988, p. 4-35 (esp. p. 6-12). 11 Val. Max. 1.3.2, see below. 12 My demonstration follows the most penetrating analysis of the problem of tres Fortunae by Carter 1900, p.66-67. Champeaux' pseudocriticism of his argument (see Champeaux 1988, p. 12 and n. 46) is of no consequence. Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 530, reads the 13th November entry in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium as: Fortun(ae) Primiigeniae) in C(apitolio), thus identifying the temple in question with the mysterious shrine of Fortuna Protogeneia (Platner-Ashby, p. 217-218, see Latte 1960, p. 178). He obviously bases his reading on the mistaken assumption that Livy's temple of Fortuna Primigenia in colle was that of Fortuna Publica dedicated on 25th May. But since the very existence of the Capitoline shrine of Fortuna Primigenia is open to doubt, at least as a public temple deserving an entry in the official calendar, the sanctuary mentioned in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium is almost certainly the one mentioned under 25th May in the Fasti Venusini, even if the compiler of the latter got its feast day wrong. Besides, in Degrassi's reckoning there were only two temples of Fortuna in colle, in spite of the quoted references to tres Fortunae. See also Latte's trouble stemming from the same identification of the goddess worshipped on 13th November with Fortuna Capitolina: «muss es dort noch ein drittes Heiligtum gegeben haben, das wir nicht kennen» (Latte 1960, p. 179). 13 See e.g. Bouché Leclercq 1879-82, IV p. 149-150, De Sanctis 1953-68, II p. 514, Champeaux 1982, p. 78-80. 14 Zon. 8.17.3-7 (I p. 173-174 Boiss.). 15 See Cassola 1962, p. 191-192, for the existence in 242/241 of a broad consensus among the politically active groups in the Roman society as to the necessity of making peace with Carthage. 16 Pol. 1.63.1-3; Zon. 8.17.5-6 (I p. 173 Boiss.). 17 Oros. 4.11.5-9, see Morgan 1977, p. 110-112. 2

44

18

On the concept of Fortuna in Rome and Latium, see now Champeaux 1982. 19 Pol. 1.65.2; Zon. 8.18.1 (I p. 174 Boiss.); Eutr. 2.28; Liv. per. 20. See now Zimmermann 1986. 20 See below, p. 63-64. 21 After having carried through the motion for peace with Carthage, Cerco, in Cassius Dio's (Zonaras') words, joined his brother in Sicily, disarmed the island and turned it into a Roman possession: Zon. 8.17.7 (I p. 174 Boiss.). Together with Valerius Maximus' wording: Lutatius Cerco, qui primum Punicum bellum confecit, this can only signify that Cerco, signed the final peace treaty on the Roman part and that it was to him that Gisco turned over the last Carthaginian strongholds in Sicily, Lilybaion and Drepanon (Pol. 1.66.1). 22 Lanciani FUR, tab. 10. I could not find any description of this finding other than Lanciani 1897, p. 417-419: «the foundations ofthat of one of the three Fortunes ad portarti Collinam came to light near the junction of the via Venti Settembre and via Salaria». 23 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 414.

HERCULES ad Portam Collinam Platner-Ashby, p. 251 The only mention of Hercules' temple ad Portam Collinam is a passage in Livy's account of Hannibal's march on Rome in 212: Hannibal ad Anienem fluvium tria milia passum ab urbe castra admovit. Ibi stativis positis ipse cum doubus milibus equitum ad portam Collinam usque ad Herculis templum est progressus atque, unde proxime poterat, moenia situmque urbis obequitans contemplabatur 1 . The words unde maxime poterat show that the temple stood close to the Porta Collina, just out of the range of missiles. It has been conjectured 2 that this temple should be identified with the aedes Herculis restored by Publicia, the wife of Cn. Cornelius 3 . A temple restored by a private person, and even more so by a woman, would have been a sacrum privatum rather than an aedes publica. This attribution is, however, open to doubt considering that Publicia's inscription was found one kilometre from the Porta Collina 4 . The position of our temple of Hercules in the zone of the Porta Collina, where five undoubted aedes publicae were located 5 , suggests that it was also a public temple. 1 2 3

Liv. 26.10.3. Lanciani in BC 1878, p. 94-95. CIL I 2 981 =VI 30899: Publicia L.f. Cn. Cornelii A.f. uxor Hercole

45

aedem valsasque fecit eademque expolivit aramque sacrarti restituii). Haec omnia de suo et v'irei fecit faciundum curavit. 4 Hülsen 1891, p. 114 and CIL VI 30899 ad locum. See also Santangelo 1941, p. 140. 5 The three temples of Fortuna, the temple of Honos and the temple of Venus Erycina ad Portam Collinam.

HERCULES INVICTUS ad Circum Maximum Platner-Ashby, p. 254 (see also p. 255-256 s.v. Hercules Pompeianus) The southern part of the plain of the Forum Boarium between the Circus Maximus and the Aventine - the site of Hercules' fight with Cacus - had always been the main centre of that god's cult in Rome l. Apart from the Ara Maxima and its consaeptum sacellum 2, there were three temples of Hercules in that area, distinguished in our sources by the following positionings: in Foro Boario, ad Portam Trigeminam and ad Circum Maximum 3. The first two, dedicated to Hercules Victor 4, were built in the second century 5; as for the third, Pliny mentions a bronze statue of Hercules qui est apud Circum Maximum in aede Pompei Magni 6. Vitruvius, while discussing the Etruscan temple, says: ornanturque signisfictitiousaut aereis inauratis earum fastigia tuscanico more, uti est ad Circum Maximum Cereris et Herculis Pompeiani, item Capitola 7. Cn. Pompeius could not have been the founder of a temple built in so antiquated a style of architecture: the surname Pompeianus can only indicate that the dynast restored the temple in its original form 8, no doubt in emulation of Sulla, who had rebuilt the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos in Circo Flaminio 9. The original temple was stylistically similar to those of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus and Ceres, dedicated respectively in 508/7 and 493, and so must have been constructed before the Greek influence came to be felt in Rome. Livy's silence about its dedication and the fact that when Ap. Claudius had been establishing the state cult of Hercules there seems to have been no temple of the god in Rome, indicate that the temple of Hercules ad Circum Maximum was built in the years 292-219 10. The surname of the god worshipped in that temple was Invictus, as shown both by Pompeius' devotion to Hercules Invictus l ì and by the calendars the Fasti Allifani and Amiternini for 12th August read respectively: Herculi Invi[cto ad Circ(um) Maximum)] and Herculi Invicto ad Circum Maximum) 12. 46

It seems that the date of this temple could be defined more accurately by means of numismatic evidence. The relevant coins are the didrachmae of the third Roman issue, struck ca. 269266 13, bearing the first unmistakably Roman type, at least on the reverse: a she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, an obvious reference to the statues set up in 296 at the Lupercal by Cn. and Q. Ogulnii H ; on the obverse there is a head of Hercules with hair bound by a ribbon. This particular Hercules type is very rare on Roman coins: it appears once again on bronze coins struck in 230-226 15, though seemingly without the ribbon, only to be replaced by a type which later became the standard obverse type of the Roman quadrans: a head wearing a lion-skin, in some issues replaced by a boar-skin 16. The question is whether we may connect this early type with one of the many Roman Herculi. Crawford suggests that the head under discussion «may be that of Hercules Victor, highly suitable for a coinage struck from the spoils of war and perhaps reflecting the Roman ideology of military prowess» 17. But, as far as we know, the cult of Hercules Victor was introduced to Rome only in the middle of the second century, with the foundations of L. Mummius and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus 18. The earliest Roman Hercules worshipped at the Ara Maxima had no epithet 19; although praetorian inscriptions of the Imperial period show that he came to be identified with Hercules Invictus 20, his acquisition of this surname was probably due to the influence of the neighbouring cult of the god worshipped ad Circum Maximum. Crawford's suggestion should therefore be modified by replacing Hercules Victor with Hercules Invictus. We may go on to ask whether there are any arguments in support of the proposal that the Hercules on the coins in question is the Hercules Invictus. The dedication of the first Roman temple of Hercules to Hercules Invictus ran against the then prevailing fashion of making dedications to deities endowed with the surname Victor. Weinstock argues that epithets Victor and Invictus were Latin translations of Greek surnames Nikator and Aniketos, propagated by Seleukos the First and Alexander the Great respectively21. The Romans, having entered the world scene only at the turn of the fourth century, first adopted the Seleukos-originated epithet Victor with the vowing of the temple of Iuppiter Victor in 295 22. The victories of the Third Samnitic War hastened the spread of this surname, witness the case of the temple of Bellona, vowed a year earlier and dedicated some time after 293, probably to Bellona 47

Victrix 23. Even Hercules of the Ara Maxima was not immune to this ideology: in spite of the existence of the temple of Hercules Invictus, private offerings of the third century are indiscriminately addressed to Hercules, Hercules Victor and Hercules Victor Invictus 24. And yet the temple ad Circum Maximum, built after 293, i.e. in the heyday of the Victor ideology 25, was dedicated to Hercules Invictus. It seems that the reason for this should be sought in the special character of the Hellenistic Herakles. The myth of the Argive origin of the Macedonian ruling family, already accepted by Herodotos' time 26, made Herakles the forefather of Philip and Alexander. This made the link between the god and the conqueror of Persia particularly strong, thus preventing, at least in Rome with her imperialistic ambitions, the encroachment of the more recent Victor ideology upon the public cult of Hercules. On the coins under discussion the ribbon binding the god's head is, obviously enough, a royal fillet, the ancient equivalent of a kingly crown. The Hercules depicted on these coins was therefore the royal Hercules; in view of the antimonarchical bias of the Roman Republic, which ruled out any Caesar-like propaganda on behalf of any individual, the only conclusion is that this Hercules was modelled on Alexander Aniketos 27. This would indicate, first, that Hercules-type Roman didrachmae featured Hercules Invictus, and secondly, that the temple of the god with this surname existed already when the coinage was issued. This would reduce the time limits of the temple's construction to the years 292-269/266. The temple stood close to the carceres of the Circus Maximus, probably near the intersection of the Via dell'Ara Massima and Via della Greca 28. Greater precision in this case in not possible. As regards the podium of large blocks in the posterior part of the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin, it may be identified either with this temple or with the Ara Maxima, or with the temple of Ceres 29. 1 Lugli 1953-69, VIII p. 335-344. See Wissowa 1904, p. 260-265, Wissowa 1912, p. 271-284, Böhm in RE 8 (1912), c. 552-571 s.v. Hercules, Bayet 1926, passim. 2 Lyngby 1954, p. 19-23, Coarelli 1985A, p. 323-324. 3 Lyngby 1954, p. XIX-XX, arrived at the total of nine shrines dedicated to Hercules in this area, includingfivetemples; this total is, however, the result of his untenable theory that every difference in names, even the smallest, necessarily signifies a different edifice. 4 See the nearly identical statements by Servius auct. ad Aen. 8.363 (sed Romae Victoris Herculis aedes duae sunt, una ad Portam Trigemi-

48

nam, alia ad Forum Boarium) and Macrobius, Sat 3.6.10 (Romae autem Victoris Herculis aedes duae sunt, una ad Portam Trigeminam, altera in Foro Boario). 5 The tempie in Foro Boario was most probably founded by P. Cornelius Scipio Aeimilianus, as indicated by Festus 282 L: Pudicitiae signum in Foro Bovario est ubi familiana aedisset Herculis (if Scaliger's emendation - ubi Aemiliana aedis est Herculis - is accepted). There is no doubt that this is the temple that was destroyed at the end of the fifteenth century A.C. and which had stood at the site of the Palazzo dei Musei. See Cressedi 1984, p. 266-268, Coarelli 1988, p. 84-92. The temple of Hercules Victor ad Portam Trigeminam can only be identified with the round temple on the Tiber (Coarelli 1988, p. 92-103), built in the second half of the second centu-y (Strong-Ward Perkins, p. 30, Rakob-Heihneyer, p. 27, 39), probably by L. Mummius cos. 146 (CIL I 2 626 = VI 33l=ILLRP 122, see Ziolkowski 1988). 6 Plin. NH 34.57. 7 Vitr. 3.3.5. 8 Wissowa 1904, p. 262-263. 9 See below, p. 50. 10 Thus Wissowa 1912, p. 595. Contra Lyngby 1954, p. 7-19 and Coarelli 1988, p. 80-82, who date the temple respectively to the turn of the sixth century and to Appius' censorship in 312. 11 App. BC 2.319. See Weinstock 1957, p. 228-229. 12 InsItXLll 2, p. 180-181, 190-191. The Fasti Vallenses for that day read: Herculi Magno Custodi in Circo Flaminio) (Inslt XIII 2, p. 148149), but see Degrassi's comment ad locum (p. 494). 13 Crawford 1974, no. 20/1. 14 Liv. 10.23.12. See Crawford 1985, p. 31. 15 Crawford 1974, no. 27/3-4. 16 Crawford 1974, p. 863 (Indices: Types, s.v. Hercules, head R.). 17 Crawford 1974, p. 714. 18 See n. 5. 19 Weinstock 1957, p. 223. 20 CIL VI 312-319. 21 Weinstock 1957, p. 212-214. 22 See below, p. 91. 23 See Liv. 10.19.21: et cum Volumnius ipse portae signa inferret, Appius Bellonam victricem identidem celebrans accenderet militum animos. The vow having been made simply to Bellona (see above, p. 18), Bellona victrix of this passage probably reflects Appius' dedication. 24 Pietrangeli 1940, p. 144-146. 25 See also Livy 10.47.3: eodem anno (293) coronati primum ob res bello bene gestas ludos Romanos spectarunt palmaeque turn primum translato a Graecia more victoribus datae. We are two years after the vowing of the temple of Iuppiter Victor. 26 Herodot. 5.22. See Weinstock 1957, p. 214. 27 The first Roman with pretensions to a status equal to that of

49

Alexander, P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, styled himself invictus imperator; see Weinstock 1957, p. 221-222. Pompeius, the «Roman Alexander», rebuilt the temple of Hercules Invictus; on his worship of this particular Hercules, see n. 12. 28 Coarelli 1985A, p. 321, 323. 29 Giovenale 1927, passim, esp. p. 351-371.

HERCULES MAGNUS CUSTOS in Circo Flaminio Platner-Ashby, p. 252 The unquestionable references to the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos are contained in Roman calendars which mention a feast Herc(uli) Magri(o) Custodii) (Fasti Venusini for 4th June) x or Herculi Magno Custodi in Circo Flaminio (Fasti Vallenses for 12th August) 2 , and in Ovid's Fasti where, after mentioning the temple of Bellona (vowed on 3rd June), the poet says 3 : Altera pars circi Custode sub Hercule tuta est quod deus Euboico carmine munus habet. Muneris est tempus, qui nonas Lucifer ante est. Si titulum quaeris: Sulla probavit opus. Ovid's reference would seem to indicate that Sulla was the temple's founder; on the other hand, the existence elsewhere in Rome of a shrine of Hercules Sullanus 4 and especially the surname Custos, no doubt somehow connected with the Circus Flaminius, induces the majority of scholars to date the temple to ca. 220, ie. to the time of the erection of the circus 5 . Two arguments have been advanced in support of this dating. Wissowa 6 singled out one of the propitiatory measures taken in 218, as related by Livy: Romae quoque et lectisternium luventati et supplicatio ad aedem Herculis nominatim, deinde universo populo circa omnia pulvinaria indicta 7 . Macrobius quotes after Cornelius Balbus that apud aram maximam observatum, ne lectisternium fiat 8 ; this indicates - says Wissowa - that the rite mentioned by Livy could not take place in the zone of the Forum Boarium. This in turn means that, elsewhere in Rome, there must have existed another centre of Hercules' worship which can only be identified with the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos. As can be seen, the integral part of Wissowa's reasoning is his assumption that of the two centres of Hercules' cult in the City, the one located in the Forum Boarium was the place of worship of

50

«Italian» Hercules, ultimately originating from Tibur: hence the ban on lectisternia. The other, «Greek», Hercules was in his opinion worshipped only in the Circus Flaminius, in the temples of Hercules Magnus Custos and Hercules Musarum, the Greek Herakles Musagetes 9. Wissowa's thesis is, however, open to doubt 10. Even putting aside the question of the provenance of the cult of the Ara Maxima, the neighbouring worship of Hercules Invictus in the temple ad Circum Maximum had some distinctly Greek features noticeable eg. in the god's very surname. In other words, if a lectisternium could not take place in the precinct of the Ara Maxima, this does not mean that the same held true of the temple of Hercules Invictus. It even seems that there is an argument to the effect that the lectisternium of 218 did indeed take place in the precinct of that temple. In 218 Iuventas had not yet a temple in Rome, and so the ceremony in her honour was celebrated in a temple of her consort in the Greeek religion. Her temple, founded by M. Livius Salinator cos. 219, 207 n , was located ad Circum Maximum, of all places, that is in the vicinity of the temple of Hercules Invictus. This seems to indicate that the partner of Iuventas, the Roman Hebe, was Hercules from the area of the Circus Maximus; in his temple we should therefore probably situate the lectisternium of the year 218 12. Hardly more convincing than Wissowa's thesis is the argument put forward very tentatively by Zevi 13. Among the many works of M. Fulvius Nobilior censor 179/8 Livy specifies forum et porticum extra portam Trigeminam et alia post navalia et ad fanum Herculis et post Spei ad Tiberim aedem Apollinis medici habuere 14. From this singularly obscure passage it might be inferred that Nobilior built three porticoes: 1) extra portam Trigeminam, 2) post navalia et ad fanum Herculis, 3) post Spei ad Tiberim. We know that Nobilior vowed as consul a temple to Hercules Musarum, which he dedicated as censor in Circo Flaminio 15, yet a portico leading from the navalia to that temple would be a topographical oddity since it would have to skirt round the whole Circus Flaminius. Some other shrine of Hercules in Circo must therefore have been involved, and this can only mean the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos, whose existence before the resumption of Livy's narrative in 218 would thereby be demonstrated. But the problem is what to do with the conjunction et (porticum... post navalia et ad fanum Herculis) which attests to the construction of two porticoes instead of one: post navalia and ad fanum Herculis. In such a case the fanum in question should be

identified with the temple built by Nobilior (or, more precisely, that was being built: hence fanum). Although the description of the subsequent portico (post Spei ad Tiberim) might justify the omission of that troublesome et - we would then have: post navalia ad fanum Herculis - equally acceptable is the conjecture by Wiseman 16 who inserts [et ad] between ad Tiberim and aedem Apollinis: ...et post Spei ad Tiberim [et ad] aedem Apollinis medici habuere. On the one hand, this would render the passage under discussion intellegible both in grammatical and topographical terms, on the other it would force us to reckon up to five porticoes built by Nobilior. Without the help of archaeology all these readings are admissible since we are dealing here with the part of Livy known only from the sixteenth century A.C. copy of the Mainz manuscript. With the meaning of the account dependent on choosing among many equally permissible conjectures, this single version is of little help. All this having been said, it seems that the view connecting the founding of the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos with the erection of the Circus Flaminius is correct. Vitruvius says that temples of Hercules should be located in quibus civitatibus non sunt gymnasia neque amphitheatra, ad circum 17. Architectural and functional relationship between circuses and temples of Hercules is evident in the case of the Circus Maximus and Maxentius' complex in the Via Appia 18. The fact that two temples of Hercules were built in Circo Flaminio is therefore not accidental, though structurally and functionally this racing track differed from other constructions designated with the term circus 19. It could of course be argued that this has nothing to do with the date of the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos. Vitruvius' remark allows for sacral edifices being chronologically secondary to sport facilities; a circus, or rather the Circus Flaminius, could have been built first, in 220, followed in 179/8 by the temple of Hercules Musarum and later still, in the Sullan period, by that of Hercules Magnus Custos. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine the Circus Flaminius remaining without its guardian sanctuary of Hercules for nearly a hundred and fifty years. This role could not be fulfilled by Nobilior's temple with its worship of Hercules Musagetes, the patron of musical contests in the Greek sense of the word. The only games certainly held in the Circus Flaminius - the ludi Tauri - were horse races 20; their guardian or custos should therefore be sought in the other Hercules worshipped in this area, whose temple inevitably preceded that of Hercules Musarum. This in turn 52

means that the terminus ante quern of the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos is the resumption of Livy's narrative in 218. This brings us to the circumstances of the temple's founding. From what we know it was a very unusual dedication - first, because of its two distinctly different surnames. The two epithets of the Capitoline Jupiter - Optimus Maximus - were in fact a reduplication of a single characteristic trait, whereas in the case of our Hercules the quite normal surname Magnus, equivalent to other epithets of the god, Victor and Invictus, was followed by a functional sobriquet Custos, no doubt alluding to that Hercules' role as the guardian of the Circus Flaminius. Secondly, it seems strange that the temple vowed Euboico carmine, ie. in obedience to Sibylline instructions, was located in the area reserved de facto to manubial foundations. The cult was thus antinomous in two ways: the god was worshipped on the one hand as Hercules Magnus and on the other as custos of the Circus Flaminius; the temple seems to have been founded on Sibylla's advice and yet located like dedications ex manubiis. These contradictions seem to indicate that we are dealing with two separate vows which eventually merged into a single dedication: one prescribed by Sibylla and invoking Hercules Magnus 21, the other made by a victorious general and addressed to Hercules Custos of the Circus Flaminius. The question is how could it happen. Sibylline orders to build temples occurred in the most dramatic moments of Rome's history, when the very existence of the state was, or was thought to be, at stake. It is only logical that Sibylla-ordered vowing of the temple to Hercules occurred immediately before or during the great war with the Gauls in 225-222, when the intensity of terror and religious hysteria in Rome reached a level comparable only to the first years of the Second Punic War 22 . It was at this time, in 228, that the Romans resorted for the first time to the rite of burying alive a pair of Gauls and a pair of Greeks in the Forum Boarium 23, a practice repeated only twice, after Cannae in 216 and then in 113 after the condemnation of three Vestals for failing to keep their chastity 24. On the other hand, the vowing of the temple to Hercules Magnus cannot be ascribed to the same consultation of the libri fatales that resulted in the above-mentioned ritual murder: in the panic stricken atmosphere of the metus Gallicus the Romans would surely have built and dedicated the temple before the war that actually broke out only three years later. The fact that the temple was eventually founded at the same time as the Circus Flaminius, 53

ca. 220, seemingly as a manubial dedication, indicates that for some reason the original vow had not been fulfilled. I would suggest two possible reconstructions. One is as follows. It seems certain that the panic in Rome reached its climax in 225, when the long anticipated Gallic invasion at last set out. The invading army was just three days' march away from the City when it was confronted by the Roman forces 25. The pitched battle ended in a complete victory for the Gauls: the road to Rome apparently lay open before the invaders 26. It is difficult to imagine a more appropriate moment to consult the Sibylline Books. But, due to a Waterloo-like cumulation of chance events, the Gallic threat vanished virtually overnight with the Roman victory at Telamon a couple of weeks after the first battle 27. With the terror removed, the Romans would have been somewhat slow to meet their obligation to Hercules, especially as the magistrate who had made the vow would have done it ex officio, without engaging himself personally. The other occasion on which a temple could have been vowed to Hercules on advice of the Sibylline Books was the year 223, when the consuls P. Furius Philus and C. Flaminius marched out against the Insubres, the only Gallic tribe stille in arms against Rome. The exceptionally numerous and sinister prodigies reported after the consuls' departure called the validity of their election into question 28, whereupon the senate summoned them back, and expressly warned against engaging in battle with the Gauls 29. The summons has generally been interpreted as an intrigue on the part of the Roman «Establishment» against C. Flaminius, the «Establishment's» main opponent 30: Flaminius himself denounced it as such 31. However, this explanation is only satisfactory in part, if at all. In the third century the Romans' faith in their gods and ritual practices was still unshaken, especially when it came to a war with the Gauls. An alternative reconstruction runs thus: the failure on the part of the consuls to abide by the will of the gods, expressed through the prodigies, would have produced a panic similar to the metus Gallicus of the years 228225 32. In that situation again, an appeal to the libri fatales would be quite understandable; so, too, would be the apparent unfulfilment of the vow: after all, Flaminius defeated the Gauls despite the fears of his superstitious fellow-citizens. If either of these sequence of events actually occurred, the transition from the Sibylla-ordered vow to Hercules Magnus to the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos located in Circo Flaminio by a victorious general, can be reconstructed very easily. The 54

second vow to Hercules could have been made only by Flaminius during his victorious campaign against the Insubres 33 . He might have done it partly in order to discharge the Republic, with his own manubiae, of an unfulfilled obligation to Hercules, but his chief intention would have surely been to sneer at the fainthearted who had tried to rob him of his victory by means of the state religion. If there was in that period a non-conformist in Rome, his name was certainly C. Flaminius 34 . In 220 the same C. Flaminius assumed the office of censor. If the foregoing reasoning is correct, the temple was founded at the same time as his greatest work in the City - the Circus Flaminius - with which it formed a functional whole. In order to emphasize the connection between the race track that bore his name and the temple that he built, blurred by the fact that the temple had been first vowed in obedience to Sibylla's advice, the censor dedicated the temple to Hercules Magnus and Custos of the Circus Flaminius. As for the temple's location, it must have stood at the western end of the Circus Flaminius 35 , probably near the former church of S. Salvatore in Campo. Since the temple found under this church is to be identified with that of Mars which our sources site in Circo36, the Circus Flaminius as a topographical entity extended that far to the west 37 . 1

Inslt XIII 2, p. 58. Inslt XIII 2, p. 148-149. See above, p. 49 n. 12. 3 Ovid. Fasti 6.209-212. 4 This shrine is mentioned in the Regionary Catalogues, see PlatnerAshby, p. 256, Nordh 1949, p. 80. 5 Wissowa 1912, p. 276, Bayet 1926, p. 240, 352, Platner-Ashby, p. 252, Coarelli 1968, p. 307 and n. 45, 316, Wiseman 1974, p. 18, Zevi 1976, p. 1060 n. 71. 6 Wissowa 1912, p. 276. 7 Liv. 21.62.9. 8 Macr. Sat. 3.6.16; see Serv. ad Aen. 8.176. 9 Wissowa 1912, p. 277: «Wir haben also in Rom zwei Gruppen von Herculesheiligtümern, die des tiburtinischen Hercules beim Circus maximus und die des griechischen beim Circus Flaminius». 10 See Bayet 1926, p. 240 n. 6, 260. 11 Liv. 36.36.5-7. On the notion of Iuventas in Rome, see now Neraudeau 1979, p. 189-191. 12 Livy's mention of the lectisternium offered to Iuventas the year after Salinator's first consulate might support an inference that his promise to build a temple to this goddess, made at Metaurus in 207, was a repetition of a similar vow made during his first consulate in 219. This vow would have remained unfulfilled owing to Salinator's condemnation 2

55

in 218 (Frontin. Strat. 4.1.45; de vir. ill. 50.1; see Liv. 22.35.3, 27.34.3, 29.37.13-14), but the senate and the decemvirs would have felt obliged to placate the patroness of the iuventus - a not unreasonable precaution considering the circumstances - hence the lectistemium to the goddess who had not yet a temple of her own in the City. 13 Zevi 1976, p. 1060-1061. 14 Liv. 40.51.6. 15 Cic. pro Archia 27; Eum. pro rest, schol. 7. 16 Wiseman 1974, p. 18. 17 Vitr. 1.7.30. 18 Frazer 1966. 19 Wiseman 1974, passim. 20 Varrò LL 5.154, see Humphrey 1986, p. 540-545. 21 Weinstock 1957, p. 215 and n. 22, in Liv. 9.44.16: Herculis magnum simulacrum in Capitolio positum dedicatumque, reads Magni instead of magnum, thus pushing the introduction of the cult of Hercules Magnus into Rome back to the year 305. But it is much more probable that the dedication mentioned by Livy was an echo of the organisation of Hercules' state cult at the Ara Maxima, which had nothing to do with Hercules Magnus (the direct cause was, of course, the victorious conclusion of the Second Samnitic War). 22 Fraschetti 1981, p. 59-68. 23 Zon. 8.19.9, Tzetzes in Lycophr. 603 (I p. 183 Boiss.); Oros. 4.13.3-4; Plut. Marc. 3.5-7. 24 Fraschetti 1981, passim. 25 Pol. 2.25.2. 26 Pol. 2.25.3-11. 27 Pol. 2.27-31; see De Sanctis 1953-68, III 1, p. 300-302, Walbank 1957-79, I p. 204-206. 28 Zon. 8.20.4-5 (I p. 185 Boiss.); Plut. Marc. 4.1-2. 29 Plut. Marc. 4.4; see Liv. 22.3.13. 30 See eg. De Sanctis 1953-68, III 1, p. 305, Bleicken 1955, p. 30. 31 Zon. 8.20.5 (I p. 185-186 Boiss.); see Liv. 22.3.4-13. 32 We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Q. Fabius Maximus' verdict after the disaster of the Trasimene Lake as reported in Liv. 22.9.7: plus neglegentia caerimoniarum auspiciorumque quam temeritate atque inscitia peccatum a C. Flaminio consule esse. 33 The fact that no source mentions C. Flaminius as the founder of the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos is not surprising considering the ill fame which later Roman tradition bestowed on Flaminius, its notorious bète noire. See Walbank 1957-79, I p. 192-193. 34 See now Amat Seguin 1988, p. 86. 35 Coarelli 1968, p. 317-318, Zevi 1976, p. 1060-1061. 36 Zevi 1976, passim. 37 Coarelli 1968, p. 310 fig. A, Coarelli 1985A, p. 271.

56

HONOS extra Portam Collinam Platner-Ashby, p. 258 In de legibus Cicero says to Atticus: nostis extra portam Collinam aedem Honoris; aram in eo loco fuisse memoria proditum est. Ad earn cum lamina esset inventa, et in ea scriptum nomen Honoris, ea causa fuit ut aedis haec dedicaretur. Sed quern multa in eo loco sepulcra fuissent, exacrata sunt. Statuit enim collegium publicum non potuisse privata religione obligari l. In 1872/73, a base with an inscription M. (?) Bicoleio(s) V.l. Honore donum dede(t) mereto 2 , was found in situ under the east wing of the present Ministero delle Finanze, some 35 metres east of the agger 3 . Since the inscription clearly belonged to the temple under discussion, we may locate the latter just outside the Porta Collina. Livy's description of the cavalry battle fought in 212 outside this gate inter convalles tectaque honorum et sepulcra 4 corroborates Cicero's report. The archaic form of the inscription's letters 5 suggests that the temple had already existed in the third century 6 ; it must therefore have been constructed in the years 292-219 7 . It seems that to this temple should be related the entry in the Fasti Antiates Maiores for 17th July: Hono(ri) 8 . Mancini 9 , followed, among others, by Platner-Ashby 10 and Lugli n , attributed this entry to the temple of Honos et Virtus ad Portam Capenam 12, but Degrassi observes that the Marian temple of Honos et Virtus 13 and the temple of Honos extra Portam Collinam are just as good candidates 14. I would add that the entry Hono(ri) can only be connected with the temple dedicated exclusively to Honos, which rules out both the temples of Honos et Virtus. 1 Cic. de leg. 2.58. This singularly corrupted passage is quoted after Plinval's edition in Les Belles Lettres (1959). 2 CIL I 2 31= VI 3692= VI 30913 =ILLRP 157. 3 Henzen in Bull Inst 1873, p. 88-91, see Hülsen-Jordan, p. 414 n. 58. 4 Liv. 26.10.7; see above, p. 45-46. 5 Degrassi 1965, no. 77. 6 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 414. 7 To this temple most probably belonged the inscription dedicated to Virtus (CIL VI 3735= VI 31061), also found under the Ministero delle Finanze, see Hülsen ad locum and Santangelo 1941, p. 137-138. 8 InsItXlll 2, p. 14. 9 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 102.-103. 10 Platner-Ashby, p. 258. 11 Lugli Fontes, III p. 28.

57

12 13 14

See below, p. 58-60. See Platner-Ashby, p. 259-260. Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 483-484.

HONOS (ET VIRTUS) ad Portam Capenam Platner-Ashby, p. 258-259 The original part of the later double temple of Honos et Virtus was built by Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus cos. I 233 for Honos alone. Cicero says in de natura deorum: Vides Virtutis templum, vides Honoris a M. Marcello renovatum, quod multis ante annis erat bello Ligustico a Q. Maxumo dedicatum KM. Claudius Marcellus cos. I 222, who during his first consulate vowed at Clastidium a temple to Honos et Virtus, at the beginning of his fifth, in 208, tried to fulfil his vow by dedicating Verrucosus' temple to both the deities. He was thwarted in his attempt by the pontiffs who forced him to build a separate cella to Virtus 2. The vow was finally fulfilled by Marcellus' son in 205; in Livy's words, aedem Virtutis eo anno ad portam Capenam M. Marcellus dedicavit septumo decumo anno postquam patre eius primo consulatu vota in Gallia ad Clastidium fuerat 3. The location of the temple can quite accurately be induced from numerous ancient relations. It stood ad Portam Capenam 4, just outside the gate, as can be inferred from the words which Livy puts into the mouths of the Syracusan envoys accusing Marcellus of having unjustly plundered their city (si ab inferis exsistat rex Hiero, fidissimus imperii Romani cultor, quo ore aut Syracusas aut Romam ei ostendi posse cum, ubi semirutam ac spoliatam patriam respexerit, ingrediens Romam in vestibulo urbis, prope in porta, spolia patriae suae visurus sit 5) and from the fact that in the Regionary Catalogues the temple of Honos et Virtus is listed as the first monument of the First Region (Porta Capena) 6. The orthodox dating and placement of the temple have recently been contested by Richardson. In his view, Cicero's wording multis ante annis precludes the identification of the Q. Maximus who built the temple of Honos with Verrucosus, the latter's first consulate having preceded Marcellus' vow by twelve years only; he also finds it unthinkable «for one to rebuild a temple properly belonging to the other while the other was still alive». He would rather identify Cicero's Q. Maximus with Verrucosus' great-grandfather Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus 7. As for the temple's location, it «stood... near the Porta Capena but not 58

outside it, for that would be extra portarti», and for this reason Richardson situates it on the Caelian 8 . But such a location of the temple of Honos et Virtus is contradicted not only by the texts quoted above but also by the general meaning of ad portarti in similar context. In all the cases but one of the sites located by our sources in relation to gates when the position of the two is known, ad portarti meant «outside the gate». These are, apart from the temple of Honos et Virtus, the shrine of Camenae 9 and the tomb of the Scipios 10 ad Portarti Capenam, and the temple of Venus Erycina ad Portam Collinam u ; Sulla's final victory in the First Civil War was also fought ad Portam Collinam 12. The one exception to the rule is the Campus Sceleratus, situated by our sources ad Portam Collinam but located within the Servian Wall 13; an inconclusive case since the chamber was actually dug in the agger. As for the temple's dating, (1) Livy's silence about a vow to Honos on the part of Rullianus, the founder of the temple of Iuppiter Victor, (2) the fact that Verrucosus' first consulate preceded Marcellus' fifth by twenty five years - a fairly longish period, (3) the fact that Verrucosus was the only Fabius Maximus who fought against the Ligurians, and (4) the obvious error of Richardson's view that public temples «properly belonged» to their founders, combine to make his position untenable.

1

Cic. de nat. deor. 2.61. Liv. 27.25.7-9; Val. Max. 1.1.8 see Plut. Marc. 28.1. 3 Liv. 29.11.13. 4 Liv. 25.40.3: visebantur enim ab extremis ad portam Capenam dedicata a M. Marcello tempia, 29.11.13 (see above); RDGA 11: [aram] Fortunae [R]educis a[nte ae]des Honoris et Virtutis ad portam [Cap]enam pro [red]itu me[o se]natus consacravitj BODROV Tuxng 2(OTT]QIOV TJJIÈQ xfjg èjxfjg èjiavóòou Jigòg xfji KajrrjvT]i jruXfji fj cuvxXrycog àqpiéQcocev. 5 Liv. 26.32.4 - an anachronistic allusion to Marcellus' having displayed the most precious of the works of art plundered in Syracuse in the temple of Honos et Virtus, see Liv. 25.40.1-3. 6 Nordh 1949, p. 73. 7 Richardson 1978, p. 244. 8 Ibid. 9 Schol. in luv. 3.11.1-2: in via Appia ad portam Capenam, id est ad Camenas; Festus 97L (Paulus): Initium est principium; sed alias quo quid incipiat, ut viae Appiae porta Capena. 10 Liv. 38.55.2 [Q. Terentius Culleo] ad portam Capenam mulsum prosecutis funus dedisse [during Scipio Africanus' funeral], compare Liv. 38.56.4: et Romae extra portam Capenam in Scipionum monumento. 2

59

11

Liv. 40.34.4: aedes duae... una Veneris Erycinae ad portam Colti-

nam.

12 Veil. 2.27.1: ad portam Collinam cum Sulla dimicavit; Eutr. 5.81: pugnam gravissimam [Sulla] habuit... ad portam Collinam. 13 Ad Portam Collinam- Liv. 8.15.8, 22.57.2; Oros. 4.2.8. Within the Servian Wall - Plut. Numa 10.8; Serv. ad Aen. 11.206.

HORA QUIRINI in colle Quirinali Platner-Ashby, p. 263 (s.v. Horta) The shrine of Hora Quirini is mentioned in the calendars under 23rd August. In the Fasti Antiates Maiores we find: [H]orae Qu[i(rini)] \ in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: [Horae] Quir(ini) in colle 2 . In the Metamorphosae Ovid speaks of Hersilia's deification in the grove situated colle Quirini qui viret et templum Romani regis obumbrat3 - the shrine must therefore have stood near the temple of Quirinus 4 . Guarducci, who has saved Hora Quirini from oblivion, doubts the existence of the temple of the goddess. In her opinion Hora Quirini had to be contented with a sacred precinct or a sacellum 5 . In this respect she was similar to Maia with whom she shared her feast day. This is possible though, contrary to Maia who was worshipped not only in the ancient precinct of her consort Volcanus but also on the day of Volcanalia 6 , Hora Quirini had a feast day separate from Quirinus 7 . This suggests that, like Nymphae and Ops Opifera, also worshipped on the Volcanalia 8 , she had a temple of her own, no doubt located close to the temple of Quirinus. Ennius' teque Quirine pater veneror Horamque Quirini 9 also implies that at the turn of the third century the goddess still held quite a prominent place in the Roman pantheon. This might suggest that, if she in fact had an aedes publica in the City, it would have been founded in the years 292-219. 1 Inslt XIII 2, p. 17. For reading Quirini instead of Quirino, see Guarducci 1936, p. 33, contra Mancini in NS 1921, p. 109-110. 2 InsItXIU 2, p. 30-31. 3 Ovid. Metam. 14.836-837. 4 Guarducci 1936, p. 34. 5 Ibid. 6 See below, p. 179-180. 7 See below, p. 140.

60

8 9

See below, p. 120, 122-123. Enn. Ann. fr. 71 B.

IAN US in Foro Holitorio Platner-Ashby, p. 277-278 In the passage enumerating old temples rededicated in A.D. 17, Tacitus cites, among others, et Iano templum, quod apud forum holitorium C. Duillius struxerat, qui primus rem Romanam prospere mari gessit triumphumque navalem de Poenis meruit ]. Duillius' temple was dedicated on 17th August - see identical entries in the Fasti Vallenses and Allifani: Iano ad theatrum Marcelli 2 - ie. on the Portunalia 3, soon after 260, the year of Duillius' consulate. Festus says that religioni est quibusdam porta Carmentali egredi, et in aede Iani, quae est extra earn, senatum haberi; quod ea egressi sex et trecenti Fabii apud Cremeram omnes interfecti sunt, cum in aede Iani senatus consultum factum esset, uti proflciscerentur 4. This statement, which would imply the existence of the temple of Ianus in 474, is obviously incorrect 5. Gilbert's opinion that Duillius' temple was built on the site of an earlier shrine6 also seems unfounded 7. Latte suggests that Duillius founded a temple to Portunus and dates its attribution to Ianus to the Augustan period 8, which again is patently wrong: witness separate entries on the temple of Portunus ad Pontem Aemilium on 17th August in all the calendars which mention the temple of Ianus 9. Perhaps the most confusing proposal of all is that propounded by Holland 10, who negates the existence of a true aedes Iani in Rome and maintains that the only place which tallies with the position of the temple of Ianus in our sources is the spot between the Tiber and the Theatrum Marcelli. In keeping with her theory about «Ianus and the bridge», she argues that on the narrow strip of land between the river and the theatre there was no space for a regular aedes but only for a templum pervium. In her opinion, the temple of Ianus would have been a ianus tout court, marking the access to the crossing of the Tiber across the Insula, later replaced by the Pons Fabricius and Pons Cestius. This view is also obviously mistaken - witness eg. the quoted passage by Festus, which shows beyond any doubt that the aedes Iani did in fact exist in Rome and that it stood extra Portam Carmentalem. The calendars situate the temple ad Theatrum Marcelli (see 61

also Servius' iuxta theatrum Marcelli u ) ; Tacitus and Festus locate it apud Forum Holitorium and extra Portarti Carmentalem respectively. These indications unambiguosly point to the northernmost of the three temples of S. Nicola in Carcere, as already postulated by Hülsen 12. Furthermore Delbrück, who first identified the site in question with the temple of Iuno Sospita 13, later accepted Hülsen's view 14. Lugli rejected the by then orthodox location on the grounds that Tacitus' and Festus' positioning goes much better with the (then) unidentified podium flanking the temple of Apollo, and identified the northern structure of S. Nicola in Carcere with the temple of Spes 15. Coarelli's identification of the podium by the temple of Apollo with the temple of Bellona 16 definitively vindicated Hülsen's proposal 17 . 1

Tac. Ann. 2.49.1; see above, p. 31. InsItXlll 2, p. 148-149, 180-181. 3 In the Fasti Amiternini the entry: Iano ad teathr(um) (sic) Marcelli, figures under 18th October {Inslt XIII 2, p. 194-195), but this no doubt applies to Tiberius' rededication, see Platner-Ashby, p. 277 and Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 497, 523. 4 Festus 358 L. 5 Grimal 1945, p. 62, 108, Latte 1960, p. 416 n. 4, Holland 1961, p. 204-207. 6 Gilbert 1883-90, I p. 260-265, repeated by Hülsen-Jordan, p. 508 and Platner-Ashby, p. 277. 7 Grimal 1945, p. 62, 108. 8 Latte 1960, p. 416. 9 See below, p. 138. 10 Holland 1961, p. 207-212. 11 Serv. adAen. 7.607. 12 Hülsen 1906, p. 189-192. See also Frank 1924, p. 129, PlatnerAshby, p. 277, Blake 1947, p. 165-166. 13 Delbrück 1903, p. 24. 14 Delbrück 1907-1912, II p. 43-44. 15 Lugli 1957, p. 322 and n. 1. 16 See above, p. 18. 17 On the temples of S. Nicola in Carcere, see the exhaustive study by Crozzoli Aite 1981, esp. p. 118-119 (the attribution of the northern temple), where she defends the validity of the orthodox identification of the temple of Ianus. 2

IUNO CURRITIS in Campo Martio Platner-Ashby, p. 288 The temple of Iuno Curritis is known only from the 7th October entries in Roman calendars - Fasti Antiates Maiores:

62

[F\unon(i) Quiriti) l; Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: [f\unoni Curviti in Campo 2; Fasti Paulini: Iunoni Q(uiriti) in Camp(o) 3. The temple is thus to be dated either to 292-219 or to the years after 180/167 and before the compilation of the Fasti Antiates Maiores in the beginning of the first century. The temple's dies natalis would imply that the cult was not a native Roman one; this and its location in Campo suggest that it came into being as a general's foundation. It thus seems that there is no link between this Juno and Iuno Curis/Quiritis/ RuQixig, to whom T. Tatius is said to have dedicated tables in each curia 4. If so, then the cult of Iuno Curritis in Campo would have come from one of the two centres of her worship, Falerii or Tibur 5. Nearly all the scholars, from Jordan onwards, are in favour of the Faliscan origin of this Iuno 6. The reasons for this are evident: the paramount position of the goddess in Falerii and the role of that city as the main centre of her cult 7 as well as the war between Rome and the Falisci in 241 which provides the most suggestive setting for the circumstances of her introduction into Rome 8 . On the other hand, Iuno Curritis' worship in Tibur is attested only by a passage in Servius: sic autem esse etiam in sacris Tiburtibus constat, ubi sic precantur: «Iuno Curritis tuo curro clipeoque tuere meos curiae vernulas» 9. Two other indications of the cult of Juno in that town are: a very vague passage in Ovid's Fasti from which we learn that in Tibur, as in other Latin cities, the sixth month of the year was named after her 10; and an inscription set up by C. Rubelius Blandus and addressed, it should be noted, to Iuno Argeia n . Finally, it is quite probable that the Tiburtine worship of Iuno Curritis came from Falerii12, which would further weaken the candidacy of Tibur as the place of origin of the cult of the goddess in Campo 13. The provenance of the cult of Iuno Curritis is of crucial importance to her temple's dating and the character of the vow. There is little doubt that our Juno, if of Faliscan origin, came to Rome in 241 as a result of the evocatio 14; it should be noted that the city of the Falisci was destroyed, like Veii and Volsinii, from which the Aventine cults of Iuno Regina and Vortumnus had been brought to the City by means of this ritual15. If Iuno Curritis came from Tibur, she would have been introduced as a friendly goddess from an allied city, like Iuno S ospita from Lanuvium and Fortuna Primigenia from Praeneste (and, if my reasoning is correct, like Feronia from Capena 16 ). After the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 Tibur never went to war against Rome, the Romans would therefore have lacked an occasion to «evoke» the 63

goddess from that city 17. Besides, the greatest god of Tibur was Hercules Victor 18. A Roman general wishing to introduce into the City a Tiburtine deity would have chosen not Iuno Curritis but Hercules Victor, as it eventually happened soon after 146 with the foundations of L. Mummius and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus 19. So, apart from the fact that the Faliscan origin of the worship of Iuno Curritis in Campo is very probable in its own right, the cult's Tiburtine provenance seems out of the question anyway. We can thus fairly safely repeat, after Jordan, that the temple was built by one of the consuls of 241, probably by A. Manlius Torquatus, if only because as the conqueror of Falerii he made a greater impact on ancient tradition, though both the consuls are known to have triumphed over that city20. The fact that Iuno Curritis is never mentioned by Livy when he writes about sacrifices, prayers and other ceremonies offered to Juno during the Second Punic War would suggest that the Romans did not completely trust the goddess whom they had «evoked», after having brutally attacked and destroyed her home-city, only twenty threee years before Hannibal's invasion 21. Castagnoli identifies this temple with Temple A of the Largo Argentina 22. But if my argument about Temple C is correct, his proposition cannot be upheld since the temples of luturna and Iuno Curritis were most probably built at the same time, whereas Temple A is clearly later than Temple C 23. I think that we might try to locate the temple of Iuno Curritis through an analysis of the sites of known third and second-century temples of the central Campus Martius. Seven temples are known to have been built in that area during these two centuries, those of Feronia, Iuno Curritis, luturna, Nymphae, Fortuna Equestris, Lares Permarini and Volcanus. The last one has very plausibly been identified with the structure that stood inside the Crypta Balbi 24. The temples of Lares Permarini and Fortuna Equestris were second-century foundations; the former's identification with Temple D of the Largo Argentina is practically certain 25, the latter, last mentioned by Vitruvius, disappeared by A.D. 22 and so cannot be identified with the secondcentury temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure, which existed until the end of Antiquity and which should most probably be identified with that of Nymphae 26. As for the temples of Feronia and luturna, they are probably to be identified with Temples A and C of the Largo Argentina 27. As can be seen, the majority of third and second-century tem64

pies situated by our sources in Campo formed two parallel rows along the axis of the ovilia, the westerly temples of the Largo Argentina facing east and the easterly temples of Volcanus and Nymphae facing west (see fig. 2 [p. 293]). But the position of all these temples except for the northernmost Temple A of the Largo Argentina seems to have also been determined by the ancient track running straight westward from the direction of the Porta Fontinalis, and which later became the street between the Porticus Minucia and the Crypta Balbi 28. The importance of this street for the arrangement of the central Campus Martius can best be appreciated by the clearly anomalous position of Temple D of the Largo Argentina: the way this temple nestles up to its northern neighbour is a result of its having been squeezed between Temple C and the street under discussion, which formed the east-west axis of the original grid. Now, if we skip over this temple - its location seems to have been dictated mainly by reasons of personal propaganda and counter-propaganda 29 - we see that the remaining three temples occupied three out of four quadrants at the intersection of the two axes. Temple C and the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure faced each other along the west-east axis north of the above-mentioned street, and the latter and the temple of the Crypta Balbi aligned along the north-south axis on both sides of that street. As things stand today, the position of the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure is pivotal: without it, both arrangements, surely not accidental, would disappear. But this temple was built only in the second century; we have therefore to look elsewhere for a trait d'union between the third century temples of Volcanus and luturna (the temple of the Crypta Balbi and Temple C of the Largo Argentina), for it is hardly probable that the two chronologically earliest temples had been located diagonally and that this odd arrangement remained such for more than half a century. This would point to the existence of a third century temple occupying the fourth, south-western angle at the intersection of the two axes, between the Largo Arenula and the Piazza Mattei. The same results from the above-mentioned squeezing of Temple D of the Largo Argentina between Temple C and the forerunner of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure, which clearly indicates that the quadrant south of that street had already been occupied before the beginning of the second century. The temple of Iuno Curritis is the only missing third century temple of the Campus Martius, at least at the present state of our knowledge, so we have every reason to postulate its location at that site. It would be tempting 65

to identify this temple with the structure whose remains were discovered in 1877 under the church of S. Anna 30 , ie. exactly at the spot suggested above: due south of Temple C of the Largo Argentina and west of the temple of the Crypta Balbi. 1

Inslt XIII 2, p. 20. Inslt XIU 2, p. 36-37. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 153. 4 Dion. Hal. 2.50.3; Paulus in Festus 56 L. See Eisenhut in RE 24 A (1963), c. 1332-1333 s.v. Quins, Quiritis, Curis, Cur(r)itis. 5 Eisenhut in RE 24 A, c. 1328-1333, Dury Moyaers-Renard, p. 162. 6 Jordan 1870, p. 243-244, Wissowa 1912, p. 187, Taylor 1923, p. 68, Platner-Ashby, p. 288, Evans 1939, p. 214, Castagnoli 1948, p. 171, Coarelli 1981, p. 37, 42-43. Latte 1960, p. 168, is undecided. 7 Taylor 1923, p. 64-74, Eisenhut in RE 24A, c. 1328-1330. 8 First pointed out by Jordan 1870, p. 243-244, though we do not need to support this inference with his queer idea of Iuno Curritis (and Minerva Capta as well) being «confiscated» from the vanquished Falisci just like their horses, arms, slaves and land (Zon. 8.18.1 [I p. 174 Boiss.]). This has been rightly criticised by Basanoff 1947, p. 50, though the latter's identification of the temple of Iuno Curritis with Temple C of the Largo Argentina, supposedly founded by M. Furius Camillus and dedicated in 388 (Basanoff 1941, p. 135-141), is an extreme case of scholarly fantasy. 9 Serv. ad Aen. 1.17. 10 Ovid. Fasti 6.59-62: inspice, quos habeat nemoralis Arida fastos et populus Laurens Lanuviumque meum: est illic mensis lunonius. Inspice Tibur et Praenestinae moenia sacra deae: iunonale leges tempus. As can be seen, the goddess claims as her own only Lanuvium, the centre of the cult of Iuno Sospita. 11 CIL XIV 3556= ILLRP 61. On the assimilation of Iuno Curritis and Iuno Argeia, see Weinstock in RE 6A.1 (1936), c. 832-833 s.v. Tibur. 12 Taylor 1923, p. 68, Weinstock in RE 6A.1, c. 833. 13 Eisenhut in RE 24A, c. 1328. 14 Ibid. 15 See below, p. 76, 183-184. 16 See above, p. 25-26. 17 This point has been overlooked in Eisenhut's masterly article, hence his unnecessary discussion in c. 1328. 18 Giuliani 1970, p. 25-29. 19 See above, p. 49 n. 5. 20 In Zonaras' account (see n. 8) Torquatus is the only victor of the war, but see above, p. 45 n. 19. 21 Our sources speak of a «rebellion» on the part of the Falisci, but see the very sensible remarks by Toynbee 1965, I p. 170-171. 22 Castagnoli 1948, p. 170-175. 23 See above, p. 27. 24 See below, p. 181. 2

66

25 26 27 28 29 30

Ziolkowski 1986, p. 623-624. See below, p. 120-121. See above, p. 27, and below, p. 95-96. Coarelli 1981, p. 12, see Gatti 1979, p. 238 fig. 1. Ziolkowski 1986, p. 632-633. These remains are shown in Lanciani FUR, tab. 21.

IUNO LUCINA Esquiliis Platner-Ashby, p. 288-289 The founding of the temple of Iuno Lucina is not recorded by Livy, though Pliny, in one of his unmistakably Varronian passages, dates it to the year 375: Romae vero lotus in Lucinae area, anno, qui fuit sine magistratibus, CCCLXXIX urbis aede condita ì. The only other mention of the temple's founding derives from Varrò's fellow antiquary Verrius Flaccus via the Fasti Praenestini which, under 1st March, read: Iun[o]ni Lucinae Esquiliis, quod eo die aedis ei d[edica]ta est per matronas, quam voverat Albin[i filia] vel uxor, si puerum [parientem]que ipsa[m fovisset] 2. In the Fasti Antiates Maiores for that day we find: Iunon(i) 3. Verrius Flaccus' information about the temple having been vowed and dedicated by women has been contested by Hülsen and Palmer. Hülsen restored the two lines of the Fasti Consulares Capitolini immediately preceding the year 370 in the following way: [hoc anno L. Aemilius... Mamercinus postquam flamen foetus est [aedem Iunonis Lucinae, quam quinquennio ante vovera]t, dedicavit 4. The temple would thus have been vowed by L. Aemilius Mamercinus during his consular tribunate in 377 5 and dedicated in 371, under which year he is mentioned as consular tribune by the Chronographer of 354 6. Needless to say, one can only wholeheartedly agree with Degrassi's comment on this proposal: «minime est probabile» 7. Palmer 8 opens his argument with an observation that the temple was a public one - witness the text of the inscription set up in 41 by the quaestor Q. Pedius 9 - which makes Verrius Flaccus' account hardly probable since «it is quite doubtful that women were ever empowered to dedicate a state temple» 10. He also recalls the obviously aetiological story of the founding of the temple of Fortuna Muliebris 11 : according to Dionysios, this temple, ostensibly a women's dedication, was founded by the senate and dedicated by the consul12. This makes the founding of the temple of Iuno Lucina by women even less probable 13. In his opinion, 67

Iuno Lucina was a Tusculan deity introduced into Rome after the annexation of that city in 381. Tusculan ties of the goddess are demonstrated, says Palmer, by a Late Republican cippus found near Capua, which reads: Iunone Loucina Tuscolana sacra 14. It follows that the Roman Iuno Lucina was worshipped according to a Tusculan rite; the cult would thus have come to the City between 381 and 375 15. As for the last argument, it suffices to observe that a Capuan cippus can only testify to a local Campanian rite. Besides, the cippus in question was found together with another, with [Herc]ole [Tusc]olana sacra inscribed on it 16 : which, then, of the many Roman Herculi had been introduced into the City from Tusculum? The simplest explanation is that the part of the Capuan territory where the two inscriptions were found was colonized after 133 by Roman citizens from Tusculum. As for the cult of Iuno Lucina in Rome, in our sources there is no hint whatsoever of its Tusculan connections 17. Besides, it is difficult to imagine how a foreign cult, the Tusculans' fresh Roman citizenship notwithstanding, could have been located in a grove long dedicated to a Roman Juno, as Palmer himself admits 18. Palmer's view on the character of the presumed introduction of the Tusculan Juno into Rome is that «this Juno was apparently the last to be taken from a people that adhered to Rome. In subsequent instances, only hostile Junos were brought to Rome» 19. Apart from being inaccurate in at least two points 20, this contention can be neither proved nor disproved, like the rest of his entirely speculative and thus unverifiable thesis about Iuno Curitis, of which the passage on Iuno Lucina is but one example 21. Yet even if we assume that Iuno Lucina was the Tusculan Juno brought to Rome to cement and symbolize the incorporation of her native city into the Roman State - although such gestures are not attested in our sources and Palmer's assertion: «theretofore similar political mergers had been celebrated by an invitation to the people's Juno to join the Romans as the tutelary Juno of a new curia» 22, is without foundation - the basic question of how are we then to explain Livy's silence about the whole affair remains unanswered. Actually, Palmer's thesis rests only on the chronological near concurrence between the annexation of Tusculum and the founding of the temple of Iuno Lucina. There is litte doubt that, however attractive this concurrence may be, it is but a coincidence. In my opinion, Livy's silence is actually the best corroboration of Verrius Flaccus' version of the founding of the temple of Iuno 68

Lucina. It has been pointed out that this temple was dedicated in the first year of the solitudo magistratuum 23, disposed off by Livy on two pages mainly devoted to the family problems of M. Fabius Ambustus and his daughters 24. But this does not explain the historian's silence about the event since, with magistrates or without them, the pontiffs surely kept their records year after year. But if the temple was vowed by a woman and dedicated by matronae 25 with no magistrate officiating during the ceremony, as Verrius Flaccus clearly implies, nothing would have justified the official recording of the temple's dedication: hence Livy's silence. The temple of Iuno Lucina must have started as an exclusively women's, ie. non-public foundation, and only later acquired the official status, first attested in the third-century list of the Argei: Cespius mons sexticeps apud aedem Iunonis Lucinae, ubi aeditumus habere solet 26. At this juncture it might be well to add that whereas the temple eventually found its way into the public calendar 27, the feast itself did not. We learn about the Matronalia only from literary sources 28; in the Fasti the Kalends of March are marked as the day of Feriae or Natalis Martis 29. The name of the daughter (or, much less probably, wife) of Albinius, almost certainly the L. Albinius who in 390 earned the name of the saviour of Rome by conducting the Vestals and the holiest Roman sacra to safety in Caere 30, suggests some link between the founding of the temple of Iuno Lucina and the Gallic invasion 31 : perhaps only a reflection of a short-lived lustre which the family acquired thanks to L. Albinius' deed 32, or the Romans' fear of oliganthropia in the aftermath of the disaster of 390 33. The list of the sacraria Argeorum locates the temple on the Cispius; other sources situate it simply on the Esquiline, in the lucus Lucinae, most probably adjacent to the lucus Mefitis 34. The construction of a wall by Q. Pedius, probably encircling both the temple and the grove, should be connected with a passage in Varrò deploring the near disappearance of the two luci because of men's greed 35; originally, the lucus Lucinae would have extended down the slope, witness Ovid's monte sub Esquilio... Iunonis... lucus erat 36. Together with the site where Pedius' inscription was found, this would indicate that the temple stood in the western, protruding part of the Cispius, over the southern slope 37. The recent identification by Rodriguez Almeida of the lacus Orphei with the fountain shown on fragment 608 of the Pianta Marmorea, and his positioning of the fragment at the site of today's Piazza S. Martino ai Monti 38 , strongly support this location. In the Regionary Catalogues the lacus Orphei is the first monument 69

of the Fifth Region (Esquiliae) 39 and so Rodriguez Almeida's assignation firmly restores the Cispius to the regio from which it had been banned since Hülsen's days 40 . 1

Plin. NH 16.235. Inslt. XIII 2, p. 120-121. Inslt XIII 2, p. 6. 4 Hülsen 1902, p. 257-258. 5 Liv. 6.32.3; Diod. 15.61.1; see Inslt XIII 1, p. 394-395. 6 Inslt XIII 1, p. 396-397. 7 Inslt XUl l,p. 103. 8 Palmer 1974, p. 19-21. 9 CIL VI 358=ILLRP 160: ...locavit Q. Pedius q(aestor) urb(anus) murum Iunoni Lucinae... eidemque probavit. See Palmer 1974, p. 20 and n. 119. 10 Palmer 1974, p. 20. 11 On the temple of Fortuna Muliebris, see Champeaux 1982, p. 335-373. 12 Dion. Hal 8.55.3-5. 13 Palmer 1974, n. 118 (ch. I). 14 CIL I 2 1581 =X 3807 = ILLRP 165. 15 Palmer 1974, p. 21. 16 CIL I2 1582 =X 3808 =ILLRP 139. 17 Gagé 1963, p. 63-80, Dury Moyaers-Renard, p. 150. 18 Palmer 1974, p. 21. 19 Ibid. 20 First, in 381, Tusculan Juno would not have «adhered to the Roman people by her own people's will», as Palmer would have us believe. The annexation of Tusculum was an act of aggression against a small Latin community, «an island in the sea of ager Romanus» (Sherwin White 1973, p. 59); for its inhabitants becoming a part of the Roman polity meant, at least at the beginning, only munera to the advantage of the victorious enemy (see De Sanctis 1953-68, II p. 231-232). Secondly, the assertion that «in subsequent instances only hostile Junos were brought to Rome» is contradicted by the founding of the temple of Iuno S ospita by C. Cornelius Cethegus cos. 197 (Platner-Ashby, p. 291); at the beginning of the second century the great Lanuvian goddess would have hardly been treated as «hostile». 21 Palmer 1970, p. 167-169, Palmer 1974, p. 3-56. 22 Palmer 1974, p. 21. 23 Gagé 1963, p. 71. 24 Liv. 6.34.5-35.10. 25 On the ordo matronarum, see Gagé 1963, passim, esp. p. 100153. 26 Varrò LL 5.50; see also Liv. 37.3.2 (Romae Iunonis Lucinae ternplum de caelo tactum erat ita, ut fastigium valvaeque deformarentur), the quoted entries in the calendars and inscriptions CIL 356-361, 3694-3695. 2 3

70

27

The relevant texts are collected in Inslt XIII 2, p. 418. See also Gagé 1963, p. 63-80. 28 See especially Gagé 1963, p. 66-68. 29 Inslt XIII 2, p. 417. 30 Plut. Cam. 22.4=Arist. 568 R. See Sordi 1960, p. 49-52, Ogilvie 1965, p. 723. 31 Gagé 1963, p. 74-78, Giannelli 1980-81, p. 33. 32 See Ogilvie 1965, p. 313, 723. 33 According to Giannelli 1980-81, p. 34-35, after the liberation of Rome, Albinius became the keeper of the sacra of the presumed temple of June on the Arx, which alone among Roman temples would not have been restituted, the temple building having in the meantime been given over to M. Manlius Capitolinus. After Albinius' death, his daughter would have founded a temple to Juno on the Esquiline to deposit there the sacra which had come into her keeping; the cult of Iuno Lucina would thus have been a continuation of the old cult from the Arx! This proposal is as unfounded and improbable as the rest of Giannelli's reconstruction, see below, p. 73 n. 18. 34 Ovid. Fasti 2.435-436, 3.245-248; Varrò LL 5.49. 35 Varrò LL 5.49. 36 Ovid. Fasti 2.435-436. 37 Stara Tedde 1905, p. 204-207, see Gatti 1898, Platner-Ashby, p. 288-289. 38 Rodriguez Almeida 1975-76, Rodriguez Almeida 1981, p. 82-92. 39 Nordh 1949, p. 79-80. 40 Kiepert-Hülsen, tab. II.

IUNO MONETA in Arce Platner-Ashby, p. 289-290 Livy says that during the war with the Aurunci in 345 the dictator L. Furius Camillus aedem lunoni Monetae vovit... Senatus duumviros ad earn aedem pro amplitudine populi Romani faciendam creari iussit: locus in arce destinatus, quae area aedium M. Manlii Capitolini fuerat... anno post quam vota erat, aedes Monetae dedicatur C. Marcio Rutilo tertium T. Manlio Torquato iterum consulibus 1. His account is corroborated by a passage in Ovid's Fasti for 1st June: arce quoque in summa lunoni tempia Monetae ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo; ante domus Manlii fuerat 2. The temple was dedicated on 1st June 3 , witness Ovid's account 4 , Macrobius' etymology of June (ex Iunonio Iunius dictus sit. Nam et aedes lunoni Monetae Kalend. Iuniis dedicata est5) and that day's entries in the calendars - Fasti Antiares Maiores:

71

[Iunon(i)] in [Arce] 6, and Fasti Venusini: limoni Monet(ae) 7. The only discrepancy in our sources is that all the extant tradition locates the temple on the site of the house of M. Manlius 8, except for Solinus who, while enumerating regiae of the kings of Rome, says that T. Tatius lived in arce ubi nunc est Iunonis Monetae 9. The excavations of 1876 and 1931 in the Aracoeli garden brought to light remains of a large podium (ca. 29.6 x 25 m.) of Fidenae tufa superimposed on a smaller structure of cappellaccio 10. The podium's dimensions and building material, providing the terminus post quern of 426, correspond with the temple built pro amplitudine populi Romani in 345-344. As for the archaic structure of cappellaccio, the finding in 1876 in the Aracoeli garden of two terracottas - a sixth century antefix in the form of a female head 11 and a head of uncertain sex, possibly a part of an acroterial statue, dated to the first half of the fifth century 12 reveals the sacred character of the building before and after the fall of the kings and thus rules out its identification with the domus Manlii and vindicates Solinus' attribution of the site 13. Admittedly, the terracottas found in the Aracoeli garden, together with Plutarch's report on sacred geese kept somewhere around the temple of Juno in the time of the Gallic invasion 14 and the Ostia relief from Hadrian's reign showing agitated geese in front of a temple 15, have sometimes been interpreted as a proof for the existence on the Arx of a temple of Juno preceding Camillus' foundation 16. But, apart from the patently fictitious character of the greater part of the tradition about the saving of the Capitol by the joint effort of the geese and M. Manlius Capitolinus, best demonstrated by Wiseman 17, it should be pointed out that Livy's words: locus in arce destinatus, quae area aedium M. Manlii Capitolini fuerat, clearly imply that Juno had not been worshipped there before 345. Speaking more generally, all our sources unanimously situate the temple of Moneta on the site of a domus, even if they differ as to this domus' attribution 18. On the other hand, at least a part of our tradition places the temple on the site of an old regia. This would both account for the archaeological findings in the Aracoeli garden and put the temple of Iuno Moneta among Mid-Republican foundations located in sacred places identified by later generations of Romans as domus regiae 19. In this particular case the tradition may even be right, since it seems only logical that in the royal period the Arx, being the least accessible place in Rome, would have served as a citadel, or even a domicile, for the kings 20. 72

1

Liv. 7.28.4-6. Ovid. Fasti 6.183-185. 3 See Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 463-464 contra Mancini in NS 1921, p. 98, 115. See also below, p. 74. 4 Ovid. Fasti 6.1-196. 5 Macr. Sat. 1.12.30. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 12. 7 Inslt XIII 2, p. 58. 8 Liv. 6.20.13, 7.28.6; Plut. Cam. 36.9; Ovid. Fasti 6.185. 9 Solin. 1.21. This tradition, no doubt antiquarian rather than annalistic, is echoed in Plut. Rom. 20.5: cbxet òè Tdxiog \ièv önov vuv ó xfjg Movfjxng vaóg écxi. 10 Giannelli 1978, p. 63-66, Giannelli 1980-81, p. 13-15. 11 Giannelli 1980-81, p. 17-18. 12 Giannelli 1980-81, p. 17-18, De Lucia 1978-79. 13 The old dogma, obligatorily linking terracotta decorations with temples, has been proven false; see now Torelli in Case e palazzi, p. 21. 14 Plut. Cam. 27.2. 15 Becatti 1943-45. 16 -Becatti 1943-45, p. 31-36, Giannelli 1980-81, Coarelli 1983, p. 104-106, Coarelli 1985, p. 82. 17 Wiseman 1979, see also Horsfall 1980-81. 18 Giannelli 1980-81, p. 24-31, tries to explain away this unconfortable unanimity of our otherwise singularly contradictory sources by hypothesizing that the archaic temple of funo on the Arx, emptied, like other Roman temples, of its sacra after the disaster of Allia in 390, was given to M. Manlius as his private dwelling as a thank-offering for his magnificent exploit which, in Giannelli's opinion, took place on that very spot; the hero would have adopted the surname «Capitolinus» on that very occasion and for that very reason. After Manlius' death the site would have remained unoccupied for forty years, to be finally restituted to Juno after L. Camillus' vow. This fantastic proposition hardly requires refutation, it is sufficient to point out that the surname Capitolinus had been used by the Manlii at least since 434, see relative entries in RE and Broughton 195152. 19 See below, p. 97-98, 130-131. 20 Another possible allusion to this regia is Varro's remark about kings officiating in Arce during the sacra Nonalia (LL 6.28), ie. during the ceremony that had nothing to do with auspicia which took place in the neighbouring Auguraculum. 2

IUNO MONETA II The finding in 1921 of the Fasti Antiates Maiores, which under 10th October read: lunonii) Mon(etae) l, vindicated the reading of that day's entry in the Fasti Sabini as lunotti M[on(e-

73

tae)] 2 and decisively proved the existence of a feast to Iuno Moneta other than that of 1st June 3. Mancini, the first editor of the Fasti Antiates Maiores, associated the two feasts of Iuno Moneta with the twofold tradition of the attribution of the site on which L. Camillus' temple was located, and came out with the hypothesis that the feast recorded under 1st June referred to an archaic ara or sacellum of the goddess which, after the synoecism, would have replaced the regia of the Sabine kings of the Capitol and the Quirinal 4. This shrine would have been replaced in turn by the great temple vowed in 345 by L. Camillus, dedicated on 10th October and located on the site of the house of M. Manlius Capitolinus 5. Whereas the spirit of Mancini's proposition - his relating both feasts to the same cult - has been universally accepted, its letter has fared much worse. The most obvious objection is that Ovid and Macrobius make it clear that the temple vowed by Camillus was dedicated on 1st June 6. Another controversial point in Mancini's reconstruction is the topographical relation between the two shrines. Admittedly, his is the only way to reconcile Plutarch's remark about a temple of Juno existing somewhere on the Capitol in the time of the Gallic invasion - identified, rightly or wrongly, with the presumed predecessor of Moneta's temple - with the tradition of Camillus' foundation having occupied the site of M. Manlius' house. For this reason Mancini's hypothesis has been accepted in part by another staunch defender of the literary tradition, Coarelli7. But this would signify that the two shrines stood on different sites, even if very close to one another, which is contradicted by the extant literary tradition which situates Tatius' regia and Manlius' domus on the same spot, said to have been occupied later by the temple of Iuno Moneta 8. Mancini's proposition might yet be defensible if the hypothetical earlier shrine had been an altar; but if we are to take Plutarch to the letter, we have to admit the existence, in 390, of a true temple of Juno. Camillus' foundation would in that case have been but a restoration of an older temple, and this in turn would leave no place for the domus Manlii as its physical predecessor. This is why most scholars who defend the existence of the cult of Juno on the Arx before 345 do not accept Plutarch's remark, at least literally 9, although eg. Giannelli includes it in an ingenious if improbable scheme in which T. Tatius' regia, the first Republican temple, Manlius' house and Camillus' foundation succeeded one another on the same site 10. The orthodox view, as formulated by De Sanctis n , is as fol74

lows. The cult of Juno, existing on the Arx since the royal period, had originally been centred on an ara or a sacellum. The temple of Iuno Moneta was built in 345-344 in fulfilment of L. Camillus' vow and dedicated on 1st June, ie. on Juno's day (the Kalends) of Juno's month (Iunonius-Iunius) 12. But here appears a major difficulty which Mancini's hypothesis, despite all its shortcomings, clearly avoided: the dedication of 1st June no doubt preceded chronologically that of 10th October, a day of no significance to the cult of Juno as such. The latter entry would therefore have commemorated a rededication of Camillus' temple which would have taken place some time between 344 and the beginning of the first century 13. But the point is that both dies natales figure in the Fasti Antiates Maiores and in Augustan calendars. De Sanctis himself admits that «la doppia festa non è facile a spiegarsi» 14, since it is not clear why the Romans should in this particular case have retained the old feast if the new dedication had been made on a different day. But there is an explanation available, and a very simple one at that. The double entry on Iuno Moneta in the Roman calendars can only signify that there were two temples dedicated to her in Rome, at least by the turn of the second century. The 10th October entries in the Fasti Antiates Maiores and the Fasti Sabini bear witness to the existence in the City of a temple of Iuno Moneta founded in the third or second century, in the years not covered by Livy's extant text. Nothing further can be inferred about that temple's dating or location, though the analogy with other double foundations to the same deities would suggest that the second temple of Iuno Moneta was founded in the second century rather than the third 15. 1

Inslt XIII 2, p. 20. Inslt XIII 2, p. 53. 3 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 115. 4 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 97-98. 5 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 98, 115. Mancini does not say so openly, but his proposition makes sense only if we admit that in 390 there existed on the Arx two separate structures, the shrine of Juno on the site of the regia of Sabine kings and the house of M. Manlius where, forty years later, the temple of Iuno Moneta was to be erected. 6 See above, p. 71. 7 Coarelli 1983, p. 104. In part, because, while accepting both the existence of the temple (and not a mere sacellum, see below) of Juno antedating 345 and built on the site of Tatius' regia, and the location of the temple of Iuno Moneta on the site of the domus Manlii, he does not 2

75

seem to be aware of topographical implications of this view, surmised above, in n. 5« 8 See above, p. 72 and n. 9. 9 Becatti 1943-45, p. 35, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 141, n. 52, Dury Moyaers-Renard, p. 166. 10 See above, p. 73 n. 18. 11 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 141 n. 52. 12 On the etymology of June, see Ernout-Meillet, p. 329 s.v. Iuno. 13 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 141 n. 53. 14 Ibid. 15 See double foundations to Iuppiter Stator (temples vowed in 294 and ca. 148), Iuno Regina (396 and 187), Venus Erycina (217 and 184), Veiovis (200 and 196), Hercules Victor (147/6 and 146), Honos et Virtus (233/222 and 101). The two temples of Fortuna Publica seem to be the only exceptions.

IUNO REGINA in Aventino Platner-Ashby, p. 290 The temple of Iuno Regina was vowed in 396 by the dictator M. Furius Camillus in the ritual oievocatio before the final assault of Veii: te simul, Iuno regina, quae nunc Veios colis, precor ut nos victores in nostrani tuamque mox futuram urbem sequare, ubi te dignum amplitudine tua templum accipiatl. Before abdicating, the dictator located the temple on the Aventine (turn Iunoni reginae templum in Aventino locavit2) and dedicated it in 392 (eodem anno aedes Iunonis reginae ad eodem dictatore eodemque bello vota dedicatur 3 ) . In the Augustan period the temple's feast fell on 1st September, witness the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for that day: Iunoni Reginae in Aventino 4. Degrassi is most probably right when he says that Augustus, who is known to have rededicated this temple, retained the original dies natalis and that in the Fasti Antiates Maiores for that day the missing fragment mentioned its name 5 . The temple of Iuno Regina stood near the church of S. Sabina, as indicated by two inscriptions found in that area 6 . 1

Liv. 5.21.3, see 5.22.4-7. Liv. 5.23.7. 3 Liv. 5.31.3, see Liv. 5.22.7: ubi templum eipostea idem qui voverat Camillus dedicavit. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 32-33. 2

76

5

Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 505, see also Gros 1976, p. 33. CIL VI 364-365. See Hülsen-Jordan, p. 165-166, Merlin 1906, p. 106, Platner-Ashby, p. 290, Coarelli 1985A, p. 343-344. 6

IUNO SOSPITA in Palatio Platner-Ashby, p. 291 (s.v. Iuno Sospita [2]) At the beginning of the second book of the Fasti Ovid says l : Principio mensis Phrygiae contermina Matri Sospita delubris dicitur aucta novis. Nunc ubi sunt, illis quae sunt sacrata Kalendis tempia deae? Longa procubere die. Cetera ne simili caderent labefacta ruina cavit sacrati provida cura ducis, sub quo delubris sentitur nulla senectus. The literal meaning of this passage is that on the Palatine, in the immediate vicinity of the temple of Magna Mater, there had once stood a temple of Iuno Sospita. This inference, first put forward by Gilbert 2 , has ostensibly found support with the discovery of the Fasti Antiates Maiores, where under 1st February, ie. under the same date as in the quoted passage by Ovid, we find: Iunon(i) S[osp(itae)] Matr(i) Re[g(inae)] 3. In 1971 Guar ducei adduced another argument for the existence of the Palatine temple of Iuno S ospita by interpreting as Juno the figure on the left of Cybele and the Corybanthes on the posterior side of the Sorrento Base 4 ; this would imply, she says, the vicinity of the temples of the two goddesses 5 . Last but not least, recent excavations around the temple of Magna Mater have brought to light a terracotta antefix of an unmistakably Iuno S ospita type, dated to the fifth or fourth century 6 . This would not only provide another important argument for the goddess' cult on the Palatine, but, more important still, point to the so-called «Auguratorium», by which the antefix was found, as the temple in question 7 . Recent excavations have in fact established the existence under the «Auguratorium» of an Early Republican structure of cappellaccio, destroyed about the turn of the third century and replaced by a small rectangular construction of opus caementicium 8 .

77

And yet, despite this ostensibly impressive evidence, the existence of a temple of Iuno S ospita on the Palatine is highly improbable. The figure on the Sorrento base, even if Juno (which is far from certain), is not of Iuno Sospita type 9 . The antefix excavated behind the «Auguratorium» is no argument either because, as observed by Pensabene, antefixes of this type have been found in temples dedicated to other deities as well, and their function must have been exclusively apotropaic 10. As for the 1st February entry in the Fasti Antiares Maiores, it should in all probability be related to the temple of Iuno Sospita in Foro Holitorio, founded by C. Cornelius Cethegus cos. 197 n . Considering that this temple was a close neighbour of the temple of Mater Matuta 12, Ovid's mention of a temple of Iuno Sospita Phrygiae contermina Matris can probably be accounted for by his having somehow mistaken Mater Matuta for Magna Mater 13 . It is a fact that the last argument is somewhat strained in view of the markedly different character of the two goddesses 14. Yet, we have to content ourselves with it, for there is now at our disposal an argument which makes the existence of a Palatine temple of Iuno Sospita quite improbable. This is the recent identification of the great structure between the «Auguratorium» and the house of Augustus with the temple of Victoria, which automatically implies the identification of the «Auguratorium» with the aedicula of Victoria Virgo, dedicated in 193 by M. Porcius Cato 15. The two Victorias were the only divine neighbours of the Palatine Magna Mater, and this leaves no place for a temple of Iuno Sospita in that area. 1

Ovid. Fasti 2.55-62. Gilbert 1883-90, I p. 229 n. 1, III p. 430 n. 1. 3 Insit XIII 2, p. 4. See Degrassi's comment in favour of this attribution in Irish XIII 2, p. 405-406. 4 Rizzo 1932, tab. 5. 5 Guarducci 1971, p. 110-112. 6 Pensabene 1980, p. 75 and tab. XVI 1. 7 Coarelli 1985A, p. 129. 8 Pensabene 1979, p. 68-70, Pensabene 1985, p. 198-199. 9 Pensabene 1979, p. 68. 10 Pensabene 1980, p. 75 and n. 46, see now Cristofani 1987, p. 115 and ill. 30. 11 Platner-Ashby, p. 291, Crozzoli Aite 1981, p. 113-114. 12 Both perished in the fire of 213, which destroyed the neighbourhood of the Porta Carmentalis, see below, p. 152. 13 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 46 n. 31a, Wissowa 1912, p. 188 and n. 9. 2

78

14 15

Crozzoli Aite 1981, p. 114. See below, p. 173-174.

IUPPITER FULGUR in Campo (?) Platner-Ashby, p. 294 While discussing the decor of hypaethral temples, Vitruvius says: statione, cum lovi Fulguri et Caelo et Soli et Lunae aedificia sub divo hypaethraque constituentur x. The shrine of Iuppiter Fulgur alluded to in this passage is probably to be identified with the one figuring in the calendars under 7th October - Fasti Antiates Maiores: [lovi F]ulgur(i) 2 , Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: lovi Fulguri 3 , Fasti Paulini: lovi Fulg(uri) 4 . The location of this temple is not specified, but in all the calendars, including the topographically very precise Fasti Fratrum Arvalium, Iuppiter Fulgur is followed by luno Curritis in Campo, whose dies natalis fell on the same day 5 . Hence it is generally assumed that the temple under discussion stood in the Campus Martius as well 6 . The order in which the calendars enumerate feasts of 7th October might suggest that the temple of Iuppiter Fulgur was founded earlier than that of luno Curritis, ie. before 241. But the hypothesis that the calendars list temples in chronological order of their dedications 7 is somewhat misleading, since even if we knew all the dates of dedications, which most obviously is not the case, there would always remain an unknown factor - possible rededications, which could have taken place anytime. Considering that the circumstances which led to this temple's founding could themselves have occurred anytime, it would be risky to speculate about its more exact dating. The case of the temple of another fulgural deity, Summanus, founded in the seventies of the third century 8 , might support Platner-Ashby's statement that the temple of Iuppiter Fulgur was «certainly of early date» 9 , but it is also possible that we should content ourselves with equating «early» with «before the Fasti Antiates Maiores were written down». 1

Vitr. 1.2.5. Inslt XIII 2, p. 20. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 36-37. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 153. 5 See above, p. 62-63. 6 Palmer 1976 situates the temple of Iuppiter Fulgur on the Quirinal, but his proposal is pure speculation. 7 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 370-371. 2

79

8 9

See below, p. 154. Platner-Ashby, p. 294.

IUPPITER INVICTUS in Palatio (?) Platner-Ashby, p. 296, 306-307 (s.v. luppiter Victor) In the sixth book of the Fasti Ovid says: idibus invicto sunt data tempia Iovi l. This can only signify that, at least according to Ovid, 13th June was the dies natalis of the temple of luppiter Invictus. This temple has obstinately been identified with that of luppiter Victor 2, mentioned by Ovid on the Ides of April, in spite of different cognomina and dedication days in one and the same source. The distinct character of the two cults has been defended by Wissowa 3 and Coarelli 4. Apart from the differences mentioned above, both authors emphasize that other sources situate the cult of luppiter Victor in two areas, on the Quirinal and on the Palatine. As our evidence on the Quirinal worship of the god comes from the second century whereas the first mention of the Palatine cult dates from the fourth century A.C., we should situate the Republican temple of luppiter Victor on the Quirinal 5. This would suggest that the temple of luppiter Invictus stood on the Palatine 6, where the Notitia locates the temple of luppiter Victor 7. The confusion of the two surnames in official usage, hardly probable in the third and second centuries 8, is already discernible at the beginning of the Empire 9. Wissowa and Coarelli are certainly right that two surnames and two dedication days in the same text can only signify two different temples; it is also very difficult to argue against locating the temple of luppiter Victor on the Quirinal 10. As for the date of the temple of luppiter Invictus, the second century seems slightly more probable than the third. The earliest link between Jupiter and the epithet Invictus is to be sought in the elder Africanus' styling himself «invictus imperator» and at the same time claiming special relations with luppiter Optimus Maximus n . This might suggest that the cult of luppiter Invictus had not yet reached Rome by that time. On the other hand, luppiter Invictus is mentioned by first century writers: Cicero 12, Horace 13 and Ovid 14. This might also point to the preceding century as the period of the introduction of his cult into Rome. All this is not decisive but seems nevertheless to suggest that the temple of luppiter Invictus 80

was founded between 180/167 and the beginning on the first century. There remains the problem of the presumed Palatine location of the temple. First of all, it should be emphasized that a Republican temple of luppiter Invictus becoming ail Imperial temple of luppiter Victor is quite plausible in view^eHhe great popularity of the latter cognomen and the virtual disappearance of the former under the Empire 15. As for the gap of nearly four centuries between Ovid's remark and the testimony of the Notitia, this does not necessarily signify an eclipse, or even the extinction of the Republican cult 16, considering how scarce our extant sources are. Secondly, in my opinion the temple of luppiter Victor from the Notitia can only be identified with the temple of the Vigna Barberini. The decisive piece of evidence to that effect is the order in which the Regionary Catalogues enumerate structures of the Tenth Region (Palatium) 17: Notitia: Casam Romuli. Aedem Matris deum et Apollinis Ramnusi. Pentapylum. Domum Augustianam et Tiberianam. Augur atorium. Ar earn Palatinam. Aedem Iovis Victor is. Domum Dionis. Curiam veterem. Fortunam respicientem. Septizonium divi Severi. Victoriam Germanicianam. Lupercam. Curiosum: Casam Romuli. Aedem Matris deum et Apollinis Ramnusi. Pentapylus. Domum Augustianam et Tiberianam. Auguratorium. Aedem Iobis. Curiam veterem. Fortunam respicientem. Septizonium divi Severi. Victoriam Germanianam. Lupercam. The topographical order of the two lists is manifest. They start at the south-western corner of the Palatine, the traditional cradle of the City, and proceed north-east 18. Having reached the curiae veteres they turn back towards the point of departure following first the eastern and then the southern foot of the hill until they arrive at the Lupercal, right beneath the casa Romuli. The temple of luppiter Victor is listed after the area Palatina, the open space at the entrance to the domus Flavia at the top of the «Clivus Palatinus» 19, and before the curiae veteres, which according to Tacitus marked the north-eastern corner of the original Romulean settlement 20 and were, like three other markers, situated at the foot of the Palatine 21. In the fourth century A.C. between these two sites there stood a complex so huge and magnificent as to make its omission from the Catalogues absolutely out of the question: the great temple and portico of the Vigna Barberini 22. 81

The attribution of this complex is still an object of controversy 23, but on one point at least there seems to be a universal agreement: the temple and the portico are shown on a bronze medallion of Heliogabal 24 and on a rare type of Alexander Sever us' coins struck in A.D. 224, on which it is accompanied by the legend Iovi VLTORI 25. Therefore, as already proposed by Bigot in 1911, the temple of the Vigna Barberini is to be identified with the sanctuary dedicated by Heliogabal to the Emesan Baal 26 and rededicated by his successor to Jupiter 27. The different cognomina on Alexander's coins and in the Notitia do not necessarily create a great difficulty. The temple would have been dedicated to luppiter Victor, as it is in the Catalogue; as for the legend VLTORI, Castagnoli explains it as an obvious allusion to the vengeance of the native Roman gods (luppiter Ultor, read - the new regime of Iulia Mammaea and her son) on Elagabal and his sacrilegious summits sacerdos 28. On the other hand, Coarelli's brilliant association of the entry for 13th March in the Fasti Filocali: Iovi Cultori c(ircenses) 29, with the day of Alexander's official accession to the throne, now known to have taken place on 13th March A.D.222, provides a strong argument for reading Iovi Ultori in Filocalus' calendar 30. Together with the above-mentioned legend on the emperor's coins this seems to indicate that the new temple was dedicated to luppiter Ultor 3 l. What are we then to do with the testimony of the Notitia which mentions the temple of luppiter Victor? It seems that the answer to this question has been provided by the recent excavations of the French School in the Vigna Barberini, which have revealed that Heliogabal's temple stood on an extremely solid podium of identical dimensions - no doubt vestiges of an earlier temple - dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius 32. This provides a very strong argument in favour of the old hypothesis of Du Jardin 33, further developed by Carson 34, Hill 35 and Castagnoli 36, that Heliogabal transformed a temple of Jupiter into the sanctuary of his native god. Furthermore, the close similarity between the figure of luppiter Ultor on Alexander's coins and the second century luppiter Victor type 37, and the sameness of the god's image on one of the undated Iovi ULTORI issues 38 and on Commodus' undated aureus 39, clearly indicate a close relationship between these two epithets or, more precisely, that Alexander's luppiter Ultor was a hypostasis of the old luppiter Victor. Basing ourselves on these traits d'union we may suggest that, by rededicating Heliogabal's temple to luppiter Ultor, Alexander Severus restored the cult of luppiter Victor 82

which had existed in the Vigna Barberini at least since the middle of the second century A.C.40; as shown by the Notitia, the new surname did not, however, supplant the old one 41. But even if the gap between Ovid's passage about the temple of luppiter Invictus and the Palatine temple of luppiter Victor be reduced to a century and a half, this does not necessarily imply the continuity of the cult, especially in view of the radical transformation of the zone after the fires of A.D. 64 and 80 42. Three hypotheses are actually available. One is that the Republican temple of luppiter Invictus, situated in the north-eastern corner of the Palatine, continued in existence throughout the Empire, first as the temple of luppiter Victor, then as the sanctuary of Elagabal, and finally as the temple of luppiter Victor/Ultor. The second is that sometime in the second century A.C. one of the emperors (Hadrian? Antoninus Pius?) built on the Palatine a temple to luppiter Victor, thus resuscitating the local cult of luppiter Invictus which had become extinct in the preceding century (after the fires of A.D. 64 and/or 80?). But there is also a third possibility that the Imperial temple of luppiter Victor on the Palatine was created ex nihilo, with no link whatever with the Republican cult of luppiter Invictus mentioned by Ovid. Of course, a Republican origin of a cult so well embedded in the Roman tradition as that of luppiter Victor/Invictus and, what is at least as significant, located on the Palatine of all places, is quite probable 43. One might conclude that the temple of luppiter Invictus, without a shadow of doubt distinct from the Republican foundation to luppiter Victor, probably founded in the second century, was possibly located on the Palatine and that the Imperial cult of luppiter Victor on the hill may have been its continuation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ovid. Fasti 6.650. See below, p. 91-92. Wissowa 1912, p. 123. Coarelli 1986, p. 237. See below, p. 92. Coarelli 1986, p. 237 n. 60, see also Wissowa 1912, p. 123. Nordh 1949, p. 90. See Weinstock 1957. This is attested in the cult of Hercules Victor/Invictus, see CIL VI 312-319, 328. 10 See below, p. 92-93. 11 Weinstock 1957, p. 221-223, Fears 1981, p. 44-45. 12 Cic. de leg. 2.28: cognominaque Statoris et Invidi Iovis. 13 Hor. Carm. 3.27.73: uxor invidi Iovis esse nescis. 83

14

Ovid. Fasti 5.126: et invicto nil love mains erat. Rightly pointed out by Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 471; see also Fears 1981, passim, though he hardly considers Iuppiter Invictus at all, eg. he does not even discuss the question of the latter's temple in Rome. 16 As suggested by Coarelli 1986, p. 237 and n. 61. 17 Nordh 1949, p. 89-90. 18 This, by the way, is the best argument against identifying the Pentapylum with the entrance to the Vigna Barberini complex (thus still, though with reserve, in Coarelli 1985A, p. 146). The order of the Catalogues makes it obvious that the Five Gates, whatever their function, are to be situated in the south-western part of the Imperial palaces. 19 Platner-Ashby, p. 50. 20 Tac. Ann. 12.24.1. 21 Platner-Ashby, p. 147, Coarelli 1983, p. 262-264. 22 On this temple, see Castagnoli 1979, p. 333-338, Coarelli 1985A, p. 146, Coarelli 1986, passim. 23 For various identifications of this temple, see Castagnoli 1979, p. 331-333, Coarelli 1986, p. 233 and n. 40. 24 Gnecchi 1912, III: Eliogabalo 6, tab. 152.11. 25 Cohen 1880-92, IV p. 411 no. 102-104, see RIC IV 2, no. 412413. 26 Platner-Ashby, p. 199. 27 Bigot 1911, see now Castagnoli 1979, p. 333-337, Coarelli 1986, p. 233-235. 28 Castagnoli 1979, p. 338; thus already Bigot 1911, p. 82, who, however, insisted that Alexander had dedicated Heliogabal's temple to Iuppiter Ultor. See Coarelli 1986, p. 237-239, and below. 29 Inslt XIII 2, p. 242-243, see also CIL I2 p. 311. 30 Coarelli 1986, p. 238-239. 31 Coarelli 1986, p. 239. 32 MEFRA 99 (1987), p. 481-498, esp. p. 483. 33 Du Jardin 1934, p. 75-77. 34 Carson in BMCRE VI (1962), p. 57-58. 35 Hill 1965, p. 160 n. 2. 36 Castagnoli 1979, passim, esp. p. 337-339. 37 Hill 1960. 38 BMCRE VI (1962) p. 137 no. 231-238, p. 210 no. 974. 39 BMCRE IV (1968), p. 739. 40 Hill's attempt to push the temple's dating down to the reign of Trajan by identifying the temple shown on the coins of Heliogabal and Alexander with the octostylos depicted on an issue struck by Trajan (Hill 1965, p. 159-160) is certainly mistaken, see Coarelli 1986, p. 236 n. 51. 41 This reconstruction does not exclude alternative attributions of the site in other periods, as perceived by Coarelli 1986, p. 236. The temple of Iuppiter Victor may have been built on the site of Antinoos' tomb, as hypothesized by that scholar; in the time-gap between Ovid's Fasti and the middle of the second century A.C. there is even place for Lugli's shadowy 15

84

aedes Caesarum (Lugli 1941; for a criticism of his view, see Castagnoli 1979, p. 340-342). On the other hand, Coarelli's «non si vede il motivo per cui il tempio dovesse essere ricostruito in forme così grandiose, e per di più in un momento, come quello adrianeo, che non si segnala certo per interesse particolare verso i vecchi culti repubblicani» (Coarelli 1986, p. 237) is not borne out by the evidence, apart from the fact that in the second century A.C. the cult of Iuppiter Victor would hardly have been labelled «Republican». At the end of Hadrian's reign, ca. 134-138, the legend Iovi VICTORI reappears on Roman coins after forty years of absence (BMCRE III 1936, p. 324 no. 658-660, pi. 59.19-20), we do not know why (Hill 1960, p. 126, suggests putting down the revolt of the Brigantii in Britain). 42 Carettoni 1960, p. 199-200, Castagnoli 1979, p. 335. See now MEFRA 98 (1986), p. 387-397. 43 Coarelli 1986, p. 237.

IUPPITER LIBERTAS in Aventino Platner-Ashby, p. 296-297 The Fasti Antiates Maiores for 13th April read: Iov(i) Leibert(ati) l. In his Res gestae Augustus mentions the temple Iovis Libertatis in Aventino I Àiòg ' EXevdeQiou ev 'Aouflvrivan as one of the aedes publicae he had restored 2 . The Augustan rededica tion took place on 1st September - under this date the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium mention a feast Iovi Libero... in Aventino 3 . Ovid's Fasti for 13th April -hac quoque, ni jailor, populo dignissima nostro atria Libertatis coepit habere sua 4 - though alluding to the Atrium Libertatis 5 , provide a link between the temple of Iuppiter Libertas and that of Libertas, mentioned in Livy's passage on a painting offered by Ti. Sempronius Gracchus cos. I 215 in aede Libertatis, quam pater eius in Aventino ex multaticia pecunia faciendam curavit dedicavitque 6 , and in Paulus' excerpt: Libertatis templum in Aventino fuerat constructum 7 . Although a number of scholars, including Merlin 8 , Wissowa 9, Mancini 1 0 and Latte n , maintain that in Rome there were separate temples of Iuppiter Libertas and Libertas, they are certainly mistaken 12. Hülsen's argument about the impossibility of existence of two temples dedicated to the same deity in the restricted zone on the Aventine 13 is, admittedly, not a very strong one. Rather, it might be pointed out that Libertas does not seem to have become emancipated as an independent deity before the second half of the second century: Wirszubski convincingly

85

demonstrated her links with the leges tabellariae of 139-107 14. What is decisive is Fears' analysis of the denarii struck in 75 by C. Egnatius Maximus, on which Libertas is the dominant theme 15. The second issue shows the temple of the goddess with two figures inside: whereas above the figure on the right there is a pileus, the symbol of liberty and Libertas, above the figure on the left a thunderbolt is presented, the unmistakable attribute of Jupiter 16. When depicted in her abode, Libertas is shown in Jupiter's company: Fears' observation is therefore the ultimate argument in favour of the identification of the temple of Iuppiter Libertas/ Liber of the calendars and the Res gestae with Livy's and Festus' temple of Libertas 17. Livy's words ex multaticia pecunia faciendam curavit indicate that Ti. Sempronius Gracchus cos. 238 vowed the temple while plebeian aedile, ie. in 246 18. This disposes of the often repeated assertion that the temple was a thanksgiving for the victory in the First Punic War 19. In the year of Gracchus' aedilship even the most optimistic among the Romans will have hardly dreamed that this horrible war would be over in five years' time. Among the fines from which the temple was built there was no doubt Gracchus' share of the 25000 asses which he and his colleague C. Fundanius Fundulus imposed on Claudia, the sister of P. Claudius Pulcher, the hapless consul of 249, for her words which had insulted the maiestas of the Roman people 20. C. Egnatius' coin shows a distylos temple. The excavations under the southern aisle of the church of S. Sabina have brought to light, in the opinion of the excavator, Father Darsy, a small distylos of opus quadratum built of peperino. The materials and construction techniques would suggest the third century as the date of their construction21. If the traces of extensive building activity dated by Darsy to the Augustan period 22 be interpreted as a restoration of the original structure 23, it would be extremely tempting to identify it as the temple of Iuppiter Libertas 24. Tempting or tantalizing. The interpretation of the findings under S. Sabina by Krautheimer and Corbett is diametrically different 25. Where Darsy saw a third century peperino distylos in antis, built up in the Augustan period with, among others, pieces of a travertine portico from the neighbourhood, they see a row of travertine columns grouped in two pairs, with a gap in the middle suggesting a fifth column - the vestiges of a first century structure walled up in the second century A.C., partly with re-used peperino blocks. Such a divergence of views merits the re-opening of the excavations by a third party. For the moment, the question of the 86

exact location of the temple of Iuppiter Libertas must remain unsolved. 1

Insit XIII 2, p. 8. RGDA 19.2. Insit XIII 2, p. 32-33; see Degrassi in Insit XIII 2, p. 504, Gros 1976, p. 33 and n. 125. Contra Latte 1960, p. 70 and n. 6. See Radke 1963, p. 313-315, Stylow 1972, p. 6 and n. 37. 4 Ovid. Fasti 4.623-624. 5 I do not see why Wissowa 1912, p. 138 n. 6, Platner-Ashby, p. 297 n. 1 and Degrassi in Insit XIII 2, p. 440, infer from the concurrence of the feast to Iuppiter Libertas and the dies natalis of the Atrium Libertatis as given by Ovid that the poet was mistaken. It is only logical to expect the Atrium Libertatis to have been dedicated on the dies natalis of the temple of Iuppiter Libertas. 6 Liv. 24.16.19. 7 Festus 108 L. 8 Merlin 1906, p. 107, 227-228, 300-302. 9 Wissowa 1912, p. 120, 138. 10 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 92-93. 11 Latte 1960, p. 70 n. 6, 256. 12 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 303-304 and Platner-Ashby, p. 297, are non-committal. 13 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 167 and n. 42. 14 Wirszubski 1950, p. 20, 50. See Stylow 1972, p. 16-17, Crawford 1974, p. 290-291. 15 Crawford 1974, no. 391, see comment ad locum, p. 406. 16 Fears 1981A, p. 870 n. 180. 17 See also Stylow 1972, p. 12-19, Fears 1981, p. 50-52, Fears 1981A, p. 869-875, esp. 871. 18 Broughton 1951-52, p. 216-217. 19 See eg. Fears 1981, p. 51. 20 Gell. NA 10.6 (citing Ateius Capito); Liv. per. 19; Suet. Tib. 2.3; Val. Max. 8.1. damn. 4. 21 Darsy 1968, p. 83-85. 22 Darsy 1968, p. 85, Coarelli 1985A, p. 343-344. 23 Darsy 1968, p. 88. 24 Thus Coarelli 1985A, p. 344. 25 Krautheimer 1976, p. 79, 90. 2

3

IUPPITER STATOR ad Portam Mugoniam Platner-Ashby, p. 303-304 The circumstances of the vow to build a temple to Iuppiter Stator are to be found in Livy's account of the critical moment of

87

the battle of Luceria in 294, when the consul M. Atilius Regulus manus ad caelum attolens voce darà, ita ut exaudiretur, templum lovi Statori vovet, si constitissét a fuga Romana acies redintegratoque proelio cecidisset vicissetque legiones Samnitium l. Later on Livy, while mentioning the account of this campaign by Fabius Pictor, which is markedly different from his main narrative, quotes the early annalist: et ad Luceriam utrimque multos occisos inque ea pugna Iovis Statoris aedem votam, ut Romulus ante voverat; sed fanum tantum, id est locus tempio effatus, fuerat. Ceterum hoc demum anno, ut aedem etiam fieri senatus iuberet, bis eiusdem voti damnata re publica, in religionem venit 2 (this shows better than all Livy's inconsistencies that the Romans were defeated at Luceria). This temple of Iuppiter Stator is not mentioned in the extant calendars 3; only Ovid says under 27th June: tempus idem Stator aedis habet, quam Romulus olim ante Palatini condidit ora iugi 4. Aust suspected this date to be that of a presumed Augustan restoration, the original dies natalis having, in his opinion, been the Ides of some undefined month 5. Wissowa supported the view of his pupil by quoting the Fasti Filocali, where on 13 th January we find: lovi Statori c(ircenses), m(issus) XXIIII6; thus, the original temple of Iuppiter Stator would have been dedicated on the Ides of January 7. This proposition has not, however, found favour among other specialists. First, we know nothing about an Augustan rededica tion of this temple: it may have been among the eighty-two which he boasts of having restored, but not among the twenty one which he claims to have built, ie. dedicated or rededicated 8 . 13th January, as every Ides, was dedicated to Jupiter - Ovid, eg., mentions on that day the ceremony of ovis idulis 9 - but it is still far from clear why and how the original dedication day of the temple would have been preserved in the Fasti Filocali compiled twothirds of a milennium later if, in the meantine, the original dies natalis had been replaced by the Augustan one 10. 27th June must therefore have been the original dedication day of the temple n , as clearly stated by Ovid, though he, in agreement with the larger part of our tradition, makes it a foundation of Romulus. The position of the temple in our literary sources is nearly always specified in the context of the turning point of the battle between Romulus' Romans and Tatius' Sabines. The latter are said to have almost reached the Porta Mugonia or, as Livy puts it, vetus porta Palatii, when Romulus' prayer to Jupiter the Stayer made the Romans stand at bay and drive the enemy down to the 88

valley of the Forum 12. Apart from Ovid's quoted passage there are three texts which specify the location of the temple of Iuppiter Stator in some detail: Dionysios' ÒQ^COCIO) ÀÙ [Legóv] nagà xaig xaXouuivcag Moirfcovici jxt3taxig, ai qpéoouciv eìg TÒ IlaXàxiov ex xfjg leoäg ÓÒOTJ 13, Plutarch's xò xoti SXTÌCLOD Aiòg iegóv OV 2xdxogaTcouaioi xcdoiiciv, LÒQDjiévov èv àQ%f\ xfjg iegag óòoi3 jigòg xò riaXdxioD àvióvxcov 14, and pseudo-Cicero's teque Iuppiter Stator... cuius templum a Romulo.. in Palati radice cum Victoriae est conlocatum 15. Taken together, all these passages point to a site just outside the Romulean settlement, ie. the Palatine proper 16, on the lowest part of the slope (in Palati radice), between the Porta Mugonia or whatever there was to mark its site and the summa Sacra Via (èv àQ%f\ xfjg iegag óòoti), on a street joining the Palatine with the Sacred Way. In the Regionary Catalogues the temple of Iuppiter Stator is listed among the monuments of the Fourth Region (Templum Pacts), after the Meta Sudans and the precinct of Venus et Roma, and before the Sacra Via, the Basilica Maxentii, the temple of Faustina and the Basilica Paulli 17. The only temple-like structure complying with this order and existing in the fourth century A.C. is the concrete core of the Imperial period with some large blocks of travertine and peperino on it, uncovered on the site of the Torre Cartolaria, just south-east of the Arch of Titus 18. Its perfect alignment with the arch and with the great podia of the Vigna Barberini and the temple of Venus et Roma makes it certain that this is a Flavian construction, probably a restoration of an older temple 19. Basing himself on an epigram by Martial and the Haterii relief, Richter identified it with a hypothetical temple of Magna Mater 20 , but his view was proved groundless by Gilbert who proposed instead to identify the podium with the temple of Lares in summa Sacra via 21 . It was only Hülsen who noticed the site's perfect correspondence to that of the temple of Iuppiter Stator, as implied both by literary sources and the Regionary Catalogues 22 ; his identification has since gained an almost universal acceptance 23 . The one dissenting voice is Coarelli's, who identifies the temple of Iuppiter Stator with the so-called «temple of Romulus» 24 . This proposition, which is but an element of his general revision of the topography of the zone of the Forum Romanum, and especially of the course of the Sacra Via 25 is, however, irreconciliable with our sources. Elsewhere I present a detailed critique of Coarelli's reconstruction 26 ; here it is enough to make two points. One is that the author, though basing his argument on the text of 89

the Regionary Catalogues, is in effect obliged to depart from the order in which they enumerate the monuments of the Fourth Region: in view of his professed allegiance to the testimony they provide 2 7 this can only be defined as diverging from one's own basic premise. Coarelli explains the positioning of the temple of Iuppiter Stator in the Catalogues - between the temple of Venus et Roma and the Basilica Maxentii, whereas according to his views it should have been listed between the Basilica Maxentii and the temple of Faustina - by a «typological attraction» supposedly exercised on it by the temple of Venus et Roma 28 . However, one look at the Catalogues' list suffices to ascertain that typologically the two sanctuaries are carefully distinguished: we have the precinct (templum) of Venus et Roma and the temple (aedes) of Iuppiter Stator. The second point is the position of the temple of Iuppiter Stator as indicated in the third book of Ovid's Tristia: after having led his reader from the Forum Caesaris along the Sacra Via, bypassing the temple of Vesta and the Regia 29 , the poet says 30 : Inde petens dextram «porta est» ait «ista Palati, hie Stator, hoc primum condita Roma loco est». Singula dum miror, video fulgentibus armis conspicuos postes tectaque digna deo... So, the Porta Mugonia and the temple of Iuppiter Stator, like the casa Romuli and the house of Augustus, lay to the right, ie. to the south of the Sacra Via. The identification of the temple of Iuppiter Stator with the «temple of Romulus» on the left side of the Sacred Way is therefore indefensible 31 . 1

Liv. 10.36.11. Liv. 10.37.15-16 = Fabius, fr. 19, Peter2. 3 The entry in the Fasti Antiates Maiores for 5th September: Iovi Statori (Irish XIII 2, p. 18), refers to the temple in Circo Flaminio founded by Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus pr. 148, see Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 508. 4 Ovid. Fasti 6.793-794. 5 Aust 1889, p. 12 no. 22 n. 3, 45. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 238-239. 7 Wissowa 1912, p. 123 and n. 1. 8 There is no reason to count this temple among Augustan rededications (so Gros 1976, p. 33) once we discard - as Gros himself does Aust's and Wissowa's theory about its original dies natalis. 9 Ovid. Fasti 1.587-588: Idibus in magni castus Iovis aede sacerdos semimarisflammisviscera libai ovis. 2

90

10

The temple having been rebuilt from scratch sometime after the fire of A.D. 80, the dies natalis preserved by Filocalus is most probably to be linked with the Flavian rededication. 11 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 474. 12 Liv. 1.12.8-9; Plut. Rom. 18.5-9. 13 Dion. Hal. 2.50.3. 14 Plut. Cic. 16.3. 15 Ps.-Cic. or.priusq.in ex.iret 24. 16 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 474 and Gros 1976, p. 33, locate the temple of Iuppiter Stator in Palatio which is an obvious mistake. 17 Nordh 1949, p. 78: Notitia - Metam sudantem. Templum Romae et Veneris. Aedem Iovis Statoris. viam Sacram. Basilicam Constantinianam. Templum Faustinae. Basilicam Pauli. Curiosum - Metam sudantem. Templum Romae. Aedem Iobis. viam Sacram. Basilicam novam et Pauli. Templum Faustinae. 18 Richter 1885, p. 412-417, see also De Ruggiero 1913, p. 178182. 19 Richter 1885, p. 407-418, esp. p. 418. 20 Richter 1885, p. 418-425. 21 Gilbert 1886, passim (criticism of Richter's proposition), p. 468 (identification with the temple of Lares). 22 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 20-23, esp. p. 22 and n. 50. 23 See eg. Platner-Ashby, p. 304, Lugli 1946, p. 76, Nash 1968, p. 534. 24 Coarelli 1981 A. See also following notes. 25 Coarelli 1981A, Coarelli 1983, p. 11-118, Coarelli 1986A, p. 310. 26 Ziolkowski 1989. 27 Coarelli 1983, p. 28-29, Coarelli 1986A, p. 8-10. 28 Coarelli 1986A, p. 8-9, see Coarelli 1983, p. 28-29. 29 Ovid. Trist. 3.1.27-30. 30 Ovid. Trist. 3.1.31-34. 31 See also Castagnoli 1982, 1988.

IUPPITER VICTOR in Colle Quirinali Platner-Ashby, p. 306-307 The temple of Iuppiter Victor was vowed in 295 at Sentinum by the surviving consul Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus; in Livy's words, ipse aedem lovi Victori spoliaque hostium... vovisset \ The temple had not been dedicated before the break in Livy's narrative at the end of 293; as for its dies natalis, Ovid says in the Fasti: Occupat Aprilis Idus cognomine Victor Iuppiter: hac Uli sunt data tempia die 2 . His date has been corroborated by the finding of the

91

Fasti Antiates Maiores, where under 13th April we read: Iovi Victorij) 3. The location of this temple has been the object of lively argument, not the least because of obdurate attempts to identify it with that of luppiter Invictus, mentioned by Ovid under 13 th June 4, despite different surnames and dedication days 5. It is characteristic of the confusion surrounding the issue of the temples of luppiter Victor/Invictus that Aust, though correctly discriminating between Fabius' temple of luppiter dedicated on 13 th April and that whose dies natalis fell on the Ides of June, neverthless calls the latter aedes lovis Victoris, not Invidi, in spite of Ovid's testimony which he otherwise accepts 6. The majority of scholars reject the existence of two Republican temples of luppiter Victor/Invictus 7; this seems to be the main reason for their situating Rullianus' foundation on the Palatine - there, where the Regionary Catalogues mention a temple of luppiter Victor 8. On the other hand, in Platner-Ashby it is pointed out that the placement of Rullianus' temple on the Palatine depends solely on the Notitia and that «the whole question of the temple or temples of luppiter Victor is still unsettled» 9, while Wissowa 10 and Coarelli11 flatly reject both the identification of Ovid's temple of luppiter Invictus with Rullianus' foundation and the latter's location on the Palatine 12. The dissenters base their view on the inscription to luppiter Victor, found in 1625 in the Quirinal Gardens, which reads: [D]iovei Victore I T.Mefu[---]M.f. / III vir [resti]tuit13. The donor of this inscription reused a stone on which an inscription to Mars had earlier been incised by the consul P. Cornelius L.f.14 The archaic form of the letters of the earlier inscription firmly dates it to the third century. Historical considerations point to P. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus cos. 236 as its most likely donor. This would date the dedication to luppiter Victor to the second century, most probably to its first half 15, which in turn implies the existence of the cult of luppiter Victor on the Quirinal in that period. And since the only known Republican temple dedicated to this particular Jupiter was Rullianus' foundation, we should situate it in Colle Quirinali. This proposition, as put forward by Wissowa, has been contested by some and ignored by others. Romanelli noted the doubt surrounding the existence of a temple of luppiter Victor on the Quirinal («il tempio sul Quirinale è desunto unicamente dal ritrovamento su quel colle di un frammento di iscrizione arcaica... Certo, Ovidio ricorda due dies natales... ma potrebbero anche 92

ambedue riferirsi a due successive dedicazioni di uno stesso tempio» 16) whereas to Mancini there was no place for uncertainty («Wissowa... propende a collocare il tempio di Iuppiter victor sul Quirinale; ma la sua ipotesi non ha alcun fondamento» 17 [sic\]). De Sanctis cautiously spoke of an ara of Iuppiter Victor on the Quirinal 18, whereas Santangelo did not even mention the god among the deities there worshipped 19. Recently Degrassi, though firmly in the orthodox camp, has observed that the oldest titulus to Iuppiter Victor had actually been found on the Quirinal 20, whereas Castagnoli succintly states that the «donarium» to Iuppiter Victor cannot be taken into consideration as a candidate for identification with Rullianus' temple 21. Platner-Ashby and Coarelli are correct: the above objections are based on the patently mistaken assumption that Ovid's temples of Iuppiter Victor worshipped on the Ides of April and Iuppiter Invictus venerated on the Ides of June were one. They are equally right in that the location of the aggregate shrine on the Palatine depends on one Late Imperial text. But there is no indication whatsoever of the existence of the cult of Iuppiter Victor on the Palatine during the Republic whereas the Quirinal inscription is a proof that in the first half of the second century the god was worshipped on the latter hill. What is more, the inscription's donor styles himself IHvir, and we know of two similar commissions created in 212, one to rebuild the temples of Mater Matuta, Fortuna and Spes, destroyed by fire the preceding year, and the other to recover the temples' sacra and donations: triumviri bini [creati], uni sacris conquirendis donisque persignandis, alteri reficiendis aedibus 22. De Ruggiero and Strasburger very reasonably compare these commissions with the donor of the inscription under discussion 23, who seems to have also been a triumvir sacris conquirendis (or) donis persignandis. The donor's office indicates - pending a concrete proof to the contrary - that the shrine alluded to in the inscription was an aedes, not an ara or donarium 24. All that we know about the site where the inscription was found is that it was somewhere in the Quirinal Gardens, and hence a more exact location of the temple may well be impossible. 1 2 3

Liv. 10.29.14. Ovid. Fasti 4. 621-622. Inslt XIII 2, p. 8. See Mancini in NS 1921, p. 92, contra Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 320. 4 See eg. Romanelli 1917, p. 84 n. 4, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 440, 471, Castagnoli 1979, p. 340 n. 53.

93

5

See above, p. 80. Aust 1889, p. 12, 32 (no. 21, 101). 7 Cassius Dio's passage on thunderbolts falling eg TÒV vecbv xòv xcp Ail xcp KamxtoXiq) èv tco Nixcacp övxa (Gass. Dio 45.17.2) is so corrupt as to be useless; least of all does if prove the existence of a temple of Iuppiter Victor on the Capitol, on which see Romanelli 1917, p. 84 n. 4, De Sanctis 1907-64, IV 2, 1, p. 132 n. 24, Castagnoli 1979, p. 340 n. 53. 8 See authors quoted in n. 7 and Hülsen-Jordan, p. 50-51. 9 Platner-Ashby, p. 307. 10 Wissowa 1912, p. 123. 11 Coarelli 1986, p. 237 and n. 60. 12 See above, p. 80. 13 CIL I2 802 = VI 438=VI 30767a=ILLRP 187. 14 CIL I2 18 = VI 475=VI 30767a = ILLRP 219. 15 As indicated by the inscription's spelling: Diove Victore. 16 Romanelli 1917, p. 84 n. 4. 17 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 92 n. 3. 18 De Sanctis 1907-64, IV 2, 1, p. 132 n. 24. 19 Santangelo 1941. 20 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 440. 21 Castagnoli 1979, p. 340 n. 53. 22 Liv. 25.7.5-6, see below, p. 105, 152. 23 De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I (1895), p. 169-170 s.v. aedes, Strasburger in RE 7A.1 (1939), c. 519 s.v. triumviri. 24 The triumviri of 212 were, obviously enough, created by the people, which shows the commission's importance. Of course, if some disaster had befallen the Ara Maxima or the Ara Martis, similar commissions would no doubt have been created to restore them; but, generally, lesser shrines would have been looked after by the aediles. 6

IUTURNA in Campo Martio Platner-Ashby, p. 308 The temple of Iuturna was built by a Lutatius Catulus, as stated by Servius: cui [Iuturnae] Lutatius Catulus primus templum in campo Martio fecit K The founder of the temple is generally identified with C. Lutatius Catulus cos. 242, the winner of the First Punic War 2; De Sanctis5 proposition in favour of Q. Lutatius Catulus cos. 101 3 is untenable since the latter is known to have founded a temple to Fortuna Huiusce Diei 4 . Theoretically, C. Catulus' son and namesake, consul in 220, or some unknown praetor of the second century could also be candidates, but this seems highly unlikely. 94

The discovery of the Fasti Antiates Maiores, which under 14th January read: luturnae 5, confirmed Ovid's passage on that day: te quoque lux eadem, Turni soror, aede recepit hie ubi Virginea Campus obitur aqua 6, and put an end to speculations started by Mommsen 7 who identified the temple of luturna with that of Nymphae 8. Written sources give us two clues as to the temple's location: it stood in Campo, says Servius; ubi Virginea Campus obitur aqua, specifies Ovid. The poet's words have been interpreted as pointing to the spot where the Aqua Virgo ended, namely to the north side of the Saepta Iulia 9. But Castagnoli observes that the neighbourhood of the stagnum Agrippae is at least as good a candidate and that the vicinity of the Euripus cannot be discarded either 10. In his opinion, the unidentified remains under the church of S. Maria in Monterone, usually attributed to the shrine of Bonus Eventus n , could perhaps belong to Iuturna's temple 12. Coarelli attempts to narrow the topographical meaning of Ovid's passage to the immediate vicinity of the Thermae Agrippae 13 and since the Republican and (what is more) third century temple nearest to the Baths was Temple A of the Largo Argentina, identifies it with that of luturna 14. Castagnoli's hypothetical location of the temple of luturna is in fact difficult to uphold 15, but his treatment of Ovid's passage is no doubt correct 16: it is evident that the poet did not intend to provide in it a precise and unequivocal location of Iuturna's temple. Thus the argument that it should be identified with Temple A of the Largo Argentina on the account of the latter's site being nearest to the outlet of the Aqua Virgo loses its cogency. Instead of specifying the exact position of the temple, with which his readers would have been perfectly familiar, Ovid played on its general vicinity to the outlet of the Aqua Virgo in order to associate the name of the chaste nymph, patroness of clear waters and pure springs, who had even spurned Jupiter's wooing 17, with the notion of virginity. But if so, then all the neighbouring Republican temples, ie. all the temples of the Largo Argentina, could on this basis claim identification with the temple of luturna. Chronological considerations rule out two of them, B and D 18; we are therefore left with the other two, A and C, as equally qualified in the light of Ovid's passage. There are two arguments which, in my view, turn the scales in favour of Temple C. One is as follows. Boyancé has convincingly identified Temple B with the temple of Fortuna Huiusce Diei 95

founded by Q. Lutatius Catulus cos. 101. The latter would no doubt have located his foundation close to the temple built by his illustrious ancestor and this ostensibly points to either of the temples bordering on Temple B, A and C 19. But Temple B is situated asymmetrically in relation to its neighbours, markedly closer to Temple C than A 20, though when Q. Catulus began the construction of his temple, the area sacra of the Largo Argentina was already an architectural whole, surrounded on all sides by the Porticus Minucia 21. Now, before the construction of the Flavian travertine pavement, which removed all internal partitions within the portico, the precincts of Temples A and B had been delimited by a wall 22 which, however, had existed already prior to the construction of an earlier tufa pavement 23. This pavement, as it is generally admitted today, was either contemporary or slightly anterior to Temple B 24; we should most probably connect it with the erection of the Porticus Minucia. The wall which had existed before the building of Temple B must have originally delimited the precincts of Temples A and C. What follows is that Q. Lutatius Catulus located his foundation inside the precinct of Temple C. It is difficult to imagine a better clue towards identifying Temple C with the one founded by C. Lutatius Catulus. The other argument is provided by the system of basins and artificial springs discovered during the excavations on the north side of Temple C's podium and on the adjacent lower ground 25. The earliest basin found dates from the first century but, as observed by the excavator, a similar system, functionally linked with the cult, no doubt existed since the time of the temple's founding 26. The original waterworks must have been situated on the ground later occupied by Temple B. A system of this kind should in the first place be associated with the cult of Iuturna, witness the water system which existed in connection with her other, better known shrine near the Forum. 1 2

Serv. auct. ad Aen. 12.139. Wissowa 1912, p. 222, Mancini in NS 1921, p. 85, Platner-Ashby, p. 308, Coarelli 1981, p. 43. 3 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 212 n. 356, upheld by Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 395. 4 Platner-Ashby, p. 216. The identification of Q. Catulus' foundation with Temple B, see Boyancé 1940 = Boyancé 1972, p. 187-193. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 2. 6 Ovid. Fasti 1.463-464. 7 Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 215, 326, see Hülsen-Jordan, p. 481-482 and n. 28. Mommsen's old hypothesis is still defended by Pouthier 1981, 96

p. 84 n. 17, who apparently ignores the testimony of the Fasti Antiates Maiores. 8 Castagnoli 1948, p. 160-163, see Platner-Ashby, p. 308. 9 Platner-Ashby, p. 308, see Castagnoli 1948, p. 161. 10 Castagnoli 1948, p. 161. 11 Platner-Ashby, p. 86. 12 Castagnoli 1948, p. 161 n. 2. 13 Coarelli 1981, p. 43. 14 Coarelli 1981, p. 42-43. 15 The temple would have stood amidst the waters of the stagnum. 16 What follows is a resumé of Ziolkowski 1986. 17 See Ovid. Fasti 2.585.616. 18 Temple B, see n. 4, Temple D, see Coarelli 1981, p. 34-38. 19 Coarelli 1981, p. 46, Ziolkowski 1986, p. 629. 20 Ziolkowski 1986, p. 629. 21 On the identification of the Porticus Minucia with the area sacra of the Largo Argentina, see Coarelli 1968A, now decisively corroborated by Manacorda 1987. 22 Marchetti Longhi 1936, p. 139, Marchetti Longhi 1956-58, p. 112-115, Marchetti Longhi 1970-71, p. 10-11. 23 Marchetti Longhi 1956-58, p. 112. 24 Coarelli 1981, p. 13, 19. 25 Marchetti Longhi 1970-71, p. 26-30. 26 Marchetti Longhi 1970-71, p. 27.

LARES in summa Sacra Via Platner-Ashby, p. 314-315 The temple of Lares is mentioned for the first time by Obsequens in connection with the prodigies of 106: in aede Lamm flamma a fastigio ad summum columen penetravit innoxia l. The Fasti Antiates Maiores for 27th June read: Laribus 2 , and since Ovid speaks about this temple under the same date: Lucifero subeunte Lares delubra tulerunt hie, ubi fit docta multa corona manu 3 , it seems that Augustus, who mentions its restoration in the Res gestae (aedem Lamm in summa Sacra via I ' HQOXDV JTQOC; xfj Legal óòon 4 ), rededicated the temple on its original dies natalis 5 . Solinus situates it on the site of the regia of Ancus Marcius: Ancus Marcius in summa Sacra via, ubi aedes Lamm est6. Cicero, echoed by Pliny, locates the precinct of Orbona near this temple: fanum... [Orbonae ad] aedem Lamm 7 . The very late date under which the temple is mentioned for the 97

first time makes it theoretically possible to place its founding after 180/167, but there seems to be little doubt that it took place in the years 292-219. The archaic character of the deities and the location of their temple on the presumed site on an ancient domus regia clearly put the temple òf Lares among Mid-Republican foundations, together with the temples of Dii Penates and Pales 8 . The location of the temple cannot be fixed with any certainty. De Ruggiero's conjecture that, since Cicero and Pliny mention the neighbouring fanum Orbonae after that of Febris in Palatio and before the ara Malae Fortunae Exquiliis, the temple of Lares should be looked for between the Palatine and the Esquiline 9, is textually unwarranted and topographically vague in the extreme. Hülsen situated the temple in the vicinity of the church of SS. Cosma e Damiano 10, where an inscription: Laribus Aug(ustis) sacrum, had been found in 1879 n , but this inscription is of no more value for locating the temple of Lares than another one, addressed to Lares publici and found in 1555 near the entrance to the Farnese Gardens 12, whose irrelevance to the temple's location Hülsen demonstrated himself 13. In fact, our only clue for locating the temple of Lares is its position in summa Sacra Via. But it is quite probable that before Nero's fire this location referred to the whole upper tract of the Sacred Way through the saddle between the Velia and the Palatine running from the later Arch of Titus to the neighbourhood of the compitum Acilii 14. Hence the temple of Lares, never mentioned after Augustus' reign (as previously mentioned, Pliny copied Cicero), may have stood on the ground later occupied by the temple of Venus et Roma. The other possible location is the area along the curve of the Republican Sacra Via in front of the stairs leading to the church of S. Francesca Romana. Barring some sensational new archaeological evidence, this is probably all that can be said about the temple's location 15. 1 Obs. 41. 2 InsItXUl 2, p. 13. 3 Ovid. Fasti 6.791-792. 4 RGDA 19.2. 5 Gros 1976, p. 33, Degrassi in Inslt 6 Solin. 1.23. 7 Cic. de nat. deor. 3.63; Plin. NH 8 See below, p. 126-128. 9 De Ruggiero 1913, p. 138. 10 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 22 n. 50. 11

CIL VI 30954.

98

XIII 2, p. 474. 2.16.

12

CIL VI 456. Hülsen-Jordan, p. 22 n. 50, see Mommsen 1883, p. 82. 14 Cassatella 1985, p. 104-105. 15 Coarelli 1983, p. 34-35 and fig. 6, locates the original temple of Lares close to the domus publica; after the fire of A.D.80 it would, in his opinion, have been removed to the so-called «tablinum» of the enlarged House of Vesta (Coarelli 1985A, p. 85). This proposition stands and falls with the rest of Coarelli's reconstruction of the topography of the Forum area, on which see above, p. 89-90. 13

LUNA in Aventino Platner-Ashby, p. 320 The temple of Luna is first mentioned by Livy in connection with the prodigies of 182: atrox cum vento tempestas coorta multis sacris profanisque locis stragem fecit... forem ex aede Lunae, quae in Aventino est, raptam tulit et in posticis parietibus Cereris templi adfixit l. Its dedication day was 31 st March, as witnessed by the Fasti Caeretani: Lunae 2 , and the Fasti Praenestini: Lunae in Ave[ntino] 3 . Ovid's Fasti for that day read: Luna regit mensis: huius quoque tempora mensis finit Aventino Luna colenda iugo 4 . Different location terms and an unattributed fragment of the Fasti Praenestini mentioning a feast [So]lis et Lun[ae] 5 decisively prove that the temple of Luna in Aventino was different from that of Sol et Luna in Circo Maximo 6 . The tradition making the king Servius Tullius the founder of our temple depends on the reading of Tac. Ann. 15.41.1, where the historian, while enumerating shrines destroyed in the fire of A.D.64, mentions a temple built by that king to Lucina (codex Leidensis) or Luna (codex Mediceus II). The context makes it certain that the first reading - Lucinae, ie. Dianae 7 - is to be preferred: domuum et insularum et templorum, quae amissa sunt, numerum inire haud promptum fuerit; sed vetustissima religione, quod Servius Tullius Lucinae [or Lunae], et magna ara fanumque, quae praesenti Herculi Areas Evander sacraverat, aedesque Statoris Iovis vota Romulo Numaeque regia et delubrum Vestae cum penatibus populi Romani exusta 8 . Out of the countless temples that perished in Nero's fire, Tacitus mentions only the oldest among the most venerable Roman sanctuaries. In so aristocratic a company the presence of the Aventine Diana, securely introduced by Servius Tullius, is selfevident, whereas that of the rather obscure Luna has already puz99

zled at least one eminent historian 9 . The temple of Luna could thus have been founded only in the years 292-219. The quoted passage by Livy indicates that the temple of Luna stood in the immediate vicinity of the temple of Ceres, which would point to the extreme north-western part of the Aventine. The same can be inferred from the description of C. Gracchus' flight from the Aventine in de viris illustrious: ubi ab Opimio victus, dum a tempio Lunae desilit, talum intorsit et Pomponio amico apud portam Trigeminam, P. Laetorio in ponte Sublicio persequentibus resistente in lucum Furrinae pervenit 11. The fact that the front of the temple apparently faced the rear of Ceres' sanctuary, situated by our sources ad Circum Maximum, probably indicates that the former stood higher up the slope than the latter n . Since we do not know the exact location of the temple of Ceres, further specification is impossible 12. 1

Liv. 40.2.1-2. Inslt XIII 2, p. 66. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 124-125. 4 Ovid. Fasti 3.883-884. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 134-135, see Degrassi's comment on p. 503. 6 Wissowa 1912, p. 315-316 and p. 316 n. 3, Roscher 1884-1921, IV c. 1140. 7 Köstermann (see n. 8) quotes in this context only Catull. 34.13, though one's first connotation of Lucina as Diana is, of course, Vergil's Fourth Eclogue 10 and Servius' comment ad locum. For further evidence, see De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 162 n. 137, Latte in RE 13.2 (1927), c. 1651 s.v. Lucina. 8 Of all the editors of the Annates only Köstermann retains the reading of the codex Leidensis (Teubner-Leipzig 1965). His most penetrating analysis of the passage (Köstermann 1960, p. 98, Köstermann 1963-68, IV p. 243) has been rejected, quite undeservedly, by Römer 1976, p. LXII-LXIV. 9 Merlin 1906, p. 194: «il serait étonnant que la Lune eüt fait partie des dieux romains primitifs», Varrò LL 5.74 notwithstanding. But explaining Luna's presumed role in the tradition in terms of a supposed confusion with the securely Servian Diana, though not utterly impossible per se, becomes superfluous once we accept the reading Lucinae {lectio difficilior) in Tacitus' quoted passage. 10 de vir.ill. 65.5. In Oros. 5.12.8, it is M. Fulvius Flaccus and his son who cum per aedem Lunae in privatam domum desiluissent... rescisso cratico pariete confossi sunt. 11 Merlin 1906, p. 98 n. 5. 12 As attempted eg. by Merlin 1906, p. 98-99 and Hülsen-Jordan, p. 160-161. 2

100

MARS in Clivo Platner-Ashby, p. 327-328 Under the year 388 Livy reports: eo anno aedis Martis Gallico bello vota dedicata est a T.Quinctio duumviro sacris faciendis K The historian is silent about the vow itself and does not specify the temple's location, so it is a matter of conjecture which of the Republican temples of Mars the passage refers to. Apart from the Augustan foundation to Mars Ultor, we know of the following temples of Mars in Rome. One, which stood in Clivo near the Porta S. Sebastiano 2, is usually described in our sources as the temple of Mars in Via Appia 3 or extra portam Capenam 4. Another temple was founded in Circo Flaminio by D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus cos. 138 (Nepos: aedes Martis est in circo Flaminio architectata ad Hermodoro Salaminio 5; Pliny: in tempio Bruti Callaia apud circum eundem 6 [Flaminium]). We also hear of a temple of Mars in Campo Martio, see Cassius Dio's ó xe yàg xov "Agewc; vctòc; ó èv TU)rceòicpàvxov & 7, and pseudo-Ovid's consolatio ad Liviam: sed Mavors tempio vicinus et accola campi 8. In the calendars three feasts may refer to our temple. The Fasti Venusini for 14th March read: Marti Invict(o) 9. 1st June was the dies natalis of the temple of Mars in Clivo, both in the Republican times - Fasti Antiates Maiores: Marti in Cl[ivo] 10 and under Augustus, see Ovid's Fasti: lux eadem Marti festa est, quern prospicit extra adpositum Tectae porta Capena viae ] ]. Finally, in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for 23rd September, an entry: Marti, Neptuno in campo, Apo[l]lini ad theatrum Marcelli 12, was added at some later date. First, it should be considered whether there were two separate temples of Mars in Circo and in Campo 13, or whether the two appellations denote Brutus' foundation 14. In the first case, the temple dedicated in 388 might be identified both with the temple in Clivo and in Campo; in the second, it can only be the temple of the Via Appia. 23rd September as the dies natalis strongly suggests a restoration of an earlier temple by Augustus: we know that on his birthday he rededicated the old temples of Apollo, Iuno Regina and Iuppiter Stator, all situated, as was Callaicus' foundation, in Circo Flaminio 15. Gros has no doubts: Callaiucus' temple, originally dedicated on 14th May, was rededicated by Augustus on his own dies natalis; the locations in Circo and in Campo would in this particular case refer to the same temple 16. But if so, how are 101

we to deal with the temple of Neptunus, mentioned in the same entry of the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium, though we know of a temple of Neptunus in Circo dedicated on 1st December 17. With impeccable logic Gros adds this temple to old Republican foundations rededicated by Augustus on his birthday 18. Gros' stand, however, is not acceptable. First, we have every reason to believe that the temple of Neptunus in Circo was restored by Cn. Domitius Aherobarubus cos.32, so there is little justification for its inclusion among Augustus' works. More decisively, the temple of Neptunus in Circo is mentioned under 1st December in the Fasti Amiternini which were compiled after Augustus' death. The temple of Neptunus in Circo has therefore to be distinguished from its namesake in Campo; Wissowa and De Sanctis convincingly identified the latter with the Basilica Neptuni 19. Returning to the presumed identification of the temples of Mars in Circo and in Campo, the only argument for it is Ovid's silence about a feast to Mars on 14th May20. But this temple, which can only be Callaicus' foundation in Circo (see below), had been built by a singularly illustrious ancestor of Caesar's murderer; it would be a matter of wonder if Ovid had actually mentioned it in his Fasti. In my opinion, the temple of Mars in Campo - like that of Neptune in the same area - formed a part of the great complex built by Agrippa in the central Campus Martius 21. It is first mentioned in connection with a prodigy which occurred in A.D.9 22; on the other hand, a passage in Suetonius suggests the year 43 as its terminus post quern. A great temple of Mars was planned by Caesar, who chose as its site the artificial lake in the Campus Martius on which the gladiatorial naumachia had been fought on the occasion of his quadruple triumph in 45 23; in 43 the pool was filled up because of a plague 24. Thus it appears that in 43 there was still no temple of Mars in the Campus Martius. The company, in which the temple in question appears in the quoted entry of the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium, is also significant: all the deities mentioned there were credited with having given Augustus and Agrippa the victory of Actium. We know that the temple of Neptunus in Campo (ie., in all probability, the Basilica Neptuni) was built the commemorate Agrippa's naval victories; but thanks to a brilliant study by Gagé 25 we also know that beside Apollo, Augustus' personal patron and victory-bearer, two other deities were honoured for having brought about the triumph of 2nd - 5th September 31: Neptunus on sea and Mars on land. Like the 102

temple of Neptunus, the temple of Mars in Campo would therefore have been founded by the main architect of that victory, M. Vipsanius Agrippa 26. As regards the temple of Mars Invictus, the mutilated entry in the Fasti Antiares Maiores for 15th May: [---] Invict(o) 27, no doubt refers to this particular temple 28, the difference of one day in respect to the Fasti Venusini being certainly the result of the confusion brought about by the introduction of the Julian calendar 29. This temple existed in the beginning of the first century, which makes its identification with Callaicus' foundation in Circo Flaminio unavoidable. This leaves us with the temple of Mars in Clivo as the one dedicated in 388 30. There remains the question of the character of the vow. We learn from Livy that the temple was vowed during the war with the Gauls and that it was completed two years later. It was obviously not vowed on a contractual basic as were the broadly contemporary vota made by the two Camilli to luno Regina and luno Moneta 31, because in 390 the enemy, and not the Romans, came out victorious. A possible clue to the character of this foundation is the speed with which its construction was achieved, rendered even more remarkable by the circumstances. The temple was probably either a post-votum made after the departure of the Gauls, or it was vowed by order of the Sybylline Books. This latter possibility might also be inferred from the office held by the temple's dedicator, duumvir sacris faciundis 32. In a non-consular, non dictatorial year, a duumvir sacris faciundis may have heen the most suitable person to dedicate a temple ordered by the libri fatales - if duly created duumvir aedi dedicandae. 1

Liv. 6.5.8. Lugli 1953-59, III, p. 33-37. 3 Liv. 22.1.12; Serv. ad Aen. 1.292. 4 Liv. 7.23.3; Paulus in Festus 115 L; Ovid. Fasti 6.191-192. 5 Priscian. 8.17 = Nepos ex. fr. 26, Peter. 6 Plin. NH 36.26. 7 Cass. Dio 56.24.3. 8 Cons, ad Liviam 231. 9 Inslt XIII 2, p. 57. 10 Inslt XIII 2, p. 12. 11 Ovid. Fasti 6.191-192. 12 Inslt XIII 2, p. 34-35, see Degrassi's comment on p. 512. 2

103

13 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 476-477, 490, Castagnoli 1948, p. 115 n. 2, 133-138. 14 Coarelli 1968, p. 314 and n. 63, Gros 1976, p. 33, Torelli 1984, p. 99. 15 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 512-514. 16 Gros 1976, p. 33. 17 See below, p. 118-119. 18 Gros 1976, p. 29, 33, see n. 14. I have singled out Gros because, unlike Coarelli and Torelli, he also discusses the temple of Neptunus in Campo. 19 See below, p. 118 and n. 18. 20 Or rather on 15th May, see below and n. 29. 21 On its having no connection whatsoever with the Ara Martis, see Castagnoli 1948, p. 133-137. 22 Cass. Dio 56.24.3. 23 Suet. Iul. 44.1, see id. 39 A; Cass. Dio 43.24.4; App. BC 2All. 24 Cass. Dio 45. Ì 7.8. 25 Gagé 1936, passim, esp. p. 70-81. 26 I think it is the Pantheon itself that hides behind the temple of Mars in Campo. I shall discuss the original attribution of the Pantheon in a separate paper. 27 Inslt XIII 2, p. 10. 28 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 96, Wissowa 1923, p. 383, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 151 n. 92. Degrassi's hesitation in Inslt XIII 2, p. 459, is unjustified. 29 See Wissowa 1923, p. 383-384, though some of the examples he adduces refer in fact to different temples, eg. Hercules of 12th and 13th August. I wish to thank Augusto Fraschetti for enlightning in this matter. 30 Thus Hülsen-Jordan, p. 213. See more cautious opinions in Platner-Ashby, p. 327-328, 329, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 151 n. 88, Lugli 1953-69, III p. 34, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 463. 31 See above, p. 71, 76. 32 I am not sure that Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 621 n. 1, is right in dismissing this wording as an error.

MATER MATUTA in Foro Boario Platner-Ashby, p. 330-331 Livy reports that M. Furius Camillus, marching out against Veii in 396, vowed aedem Matutae Matris refectam dedicaturum, iam ante ab rege Ser. Tullio dedicatam \ The vow was duly fulfilled after the fall of the enemy city, as reported by Livy (turn lunoni reginae templum in Aventino locavit dedicavitque Matutae

104

Mairi 2) and Plutarch (vecbvfrectgf\v Mmrega Maxovxav ndkovci 'Pco^aioi xaoxeoéceiv) 2. The excavations started in 1937 at the area sacra by the church of S. Omobono have demonstrated that the temples of Mater Matuta and Fortuna, the latter also built by Ser. Tullius 4, both dedicated on the Matralia - Fasti Antiates Maiores for 11 June: [M]atri Matu(tae), Fortun[n]ae 5 -were in fact twin shrines standing symmetrically on the same podium 6, as had already been guessed earlier on the basis of Livy's mention of the fornices Stertinii erected in foro Boario ante Fortunae aedem et Matris Matutae 7. This extremely close relationship seems at odds with our sources' stating that Camillus rededicated only one of the two temples. The slow pace of the excavations, which have not yet reached the western shrine, is the reason why the discussion on whether the temples were rebuilt in Camillus' time has to be based - as far as the archaeological data are concerned - on an analysis of the common podium's levels. There were three Republican phases of the area sacra. The first coincided with an overall transformation of the area. A new podium was raised more than four metres higher than the last Archaic temple (or temples) and covered with a pavement of cappellaccio blocks. The second pavement was built of blocks of Monteverde and Aniene tufa, the third consisted of thin slabs of the same material 8. Only the third pavement is securely dated; as shown by Sommella 9, it should be attributed to the restoration of the two temples after the fire of 213 10. The question is which of the earlier levels is to be identified with «Camillus' restoration» n and how should we date the remaining one. Torelli 12 and Coarelli 13 identify Camillus' restoration with the first Republican phase, ie. with the cappellaccio pavement. As for the second level, the finding on Monteverde blocks of what turned out to be a donarium set up by M. Fulvius Flaccus cos. 264 14, would indicate that the erection of Flaccus' trophies coincided with a major reconstruction of the area, which would have included building a new pavement 15. An alternative proposition has been put forward by Pisani Sartorio and Virgili16 who, noting that in the infill of the Republican podium no fifth or fourth century material and no pottery fragments later than 510 have been found, conclude that the first Republican complex was built immediately after the destruction of the last archaic sanctuary, probably still at the turn of the sixth century 17. If so, then the second pavement of Monteverde/Aniene blocks should be attri105

buted to Camillus' reconstruction. Flaccus would have set up his donarium on that pavement more than a hundred years later. The latter view concords with an observation by Ioppolo about the relation between the donarium and the pavement on which it had been erected: «Non si è ancora potuto accertare se il monumento pogiasse su di una fondazione o se sfruttasse a questo fine la già robusta platea di tufo di Monteverde. L'andamento delle lastre della platea, visibile nel tratto mancante del coronamento circolare, non presenta tracce di una preventiva disposizione dei blocchi per la successiva messa in opera del basamento. Di conseguenza rimane aperta la possibilità che il monumento in questione non sia costruttivamente legato con la platea della quarta fase dei Templi Gemelli [ = second Republican level]18». Coarelli replies that «certamente c'è un incastro talmente preciso tra pavimento e base circolare che i due sembrano contemporanei» 19. This would imply that both the donarium and the second Republican pavement were constructed by Flaccus; that in turn would necessarily leave Camillus as the dedicator of the first Republican complex. The argument based on the pottery fragments is particularly confused. Three fragments, two dated to the middle of the fifth century and one to the beginning of the fourth, have actually been found in the area sacra 20; unfortunately, since they are all isolated finds, they cannot be attributed stratigraphically. As a result, they may be interpreted both in support of Coarelli's proposition at least some fifth century fragments having been found within the area sacra - and against it: according to Champeaux21, the sherds indicate that the precinct was not abandoned in the fifth century as implied by Coarelli 22. Against all these ambiguities Coarelli puts forward an objective piece of evidence: a fragment of a bowl of the type Morel 96, datable to the first half of the third century 23, found in a thin compact layer between the two earlier Republican pavements - a pottery fragment a hundred years younger than Camillus' restoration under the pavement attributed by some to Camillus' time 24. Virgili admits that this sherd «costituisce un allarme per la datazione proposta», but argues that, the exact position of the find having not been published, the relevant blocks of Monteverde tufa could have been replaced during the reconstruction of 212 25. Naturally, only future excavations can solve this question; it seems however that, Virgili's caveat notwithstanding, the ball is at present firmly in the court of Coarelli's opponents 26. Attribution of Republican pavements is to the present work of more than academic interest. As noted above, Livy and Plutarch 106

mention only the temple of Mater Matuta as rededicated by Camillus, which would imply that the conqueror of Veii did not rededicate the temple of Fortuna. There is no doubt that a restoration on such scale as the first Republican phase (raising the podium by more than four metres, changing the orientation of the area sacra) would have resulted in a new dedication of both temples. Livy's account, which mentions two dedications, Ser. Tullius' and Camillus', would favour Coarelli's attribution of the first Republican phase. On the other hand, the historian's silence about the temple of Fortuna would suggest that Camillus' restoration was less comprehensive, probably limited to rebuilding one of the temples and laying down a new pavement; this might well have been all the work done during the second Republican phase 27. Yet, whereas Coarelli's proposition receives some support, even if slightly ambiguous, from literary sources, Pisani Sartorio's hypothesis has no textual corroboration at all. This lack of literary evidence is of great significance considering that the first years of the Republic, to which she dates the construction of the first Republican complex, are covered by the extant books of Livy and Dionysios. Livy, however, knows only the dedications by Servius and Camillus 28. Colini, who accepts Pisani Sartorio's view and dates the first Republican phase of the twin temples to the vigorous building activity of the years 500-470, when no less then five new temples were founded (those of Mercurius, Ceres, Saturnus, Castores and Semo Sancus), suggests that the restoration of the temples of Mater Matuta and Fortuna was not recorded precisely because it was only a restoration 29. But two of the above mentioned temples dedicated in 500-470 - those of Saturnus and Semo Sancus - were in reality royal foundations, most probably only rededicated after the fall of the kings 30; as Colini himself admits, the case of the Capitoline temple may well have been identical3 x. It seems that for religious reasons it was essential for the new Republican regime to dedicate anew temples founded by the kings 32. In the case of the twin temples this would have been even more indispensable in view of the radical character of the first Republican reconstruction. It seems therefore that the present state of our evidence, literary and archaeological, favours Coarelli's attribution of the first Republican phase of the temples of Fortuna and Mater Matuta to Camillus' time. In regard to the main difficulty with this proposal - Livy's silence about the dedication of Fortuna's temple by Camillus - one might suggest that, both the temples having been dedicated on the Matralia, ie. the day consecrated to Mater 107

Matuta, the whole area sacra was considered as «belonging» to this goddess rather than to Fortuna 33 . 1

Liv. 5.19.6. Liv. 5.23.7. 3 Plut. Cam. 5.1. 4 See the preceding notes and Ovid. Fasti 6.477-480 (Mater Matuta) and 569-572 (Fortuna); Dion. Hal. 4.27.7. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 12, see the Fasti Venusini for that day: Matr(i) Matutae (Inslt XIII 2, p. 58), and Ovid. Fasti 6. 473-636. 6 For the bibliography of the excavations, see Poucet 1980, p. 290300, Champeaux 1982, p. 486-487, Coarelli 1988, p. 204 n. 1. 7 Liv. 33.27.4; see Jordan 1871-85, I 2, p. 484-485, Marchetti Longhi 1925, p. 336-338, Platner-Ashby, p. 330. 8 Coarelli 1988, p. 209-214, see Sommella 1968, Pisani SartorioVirgili. 9 Sommella 1968, contra Mercandi 1963-64, p. 51, 66-67. 10 Liv. 24.47.15 (fire), 25.7.5-6 (restoration). 11 «Camillus' restoration» is a metaphor, since when he assumed dictatorship the temple (or temples) must have already been restored or on the verge of being so. 12 Torelli 1968, p. 74. 13 See now Coarelli 1988, p. 213-219. 14 Mercandi 1963-64, p. 43-52, Ioppolo 1963-64, Torelli 1968. 15 Torelli 1968. 16 Pisani Sartorio 1977, p. 60 and n. 117, Pisani Sartorio-Virgili, p. 44. 17 See also Colini 1977, p. 16, 19. 18 Ioppolo 1963-64, p. 73. 19 Coarelli in Archeologia Laziale II (QuadAEI 3), p. 123. 20 Gjerstad 1960, p. 442, 448 no. 279.8 = Paribeni 1959-60, p. 124 no. 81, Paribeni 1968-69, p. 14-15 no. 35, 36. 21 Champeaux 1982, p. 261. 22 Coarelli 1985A, p. 317. 23 Morel 1965, p. 215-216. 24 Coarelli in Archeologia Laziale II {QuadAEI 3), p. 123, see also Roma medio-repubblicana, p. 103, and now Coarelli 1988, p. 214. 25 Archeologia Laziale II (QuadAEI 3), p. 124. 26 See Coarelli 1988, p. 214 n. 30. 27 As said above, our knowledge of various phases of the twin temples is based almost exclusively on the stratigraphy of the podium, ie. on successive pavings of the precinct's floor. 28 See Lugli 1953-69, VIII p. 330-331, 359-364. 29 Colini 1977, p. 16-17. 30 Gjerstad 1962 brilliantly argues that the temple of Saturn, built by one of the Tarquins, was dedicated by T. Larcius as dictator in 497. The gap of ca. ten years between the expulsion of the kings and the dedication 2

108

indicates, in my view, that Larcius only rededicated the already existing temple. The case of the temple of Semo Sancus, built by the kings but dedicated ( = rededicated) only in 466 (Platner-Ashby, p. 469-470), is even more instructive. 31 Colini 1977, p. 16. 32 As regards the temple of Diana, supposedly built by Servius Tullius and apparently not rededicated after the fall of the monarchy, it is worth observing that, as shown by Momigliano 1962, the king dedicated not the aedes but the lucus and the ara. As for the temple itself, the archaic style of its cult statue, modelled according to Strabo 4.1.5 on the xoanon of Massalian Artemis, suggests an early date of founding, most probably still during the royal period (Colonna 1962, Ampolo 1970). But this temple, designated as a federal sanctuary of the Latin League, would have been considered a neutral territory (Momigliano 1962, p. 391); in view of the strained relations between the Latins and Rome at the beginning of the Republic, its rededication would have been both unnecessary and imprudent, if not outright dangerous. See also Momigliano 1963, p. 106-107, A. Grandazzi, Les wis d'Albe. Analyse d'une tradition, Memoire de l'Ecole Franchise de Rome, 1987 (I would like to thank the Author for making available to me the typescript of his as yet unpublished thesis). 33 See Castagnoli 1979 on the possible close affinity between the two goddesses. For a different view, see now Coarelli 1988, passim, esp. p. 244-363. Be that as it may, the Fasti Venusini for 11th June mention only the temple of Mater Matuta (see n. 5), though both the temples are known to have existed at the time of the calendar's compilation.

MINERVA in Aventino Platner-Ashby, p. 342 The temple of Minerva in Aventino is known to have existed before the Second Punic War. In Festus' account itaque cum Livius Andronicus bello Punico secundo scribsisset carmen, quod a virginibus est cantatum, quia prosperium respublica populi Romani gerì coepta est, publice adtributa est ei in Aventino aedis Minervae, in qua liceret scribis histrionibusque consistere ac dona ponere x. This event took place in 207, as witnessed by a relevant passage in Livy: deerevere item pontifices, ut virgines ter novenae per urbem euntes carmen canerent. Id cum in Iovis Statoris aede discerent conditum ab Livio poeta carmen... 2. The temple's dedication day was 19th June, as recorded by Ovid's Fasti for that day: coepit Aventina Pallas in arce coli 3 , the Fasti Antiates Maiores: Min[ervae] 4, and identical entries in the Fasti Esquilini and Amiternini: Minervae in Aventino 5 . On the other hand as great an authority as Verrius Flaccus apparently 109

thought that the dedication day of the temple fell on the first day of Quinquatrus, the dies natalis of Minerva herself, as given in a note in the Fasti Praenestini for 19th March: Artificium dies, [quod Minervae] aedis in Aventino [e]o di[e e]st [dedicata] 6, and in the passage on the Quinquatrus in his abbreviator Festus: Minervae autem dicatum eum diem existimant, quod eo die aedis eius in Aventino consecrata est7. Mommsen's attempt to refer both the dates to the Aventine temple, based on a fanciful distinction, in the calendars, between the temple's constitutio and dedicatio 8, is, of course, to be rejected. Aust's proposition to explain the two dates by a presumed Augustan rededication on 19th June 9, which would have replaced the original dies natalis of 19th March 10, is negated by the simple fact that the Fasti Praenestini were written down later than the Fasti Esquilini n . Festus' dating of the temple's dedication day on the Quinquatrus betrays a certain hesitatation 12, whether because of his inability to find a confirmation of this tradition in Varrò, as hypothesized by Torelli13, or simply because it was common knowledge that the dedication day of the Aventine temple of Minerva was 19th fune. More significant still is Ovid's passage on the first day, or rather the day of Quinquatrus 14. First, he emphasizes that this was the dies natalis of the goddess (v. 809-812), then he describes at length Minerva's role as the patroness of all crafts (v. 815-834), and finally speaks of the shrine of Minerva Capta (v. 835-848) 15, without the slightest allusion to the Aventine temple, which he mentions in due course on 19th June. Incredible as it may sound, Verrius Flaccus patently got his feasts of Minerva wrong, as already suggested by De Sanctis 16 and now shown by Torelli 17. In this particular case the confusion would have been occasioned by the central role of the Quinquatrus in the worship of Minerva, especially as this was the artificium dies, together with the fact that the Aventine temple was by far the goddess' chief sanctuary in Rome. It seems that the date of this temple could be defined more accurately through numismatic evidence. Whereas on the obverse of bronze coins minted ca. 300 Minerva is depicted in a classical fashion with an Attic helmet 18, on bronze coins of the Miner va/RoMANO series, struck at Cosa during the first Punic War, she wears a Corinthian helmet 19. This type later became the standard obverse of the Roman triens and dupondius 20, indicating the Romans' familiarity with the image that served as its model. The assumption that the type represented the cult statue of the Aven110

tine temple is therefore quite reasonable, particularly since the only earlier temple of Minerva in the City, a part of the sanctuary of the Capitoline Triad 21, certainly did not possess a cult statue of the Greek type. Crawford is most probably right when he suggests that, during the First Punic War, Cosa with the lagoon of Orbetello served as the training centre for the Roman fleet and that the huge issue of the Minerva/RoMANO coinage can best be explained by the need to pay the great numbers of sailors and oarsmen who manned the fleet 22. The Roman fleet-building project having been launched in 260 23, this date can be treated as the terminus post quern of the Minerva/RoMANO coinage, itself subsequent to the founding of the temple of Minerva in Aventino. As for the temple's terminus post quern, it may not be accidental that the goddess on the coins under discussion is practically identical with the Athena type very popular on Syracusan coins from the last third of the fourth century onwards 24. This might suggest that the Aventine temple of Minerva was vowed at the beginning of the First Punic War, probably in 263 or 262, by M\ Valerius Maximus Messala cos. 263 or one of the consuls of the following year, the conquerors of Akragas 25. Minerva worshipped on the Aventine was certainly of Greek origin: this is testified by her temple's role as the sacred place of actors and musicians. The inference that the temple was built of Syracusan or Akragantine spoils is thus quite probable, the more so as it would enable us to ascribe at least one major manubial foundation to the first phase of the First Punic War before the beginning of the naval warfare, when the Romans not only achieved spectacular successes, at least in 263 and 262, but also captured some particularly rich booty. The more exact location of the temple depends on where we situate fragment 22 of the Pianta Marmorea. Colini places it in the garden north of the church of S. Sabina (ex-Villa Balestra) 26. Recently Cassatella and Venditelli have proposed to situate the fragment immediately north of the Via S. Alberto Magno 27 though, to quote the authors, «soltanto una verifica sul terreno può fornirci dati sicuri circa la topografia di questa parte del colle» 28. For the time being, all that can be ascertained is that the temple of Minerva in Aventino stood in the north-western part of the hill close by the temples of Diana and Luna, as has always been known from the Regionary Catalogues 29 and Orosius' description of the fighting in 121 30. 1

Festus 446-448 L. Ill

2

Liv. 27.37.7. Ovid. Fasti 6.728. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 13. 5 /tts/f XIII 2, p. 88, 186-187. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 122-123. 7 Festus 306 L. 8 CIL I2 p. 312-313, 320. See also Hülsen-Jordan, p. 159 n. 24, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 428, 472. 9 We know that Augustus rebuilt this temple (RGDA 19.2: aedes Minervae... in Aventino I vaoùg 'Afrnväg... èv ' Aouevrivooi) but this does not necessarily imply its rededication on a different day. 10 Aust 1889, p. 19, 42, Wissowa 1912, p. 253. See also Girard 1981, p. 206. Schürmann 1985, p. 9, sticks to the Quinquatrus as the dedication day of the Aventine temple of Minerva. 11 See Hülsen-Jordan, p. 159 n. 24. 12 dicatum... existimant. 13 Torelli 1984, p. 55. 14 Ovid. Fasti 3.809-848. 15 See below, p. 113-114. 16 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 146 n. 73. 17 Torelli 1984, p. 54-55. 18 Crawford 1974, no. 2/1. 19 The type: Crawford 1974, no. 17; its dating: Crawford 1985, p. 38-39. 20 This is the best argument against Buttrey's view that the head on Minerva/RoMANO coins depicts Roma (Buttrey 1980, p. 22-23). 21 The shrine of Minerva Capta was not a temple and so had no cult statue, see below, p. 113-114. 22 Crawford 1985, p. 39. 23 Pol. 1.20.9; see Thiel 1954, p. 169-178. 24 See eg. Giesecke 1923, p. 64 and sqq. 25 Ap. Claudius Caudex cos. 264 is far less likely as a candidate, his Sicilian campaign having been essentially unsuccessful. See Thiel 1954, p. 160-163. 26 Colini in Pianta Marmorea, p. 79-80, see also Rodriguez Almeida 1980, p. 101. 27 Cassatella-Venditelli, passim. 28 Cassatella-Venditelli, p. 451. 29 Nordh 1949, p. 94: Armilustrum. Templum Dianae et Minervae... 30 See above, p. 100. 3

MINERVA CAPTA in Caelio Platner-Ashby, p. 343-344 Two ancient texts mention the shrine of Minerva Capta. The mention of the only sacrarium Argei of the regio Suburana quoted

112

by Varrò reads: Caeriolense quarticeps, circa Minervium qua in Caelium montem itur, in tabernola est l. Ovid ends his description of the Quinquatrus with the following verses 2 : Caelius ex alto qua mons descendit in aequum, hie, ubi non plana est, sed prope plana via, parva licet videas Captae delubra Minervae, quae dea natali coepit habere suo. Nominis in dubio causa est. Capitale vocamus ingenium sollers: ingeniosa dea est. An quia de capitis fertur sine matre paterni vertice cum clipeo prosiluisse suo? An quia perdomitis ad nos captiva Faliscis venit? Et hoc ipsum [or signo] littera prisca docet. An quod habet legem, capitis quae pendere poenas ex ilio iubeat furta recepta loco? From Jordan onwards, it has generally been agreed that Ovid's third explanation of the epithet Capta is the right one and that the Caelian cult of Minerva was brought to Rome from Falerii in 241 3 . This by now almost canonical stand has recently been contested by Torelli who observes that the phrase hoc ipsum [signo?] littera prisca docet, whatever it means, somehow did not prevent the poet from providing other explanations of the goddess' surname. This indicates that neither he nor the antiquaries on whose works he relied knew for certain what Capta stood for and what was the origin of the cult. In view of Ovid's well known Faliscan bias, the «historical» explanation is most probably his own addition to the antiquarian dossier on the etymology of Minerva Capta; as such, it is as probable, or rather improbable, as the other explanations he puts forward in the quoted passage 4 . I would add that Ovid's speculation about the shrine of Minerva Capta housing a Faliscan deity «captured» by the Romans - shown by Torelli to be an aetiological fantasy - is a decisive argument against the existence elsewhere in Rome of a cult of Minerva «evoked» from Falerii 5 : if there had been one, neither Ovid nor anyone else would have tried to explain the surname Capta by the Caelian Minerva's presumed Faliscan provenance. The last argument against Ovid's explanation is a passage in Macrobius stating that the main reason of evocatio was to make tutelar deities of an enemy city leave their abodes and come over to the Roman side, quod aut aliter urbem capi posse non crederne

ent, aut etiam, si posset, nefas aestimarent deos habere captivos 6 . Macrobius' source was Sammonicus Severus, an antiquary of the Severan epoch, who in turn relied on cuiusdam Furii vetustissimo libro 7 . This Furius is most probably to be identified with L. Furius Philus cos. 136 who, as Scipio's friend, may have participated in the siege of Carthage and witnessed the evocatio of the gods of that city by the Roman commander 8 . If so, Macrobius' text reflects the attitude of the second century Romans and thus deserves acceptance. But in its light Ovid's explanation of the epithet Capta once again comes out as unacceptable. As for the littera prisca on which the poet pretends to have based his proposal, it may not have been a total invention on his part. Torelli suggests a donarium of some kind, maybe a statue, captured in Falerii and offered to the Caelian Minerva by one of the consuls of 241 9 . This would provide a link between Falerii and Minerva Capta; at the same time, the antique form of the relevant inscription would have given an excuse for the poet if his explanation had been wrong, as most obviously was the case. Apart from demonstrating that the cult of Minerva Capta had nothing to do with the conquest of Falerii, Torelli's analysis carries another important implication: the shrine whose dedication was not recorded could not have been an aedes. In fact, in the list of the Argei, Minervium is the only shrine not labelled as aedes 10. Ovid, too, calls the shrine of Minerva Capta parva delubra. Although we cannot expect terminological precision in a poem, this wording, together with Ovid's other inconsistencies, pointed out by Torelli, also indicates that the shrine in question was not a temple u . Its inclusion in the calendars, where under 19th March we find in the Fasti Antiares Maiores: Minervae 12, and in the Fasti Farnesiani: Minerv[ae] 13, might indicate that it was not a mere sacellum either; the same might result from a sacrarium Argei having been set up in its vicinity. It would have been then, like the tigillum sororium, a once important shrine of great antiquity: this would have warranted its inclusion in the calendar 14 but also made its original character, somehow embodied in the epithet Capta, incomprehensible for future generations of Romans, even antiquaries. 1 2 3 4 5

114

Varrò LL 5.47. Ovid. Fasti 3.835-846. See above, p. 63-64. Torelli 1984, p. 52-53. Contra Torelli 1984, p. 53-54, who argues that, considering the

plebeian connotations of the hill, the temple of Minerva in Aventino was built by the plebeian consul of 241, Q. Lutatius Cerco, to house the Faliscan cult of the goddess. See below, p. 295-296. 6 Macr. Sat. 3.9.2. 7 Macr. Sat. 3.9.6. 8 Le Gall 1976, p. 521. 9 Torelli 1984, p. 53. 10 Varrò LL 5.47, 50, 52, 54. 11 This was already postulated by Wissowa in Roscher 1884-1921, II 2, c. 2984 s.v. Minerva, Römisches Staatskult. 12 Inslt XIII 2, p. 7. 13 Inslt Xlll 2, p. 225. 14 Schürmann 1985, p. 10 and n. 85, rejects 19th March as the dies natalis of the shrine of Minerva Capta, but see above, p. 109-110 and n. 10. There remains the possibility that the quoted entries in the Fasti Antiates Maiores and Farnesiani simply indicate the dies natalis of the goddess herself.

MINERVA MEDICA Esquiliis (?) Platner-Ashby, p. 344-345 The shrine of Minerva Medica stood in the Fifth Augustan Region (Esquiliae), as witnessed by the Regionary Catalogues 1: Notitia: Lacum Orfei. Macellum Liviani. Nymfeum divi Alexandri. Cohortem II vigilum. Herculem Sullanum. Hortos Pallantianos. Ampitheatrum Castrensem. Campum Viminalem. Subager. Minervam medicam. Isidem patriciam. Curiosum: Lacum Orfei. Macellum Liviani. Nymfeum Alexandri. Cohort. II vigilum. Ortos Pallatianos. Herculem Syllanum. Ampitheatrum castrensem. Campum Viminalem. Subager. Minerbam medicam. Insidem patriciam. Cicero's pun on the goddess' surname - sine medico medicinam dabit Minerva 2 - indicates that the cult of Minerva Medica was well established in Rome in the last years of the Republic. The discovery of 1887 of an exceptionally rich votive deposit 3 , including a third century dedication: [Me]nervae dono de[det] 4 , corroborated the existence of a shrine of the goddess in the MidRepublican period and made it possible to locate it south-east of the Sette Sale, between the Via Buonarotti and Via Macchiavelli, west of the Via Merulana, in the area where in 1867 a travertine statue of Minerva had already been found 5 . 115

The only sceptical voice has been that of Hülsen. Whereas in the sixth volume of CIL, published in 1902, he still accepted the above attribution of the find 6, five years later, in his volume of Jordan's Topographie, he interpreted the deposit not as a favissa of ex-vota but as «einem Depot von rifiuti der esquilinischen Töpfereien» 7. His argument was that the shrine of Minerva Medica, being the last but one monument of the Fifth Region in the Catalogues' list, would have stood together with the Isis patricia in the northernmost part of the regio which, in his opinion, had the Servian Wall as its western boundary 8. The rearrangement of the relevant fragments of the Pianta Marmorea by Rodriguez Almeida 9 has demonstrated the fallacy of Hülsen's preconceived idea and dispelled any last doubts about the temple's location, still voiced in Platner-Ashby 10. There remain the interlinked questions of the character of the shrine and its dating. Minerva Medica/Memor seems to have been an Italian variant of Athena Hygieia/Paionia n . The Greek provenance of the cult would suggest that it was an aedes publica: during the Middle and Late Republic Greek cults were usually introduced through temple foundations. An Imperial inscription mentioning a certain Cn. Vergilius Epaphroditus, magister odorarius a Minerva Medica I2, would also imply the importance of the shrine. As for its dating, the above mentioned votive material clearly indicates that it was founded in the third century or even earlier. The fact that we do not find a feast to Minerva Medica in the extant calendars 13 is no argument against the existence of her temple since, eg., no one negates the existence of the temples of Honos et Virtus merely because their dies natales have not been preserved 14. And yet, none of our sources speak of an aedes, or even templum or delubrum Minervae Medicae, and this, though hardly conclusive, is certainly significant. What is decisive, at least in my opinion, is Livy's passage on offerings made during the pestilence of 180 to health-bringing deities: C. Servilius pontifex maximus piacula trae deum conquirere iussus, decemviri libros inspicere, consul Apollini, Aesculapio Saluti dona vovere et dare signa inaurata: quae vovit deditque 15. There is little doubt that the decemvirs called to placate all the officially recognized health-bringing deities, yet Minerva Medica was not among them. It follows that the shrine of Minerva Medica was not a public temple 16. 1 2

116

Nordh 1949, p. 79-80. Cic. dediv. 2.123.

3

Gatti in BC 1887, p. 154-156, Visconti in BC 1887, p. 192-200, BC 1888, p. 124-126. 4 CIL VI 30980. 5 Helbig in Bulllst 1867, p. 141, see Visconti in BC 1887, p. 167. 6 CIL VI 30980 ad locum. 7 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 353 n. 26. 8 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 370-371. 9 See above, p. 69-70. 10 Platner-Ashby, p. 344-345. See now Coarelli 1985A, p. 210. 11 BC 1887, p. 155 (Gatti), 168 (Visconti). See also Latte 1960, p. 166. 12 CIL VI 10133. 13 Latte 1960, Der Römische Festkalendar, tentatively ascribes to Minerva Medica the feast of 19th June. This, however, is impossible, see above, p. 109-110. 14 See above, p. 58. 15 Liv. 40.37.2. 16 As perceived by Schürmann 1985, p. 10-11, who classifies it as «das Heiligtum» as opposed to «der Tempel».

NEPTUNUS in Circo Flaminio Platner-Ashby, p. 360-361 The temple of Neptunus in Circo Flaminio is first mentioned in connection with the prodigies of 206, by Livy (ara Neptuni multo manasse sudore in circo Flaminio dicebatur l) and Cassius Dio (lÒQum KoKkä) ai xe frugai ioti noceiòcoviov xai ó ßcofiog èggwi) 2 . Pliny locates the famous thiasos by Skopas in delubro Cn. Domitii in circo Flaminio 3 ; the temple in question is shown on an aureus of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus cos.32, struck ca. 41 and showing a tetrastyle temple with a legend NEPT above 4 . We also have an inscription commemorating an Imperial freedman, aedituus aedis Neptuni quae est in circo Flaminio 5 . According to Hülsen, «die ara Neptuni in circo Flaminio, von welcher Livius... ein Prodigium berichtet, kann aus chronologischen Gründen nichts mit dem delubrum Cn. Domitii zu thun haben 6 . It is true that the first Domitius Ahenobarbus who may have been the founder of a temple would have been the consul of 192. However, Hülsen overlooks Cassius Dio's account which clearly indicates the existence of a temple of Neptunus in 206 7 . But the question remains what does Pliny's delubrum Cn.Domitii stand for. It has been suggested, chiefly on account of the pre117

sumed connection of this temple with the so-called «ara Domitii Ahenobarbi», that the temple of Neptunus in Circo was restored by Cn.Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 122 cens.115 8. The only merit of this otherwise quite unsubstantiated proposal is its compliance with the fact that in 41, when Cn.Domitius cos.32 struck his coin, the temple of Neptunus must have already existed, otherwise his allusion would have been incomprehensible. But it is much simpler to date the first link between the Domitii Ahenobarbi and the temple of Neptunus to the period when the coin in question was struck. In 42 Cn.Domitius Ahenobarbus, then in command of the Republican fleet, won a crushing victory over the Caesarian armada led by Cn.Domitius Calvinus: a vow to Neptunus would have been the most natural, nay obvious thing in these circumstances9. The original temple must have been founded in 292-219, and since it seems only logical to attribute the vow to Neptunus to a general who obtained a triumphus navalis, we might tentatively date this temple to the years 257-228 10. In the calendars the dedication day of the temple of Neptunus in Circo is 1st December, see the Fasti Magistrorum Vici: [Nept]uno n , Fasti Oppiani: Neptuno 12, Fasti Amiternini: Neptuno, Pietati ad cir(cum) Flamin(ium) 13. If Cn.Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 32 rededicated this temple, he almost certainly retained the original dies natalis 14. The added entry in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for 23rd September mentioning a feast Marti, Neptuno in campo 15, cannot be quoted in support of a presumed Augustan rededication of the temple of Neptunus in Circo 16. First, the calendars which list the temple of Neptunus under 1 st December are either Augustan or Tiberian 17. Secondly, the temples of Neptunus in Circo and in Campo were obviously different structures, as pointed out by Wissowa and De Sanctis 18. In his account of the fire of A.D.80 Cassius Dio quotes the following monuments of the Campus Martius that perished in the conflagration: xai yàg xò ZeQCwieiov xai to ' Iceiov xà xe céjrxa xai xò Iloceiòcóviov xò xe ßakxveiov xò xov 'Ayginxov xai xò IMvfreiov xó xe oiQißixcoQiov 19. As can be seen, every safely identified structure built by Agrippa in the central Campus Martius is enumerated here, except for the Basilica Neptuni but with the addition of xò Iloceiòcóviov. The identification of the two is thereby obvious, especially in view of Cassius Dio's another passage, which under the year 25 relates to Agrippa's works in that area: xovxo \LEV yàg xf|v cxoàv xf|v xov Iloceiòcovog cbvo^acnévnv xai é£;cpxoòófiT]cev èjri xaig vauxQaxiaig 20. It is difficult to say whether the temple of Neptunus in Campo is to be identified with the Basilica Neptuni as such or 118

with a part of it. But just as the first of the quoted passages by Cassius Dio leaves no doubt about the sacral character of to Iloceiòarviov so the second, which emphasizes the role of the Basilica Neptuni as a memorial of Agrippa's naval victories, provides a link with the quoted entry in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium, in which the three patron deities of the victory of Actium are brought together on Augustus' birthday 21 . The temple of Neptunus in Campo being thus a separate structure, 1st December remains the only dies natalis that we can refer to the temple of Neptunus in Circo. The location of the temple, after its identification with the marble peripteros under the church of S. Salvatore in Campo 22 has been exploded by Zevi 23 , is uncertain. We know that it stood in the Circus Flaminius and that is all. 1

Liv. 28.11.4. Cass. Dio fr. 57, 60 (I p. 257 Boiss.). 3 Plin. NH 36.26. 4 Crawford 1974, no. 519/1. 5 CIL VI 8423. 6 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 523 n. 43, see also p. 485 n.39. 7 As has been hinted by Platner-Ashby, p. 360 s.v. Neptunus, ara, and explicitly stated by Castagnoli 1945, n.5. 8 See e.g. Castagnoli 1945, p. 181, Coarelli 1968, p. 305-306, 342343. 9 Thus Crawford 1974, no. 519 ad locum; see also Castagnoli 1945, p. 181. 10 See Degrassi XIII 1, p. 548-550. 11 Inslt XIII 2, p. 93. 12 Inslt XIII 2, p. 99. 13 Inslt XIÌÌ2, p. 198-199. 14 As a close friend of Antonius, Ahenobarbus would certainly have been able to realize his vow, but it is difficult to imagine that Caesar's heir would have allowed this particular temple to be rededicated on any day but the original dies natalis, the unpermissible alternative having surely been the anniversary of Ahenobarbus' victory. 15 See above, p. 101. 16 As does Gros 1976, p.33. 17 See above, p. 102 18 Wissowa 1912, p. 227, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 178 n. 188. See also Castagnoli 1948, p. 115 n. 2. 19 Cass. Dio 66.24.2. 20 Cass. Dio 53.27.1. 21 See above, p. 102-103. 22 Coarelli 1968, passim and bibliography. 23 Zevi 1976, p. 1057-1062. 2

119

NYMPHAE in Campo Martio Platner-Ashby, p. 363 The only ancient writer to. mention the temple of Nymphae is Cicero, always in the context of its having been burnt down by P. Clodius in order to destroy the state archives which had been kept there ! . Thus in pro Milone we read about eum, qui aedem Nympharum incendit, ut memoriam publicam recensionis tabulis publicis impressam extingueret 2; in pro Caelio it is Clodius' henchman, Sex. Clodius, qui aedis sacras, qui censum populi Romani, qui memoriam publicam suis manibus incendit3. The temple could thus have been built either in 292-219 or between 179/166 and the beginning of the first century. The temple's location is given in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for 23rd August: [Nymp]his in camp(p) 4. The fact that some censorial archives were kept there might suggest that the temple stood in the zone of the Villa Publica 5. Coarelli 6 and Nicolet7 propose to identify the temple of Nymphae with the structure brought to light during the widening of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure, first thought to be that of Bellona 8 or Volcanus 9 and then, much more soundly, identified by Cozza with the temple of Lares Permarini 10. Cozza's proposal is based on his joining fragment 322 of the Pianta Marmorea with letters MINI inscribed on it with fragment 35ee bearing a plan of a temple, no doubt that of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure. This temple must therefore have stood within the Porticus Minucia, and since the only temple located there by the extant sources was that of Lares Permarini (Fasti Praenestini for 22nd December: [Laribus Perm]arinis in porti[cu Mi]nucia) n , the identification of the two would appear certain. Coarelli replies that, first, the Fasti Praenestini had been compiled before the building of the Porticus Minucia Frumentaria: we cannot therefore mechanically transpose the information from the beginning of our era onto the reality of Severns' reign. Secondly, the great portico within which stood the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure was an Imperial extension to the east of a much smaller Republican structure enclosing the area sacra of the Largo Argentina. The Republican portico should thus be identified with the original Porticus Minucia, later called Porticus Minucia vetus as opposed to its eastern extension, the Porticus Minucia frumentaria 12. The temple of Lares Permarini is thus to be looked for within the precinct of the Largo Argentina and this unmistakably leads to its identification with Temple D of that area sacra 13. 120

The temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure had apparently three phases: the first, which cannot be earlier than the beginning of the second century, because opus caementicium was used in its construction; the second, dated to the end of the Republic; and the third, from the Flavian period 14. This last phase is no doubt to be connected with Domitian's reconstruction after the fire of A.D.80, but the intermediate second stage fits perfectly with the only known event in the history of the temple of Nymphae, ie. with the fire set by Clodius in 57-56 15. In fact, there is little doubt that all the enemies of Clodius, intransigent Optimates together with Pompeius' allies, rushed hand in hand to rebuild the temple so sacrilegiously destroyed by so impious a hand. The first phase neither precludes nor supports this identification, since we do not know when exactly the temple of Nymphae was founded 16. Assuming that all the Republican temples of the Campus Martius are mentioned in the extant sources, Coarelli's proposal is the only acceptable identification the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure 17 . The adoption of this identification would, however, date the temple of Nymphae to the second century, and thus place it outside the scope of the present study. 1

For the complete list of these passages, see Nicolet 1976, p. 39. Cic. pro Milone 73. 3 Cic. pro Caelio 78. 4 InsItXIU 2, p. 30-31. 5 Castagnoli 1948, p. 161. On Mommsen's identification of this temple with that of Iuturna, see above, p. 95. 6 Coarelli 1968A, p. 369-372, see Coarelli 1981. 7 Nicolet 1976, p. 37-40. 8 Colini in BC 66 (1938), p. 260. 9 Castagnoli 1948, p. 168 (very tentatively). 10 Cozza 1968, p. 3-17. 11 InsItXIU 2, p. 138-139. 12 Coarelli 1981, p. 34-36, see Manacorda 1982, p. 17-18, Manacorda 1987, p. 608. 13 Coarelli 1968A, p. 369-371, Coarelli 1981, p. 38. 14 Colini in BC 66 (1938), p. 260-261, Cozza 1968, p. 16-17, Coarelli 1965-67, p. 46-48, Coarelli 1968A, p. 371-372. 15 Nicolet 1976, p. 41-42. 16 As for stucco decorations of the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure featuring, among others, a head of a satyr or silenos, and Diana the huntress, I would hesitate to treat them as an argument for this structure's identification with the temple of Nymphae, as do Coarelli 1968A, p. 372 and Nicolet 1976, p. 38. 17 Of the two temples known to have been founded in the Campus 2

121

Martius during the second century that of Lares Permarini is the Temple D of the Largo Argentina and that of Fortuna Equestris stood by the Theatrum Pompei (Vitr. 3.3.2: Fórtunae Equèstris ad theatrum lapideum). This again leaves the undated temple of Nymphae as the only one that can possibly be identified with the structure in the Via delle Botteghe Oscure.

OPS OPIFERA in Capitolio Platner-Ashby, p. 372 The temple of Ops in Capitolio is first mentioned in connection with a prodigy of 186: addita et unum diem supplicatio est ex decreto pontifìcum, quod aedes Opis in Capitolio de caelo tacta erat K Pliny refers to the dedication of a temple of Ops in the passage on tongues: Metellum pontificem adeo inexplanatae [linguae] fuisse accipimus, ut multis mensibus tortus credatur, dum meditatur in dedicanda aede Opi fOpiferae dicere 2. In the extant calendars three shrines of Ops are mentioned on three separate days. On the Volcanalia, 23rd August, the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium mention a feast Opi Opifer(ae) [in---] 3. On the Opiconsivia, 25th August, the Fasti Vallenses read: Op[i] in Capitolio 4. Finally, on the Opalia, 19th December, in the Fasti Antiates Maiores we find: Opi 5, and in the Fasti Amiternini: Opi ad Forum 6. The Capitoline temple of Ops is mentioned several times in the extant sources, chiefly in connection with the treasure stored there by Caesar 7, but we also hear of equestrian statues set up on the Capitol by Q.Caecilius Metellus Scipio cos.52 in honour of his ancestors; at least one of them ab Opis parte posita in excelso est, says Cicero 8. It would thus be logical to infer that Livy and Pliny speak of the same temple, were it not for the calendars. The Fasti Vallenses mention the Capitoline temple of Ops on the Opiconsivia, which would imply that this temple was dedicated to Ops Consiva 9, whereas according to Pliny Metellus pontifex dedicated the temple of Ops Opifera. On the other hand, Coarelli points out that the well-informed and precise Fasti Fratrum Arvalium read under 25th August: [Opic(onsivia)] 10 np. Feriae Opi [Opi Cons(ivae)] in Regia, and that Varrò (Opeconsiva dies ab dea Ope Consiva, cuius in Regia sacrarium n ) and Festus (itaque ilia quoque [Ops] cognominatur Consiva, et esse existimatur terra. Ideoque in Regia colitur... 12) also link the feast of Opiconsivia with the goddess' sacrarium in the Regia 13. His conclusion is that, in the Fasti Vallenses, the 122

entry for 25th August is another error of the calendar well-known for its inaccuracies, and that the temple of Ops Opifera was dedicated on a different day; if so, then its identification with the temple dedicated by Metellus pontifex becomes very probable 14. Morgan finds this eminently sensible argument «muddled and unconvincing» 15, but fails to adduce proofs in support of his own view that «since it was not unknown for the same manifestation of a deity to be honoured on the same day in different parts of the city, probability definitely favours the conclusion that Ops Consiva was the tutelary goddess of the temple on the Capitol» 16. Having so easily disposed of Coarelli's criticism of the Fasti Vallenses, Morgan identifies the temple of Ops Opifera with the one whose dies natalis fell on 19th December since, to quote him once again, «the Fasti Amiternini record a temple of Ops Opifera with its anniversary on December 19 and sited ad forum» 17. But in this entry the Fasti Amiternini refer to Ops, not Ops Opifera. The only mention of Ops Opifera in the calendars is the 23rd August entry in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium 18; the location of her temple is missing, granted, but two days later, on the Opiconsivia, that most authoritative of Roman calendars mentions only the sacrarium of Ops Consiva in the Regia. The proximity of the two feasts makes it very probable that the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium and the Fasti Vallenses speak of the same temple whose full denomination could thus be reconstituted as Ops Opifera in Capitolio. As for its dies natalis, the day of Volcanalia, with no apparent connection with the cult of Ops, is to be preferred, apart from what has been said above about the credibility of the two calendars. A further argument is that since the Opiconsivia were celebrated in the Regia and since, on the Opalia, the calendars mention a shrine ad Forum, the Capitoline temple can only be linked with the entry on the Volcanalia, the dies natalis of the temple of Ops Opifera. Jordan's old proposition to supplement the missing location of the temple in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium with [in Capitolio] 19 thus seems to be the only acceptable solution 20. Either way, Livy's Capitoline temple of Ops and Pliny's temple of Ops Opifera dedicated by Metellus pontifex end up as one. According to Jordan, of the two Metelli pontifwes who come into account as possible founders of this temple, L. Caecilius Metellus cos.251, 247 is to be ruled out since Pliny himself, in a different part of his work, quotes his elogium, in which he is held optimum oratorem esse 21; we are thus left with L. Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus cos.119 22 . This by now orthodox view23 has recently 123

been contested by Coarelli and Morgan. Coarelli points out that, in the extant literary tradition, Metellus pontifex always denotes the consul of 251 and 247 24 . Morgan finds this to be pressing the evidence too hard 25 and. adduces a different argument. In his opinion, it is the contradiction between this Metellus5 reputation as a fine orator and the quoted anecdote that underlines Pliny's account - hence accipimus and credatur. Jordan's observation, far from ruling out the elder Metellus as the founder of the temple of Ops Opifera, actually supports him in this role 26 . In my opinion Morgan's argument is not very convincing but Coarelli's hits the mark. It might also be added that Metellus pontifex who dedicated a temple known to have existed in 186 should be identified with the consul of 251 rather than with the consul of 119. This principle also applies to Pouthier's hypothesis 27 that the Capitoline temple of Ops, built during the First Punic War 28 , was restored and rededicated by Delmaticus 29 : a dedication is the original dedication unless proven to be a rededication, which is not the case in this particular instance. The elder Metellus - victor of Panormos, the greatest land battle won by the Romans during the First Punic War - would have had both the occasion and means to vow and dedicate a temple to Ops 30 . Everything thus seems to lead to the conclusion that the Capitoline temple of Ops (Opifera) was founded by L. Caecilius Metellus cos.I 251, most probably in fulfilment of a vow made at Panormos in 250, and that it was dedicated on 23rd August. It must have stood near the temple of Fides, in the southern part of the Capitol 3 x, as witnessed by the copies of military diplomas whose originals were fastened there 32 . 1

Liv. 39.22.4. Plin. NH 11.174. InsItXIU 2, p. 30-31. 4 InsItXIU 2, p. 148-149. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 25. 6 InsItXIU 2, p. 198-199. 7 Sources in Platner-Ashby, p. 372. 8 Cic. ad Att. 6.1.17. 9 So Wissowa 1912, p. 203, 595, Latte 1960, p. 72-73, 440, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 503, Morgan 1973, p. 40-41, Pouthier 1981, p. 152-154. Platner-Ashby, p. 372, cannot make up their minds and remain undecided. 10 Inslt XIII 2, p. 30-31. 11 Varrò LL 6.21. 12 Festus 202 L. 2

3

124

13

Coarelli 1969, p. 148. Coarelli 1969, p. 148 and n. 3. 15 Morgan 1973, p. 40 n. 33. 16 Morgan 1973, p. 40. 17 Ibid. 18 Pouthier 1981, passim, esp. p. 178, argues that the entry in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for 23rd August does not refer to the dies natalis of the temple of Ops Opifera but to some «sacrifice du 23 aoüt au Forum», but his demonstration is of no consequence whatsoever. 19 Jordan 1877, p. 64-65. 20 Castagnoli 1948, p. 163, Coarelli 1969, p. 146-148. 21 VXm.NH 7.140. 22 Jordan 1872, p. 229-230. 23 It has been accepted by Wissowa 1912, p. 203, Platner-Ashby, p. 372, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 228, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 501, Latte 1960, p. 72 n. 2. 24 Coarelli 1969, p. 149 n. 1. 25 Morgan 1973, p. 36. 26 Morgan 1973, p. 36-37. 27 Pouthier 1981, passim. 28 According to Pouthier 1981, p. 142-145, the temple of Ops was founded by A. Atilius Caiatinus cos. 258, 254, the founder of the temples of Fides and Spes. His only concrete argument is the proximity of the temples of Ops and Fides, but on this basis we might as well argue that the temple of Ianus, Spes' closest neighbour until 194, was another foundation of Caiatinus. 29 Pouthier's observation that M. Aemilius Scaurus cos. 115, who rededicated the Capitoline temples of Fides and Mens, was Delmaticus' adflnis and colleague in censorship (Pouthier 1981, p. 188-190), though interesting, is hardly an argument for attributing the rededication of the temple of Ops to Delmaticus. 30 See Morgan 1973, p. 38. 31 Coarelli 1969, p. 150 and n. 1. On the identification of the temple above the area sacra of S. Omobono with that of Fides, not Ops, see above, p. 29-30. 32 CIL XVI 3: in Capitolio in aedem Opis in pronaevo latere dexter iore, CIL XVI 29: descriptum et reconditum ex tabula aenea quafixaest Romae in Capitolio intra ianum Opis ad latum dextrum. 14

OPS ad Forum Platner-Ashby, p. 372 If the identification of the Capitoline temple of Ops with the temple of Ops Opifera from Pliny's passage on Metellus pontifex and with the 23rd August entry in the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium is

125

correct, then, as shown by the Fasti Antiates Maiores and Amiternini for 19th December, at least since the turn of the second century there existed in Rome another temple of Ops located ad Forum l. Neither its dating nor its exact position can be specified more precisely. Ops was an archaic Roman deity 2 and this would favour early dating of the temple, but on the other hand a foundation to the patroness of abundant harvests could have taken place in any moment of Rome's history. Ops' later position of consort of Saturnus, identified with the Greek Rhea 3, would point to the neighbourhood of the altar and temple of Saturnus at the foot of the Capitol as the site of her temple, especially since the latter's dies natalis fell just two days after the Saturnalia. But this part of the Forum is quite well known and no vestiges that could be attributed to a Republican temple still standing in Tiberius' time have been found there. There remains another possible location: the setting up in A.D.7 of twin altars to Ceres Mater and Ops Augusta in vico lugario 4 might suggest that the temple of Ops ad forum stood on the southern, river-facing side of the piazza. 1 2

See above, p. 122-123. Varrò LL 5.74, quotes Ops among Sabine deities to whom T. Tatius erected altars after the peace with Romulus; see also Dion. Hal. 2.50.3; Augustin. CivDei 4.23. 3 Pouthier 1981, p. 123-135. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 493. See also Inslt XIII 1, p. 141; Cass. Dio 55.31.3-4.

PALES in Palatio (?) Platner-Ashby, p. 381 In Florus there is a mention of a temple vowed to Pales pastoria by M. Atilius Regulus cos.I 267 during a battle with the Sallentini: Sallentini Picentibus additi caputque regionis Brundisium inclito portu MAtilio duce. Et in hoc certamine victoriae pretium templum sibi pastoria Pales ultro poposcit l. His account is corroborated by the scholia on Vergil's invoking, in the Georgica, te quoque magna Pales2: [---appellatur] et Pales Matuta, cuius templum Atilius Regulus vovit àvriòiactéMcov, unde Magna Mat [er dicta est] 3, and Quare «magnam» dixit? Cum igitur Romani bellum contra Sallentinos habuissent Regulo consule, tempio ei a Regulo constituto Sallentini vieti sunt 4. 126

Things became complicated with the discovery of the Fasti Antiares Maiores, where under 7th July we read: Palibus II5. Mancini suggested that, there having probably been two homonymous deities called Pales, Regulus built two temples at one site, one for each 6 . In support of his hypothesis he quoted the entry in the same calendar for 1st August: Victor (iis) II, which stands for two neighbouring temples of Victoria 7. But Wissowa observed that, just as the two temples of Victoria were dedicated to one deity in different periods and by different persons, so the form Palibus II implies the existence of two temples of a single goddess Pales, one vowed by Regulus in 267, the other of unknown date and founder 8 . It seems that the controversy has been settled by Heurgon's noting, for the first time in this context, a passage from Varrò's Res Rustica: veni mi advocatus, dum asses solvo Palibus 9 . This has definitely proved that there were in fact two Pales, which in turn explains the entry in the Fasti Antiates Maiores 10. One could also add that Wissowa's statement that Victoriis II stood for two temples dedicated to one and the same deity is not entirely correct, because one was a foundation to Victoria and the other to Victoria Virgo. Instead of two temples of a single Pales, as hypothesized by Wissowa, we have a single temple of two Pales, as proposed by De Sanctis 11 and proved by Heurgon. The location of the temple is unknown, though the links between Pales, whether single or dual, and the Palatine 12, and the allusion to Magna Mater in the Scholia Veronensia 13, suggest that it stood on the lower slope of the hill, near the temple of Magna Mater. 1

Florus 1.15 (20). Vergil. Georg. 3.1. Schol. Veronen. ad Verg. Georg. 3.1. 4 Schol. Berrien, ad Verg. Georg. 3.1. 5 Irish XIII 2, p. 14. 6 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 101-102. 7 See below, p. 172-174. 8 Wissowa 1923, p. 389. 9 Varrò RR 2.5.1. 10 Heurgon 1951, see Degrassi in Irish XIII 2, p. 479. 11 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 225-228 and p. 225 n. 421. 12 See esp. Tibull. 2.5.23-28. The whole problem is best treated in De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 225-226, Rohde in RE 18.3 (1949), c.89-97 s.v. Pales, esp. c.94-96. 13 See above and n. 3. 2

3

127

PENATES in Velia Platner-Ashby, p. 388-389 The temple of Dii Penates is first mentioned in Varrò's list of the Argei: Veliense sexticeps in Velia apud aedem deum Penatium l; this indicates that the temple was already standing in the third century. The Fasti Viae Ardeatinae give 14th October as the dies natalis of [---] Penat(ibus] in Velia 2. In the Res gestae Augustus quotes this temple among his foundations 3, hence it is impossible to ascertain whether 14th October was the original dedication day of the temple 4. Zevi dates the temple to the royal period 5, first on account of its location («la Velia è sede di antichi culti latini» 6 ), and secondly on the basis of Dionysios' description of its cult statues: elei òè veavicu avo Kafìf\\iEvoi òÓQaxa oieiAncpoxec;, xfjg Kakaiäc; egya xé%vr\q («sembra diffìcile che immagini eseguite per un tempio di età ellenistica, o rifatto interamente in età ellenistica, abbiano potuto esser scambiate da Dionigi per arcaiche» 8 ). Without wishing to step into the maze of discussion on the origin of the cult of Dii Penates in general 9, and Zevi's patently erroneous thesis about the Alban origin of the Velia Penates in particular 10, I only want to point out two things. First, the fact that a temple was built in an old sacred place, be it even a regia or the area of a sacrarium Argei, does not mean that this temple was an archaic foundation; it may only mean that the cult in question reached back to the Archaic period. Zevi himself seems to be aware on the feebleness of the hypothesis pushing a Roman temple back to the eighth century; this is why he speaks of a «sacello veliense», which is a misleading understatement if applied to the sanctuary called by Varrò aedes deum Penatium and housing cult statues of the gods. This brings us to Zevi's second argument, xfjg jtataxias egya téxvrjg most probably means that the cult statues of Penates in this temple were made of terracotta, like nearly all Roman simulacra deorum up to the war with Antiochos 1 ] . In the time of Augustus cult statues made of this material must have been considered very antique indeed, hence Dionysios' remark. All this considered, we can safely date the temple of Penates in Velia to the years 292-219. Latin sources locate the temple simply in Velia 12. Dionysios, writing for the Greeks ignorant of the City's topography, is our only authority to specify the temple's site more accurately: veòg èv c Pecari òeixvuxcu xfjg àyogóig ov JTQÓCCO xaxà xf|v èm Kagivag cpégoucav èmxo|biov óòòvtijteQoxfjcxoxeivòg iògujAévog oì> jLiéyag. 128

Xéyexai òe xaxà xf|V èmxoÓQiov ykcbxiav tiji'OùeXicag xò 13 . Another, much more vague indication of the temple's location is Donatus quoting Varrò on the scalae deum Penatium, no doubt leading to our temple: Varrò humanarum rerum «Numerius Equitius Cuppes» inquit «et Manius Macellus, singulari latrocinio, multa loca habuerunt infesta. His in exsilium actis bona publicata sunt, aedes ubi habitabant dirutae eque ea pecunia scalae deum Penatium aedificatae sunt» 14. Dionysios' phrase vn'OvEkiaic, suggests that the temple stood at the foot of the Velia; the same ensues from the shrine's location in the street leading to the Carinae, which surely followed the foot of the hill. Together with the Latin location in Velia and with Varrò's remark about the scalae deum Penatium, this would indicate that the temple stood on the lower slope of the Velia, slightly above the street which skirted the foot of the hill and from which it was reached by the scalae deum Penatium. Since the Sacra Via, which also connected the Forum area with the Carinae, skirted the southern and eastern slope of the Velia 15, the street mentioned by Dionysios could only run round the northern and, possibly, western side of the hill 16. Its lower course is commonly identified with the paved track whose remains are visible between the «temple of Romulus» and the Basilica Maxentii (the so-called «Vicus ad Carinas») 17. It would thus seem that in the light of ancient literary sources the temple of Penates could have stood anywhere on the lower slope of the Velia, western or northern; as for archaeological evidence, no remains of the temple have yet been identified 18. Castagnoli 19 and Coarelli 20 have attempted to pinpoint the temple's site. The former observes that Dionysios also used the words TJJTO OueMag to situate the burial ground of P. Valerius Poplicola and of later generations of the gens Valeria 21. A fragment of an elogium of M. Valerius Messala Corvinus and his father, found close by the north-western angle of the Basilica Maxentii 22, would indicate that this site lay at the foot of the northern slope of the Velia. The location ìfjt'OùeXiaig would therefore have been applied in antiquity to that part of the hill 23. It is there that we should locate the temple of Penates. Coarelli interprets Dionysios' information about the temple having stood not far (ov Jtoocco) from the Forum as the historian's intentional indication that the shrine stood closer to the Forum than to the Carinae. We should therefore, in his opinion, look for the temple's site in the section of the «Vicus ad Carinas» closest to the Forum, ie. near this street's junction with the Sacra XCOQLOV

129

Via 24. The most probable site of the temple would be the western apse of the Basilica Maxentii; after the construction of the latter, Penates would have been worshipped in the «temple of Romulus» 25. Both these arguments are open to doubt. Castagnoli's does not seem convincing because the location irn'OoeXiaig and its Latin equivalents, sub Velia and sub Veliis, could surely apply to any markedly lower part of the hill. According to this author, if the temple stood on the southern slope, it would have been located in Sacra Via whereas in the Roman toponymy the two designations are always carefully distinguished 26. However, only those structures directly abutting on the Sacred Way would have stood in Sacra Via; those which did not would have been qualified as standing in Velia or, for that matter, sub Veliis, even if situated on the southern slope of the hill. Coarelli's proposal seems therefore quite acceptable, also because the site where he locates the temple of Penates abutted on the track which might have been a section of Dionysios' street em Kagivac;. But Coarelli's inference goes too far, too. Dionysios does not say that the temple of Penates stood closer to the Forum than to the Carinae, he only explains to his Greek audience that it stood 1) not far away from the Forum (which surely conveyed something to his readers), 2) in the street leading to the Carinae (which almost certainly did not), and 3) at the foot of the hill called Velia in the native tongue (ie. in Latin - here the very wording clearly indicates that he assumed his audience's total ignorance of the site). Besides, Coarelli contradicts himself when he explains Dionysios' alleged pinpointing of the temple's site by the «relativa lunghezza» of the street otherwise qualified by the Greek historian (and by himself) as a «short-cut», fudging by Dionysios' account, the temple could have stood anywhere in the street èm Kagivag, not necessarily at the end closest to the Forum, wherever that end is to be situated. Coarelli's other argument is as follows 27. First, ancient writers describe Poplicola's first house as standing «near the Forum», «overlooking the Forum» 28, which again would imply a site on the south-western slope of the Velia, close to the Sacra Via. Secondly, in his opinion it can be shown that the house and the temple of Penates stood side by side. Cicero writes about Poplicola and his first domicile quod in excelsiore loco Veliae coepisset aedifware eo ipso ubi rex Tullus habitaverat 29, whereas other writers, from Varrò onwards, situate Tullus Hostilius' regia on the site of the temple of Penates 30. This would imply that the temple, 130

built on the traditional site of Tullus' residence, was a close neighbour of Poplicola's first house. The temple of Penates would have also stood «near the Forum», «overlooking the Forum», which can only indicate a site at the south-eastern foot of the hill, close to the Sacra Via. A closer look at the texts adduced by Coarelli in support of his reasoning demonstrates that they do not warrant the conclusions he arrives at. Neither Dionysios nor Plutarch say that Poplicola's house stood in the part of the Velia closest to the Forum. The former simply says that the house stood on the hill called Velia and that this hill, not the house, lay near the Forum (èv èjuqptìóvcp TÓjicp xaxecxeudcaxo Xócpov i)jteQxei|ievov xfjg àyogag inpT^ov èjtieixwg xai JIEQIXO^OV, öv xataräci 'Pcofiaioi OVEXÌOLV) 31. According to Plutarch, Poplicola lived on the so-called Velia, in a house which dominated the Forum and made it possible to keep it under surveillance (imèg xf|v xakyufiévev Ovekiav oixiav emxoe\ia\iévr\v xfj àyogqi xai xafroQóucav eE, ih|>oijg àjiavxa) 32 on account, however, not of its vicinity to the Forum but of its having been built on the top of the hill (ÒUCJIQÓCOÒOV òè jteXdcai xai Xa^8jrf|v 8§arfrev) 33. Latin authors also locate Poplicola's house on the summit of the Velia 34. The highest part of the hill lay immediately north-east of the northern apse of the Basilica Maxentii 35; it is there, and not in the Basilica's western apse, that we should situate the traditional site of Poplicola's first house. Yet most of all, the argument based on reconciling the two traditions on Tullus' regia is beside the point since these traditions are evidently rival and thus irreconciliable 36. One, represented by Cicero, situated the regia on the top of the Velia, on the site otherwise associated with Poplicola's first house; the other, which later became canonical, located it on the site of the temple of Penates on the lower slope of the hill. The two sites were the most important places of the Velia, one because of its natural position, the other as the seat of the chief cult of the hill, so it is easy to understand why, once the legend about Tullus Hostilius' regia on the Velia had taken roots, the tradition on its exact location oscillated between them. Coarelli's inference: «la posizione del Tempio dei Penati e quella della casa di Valerio Poplicola praticamente coincidevano per gli scrittori di età tardo-repubblicana» 37, is not borne out by the texts. Only if it can ever be demonstrated that the «temple of Romulus» housed the cult of Penates 38, will Coarelli's location of these deities' original temple gain the support which literary evidence does not provide. I think that it would be more promising to try to reconstruct in 131

greater detail the course of the street in which the temple of Penates stood. As said above, Dionysios locates it xaxà tfrv em Kagivag cpegoucav èmxouov óòóv. Now, the temple of Tellus is situated by this author xaxà xf|v èm Kagivag qpegovcav óòóv 39. The two temples were pretty close neighbours anyway, one located in Velia and the other in Carinis 40, but Dionysios' wording - exactly the same except for the adjective emxouog, used only in relation to the temple of Penates - implies, or perhaps should imply, that they stood in the same street. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that Dionysios describes with identical words two different streets leading to the Carinae; yet, in the only passage mentioning a still different street leading to this district, he describes it in entirely different words (see below). Besides, the fact that he locates the temple actually standing on the Carinae as lying in the street leading em Kagivag would again imply that with this particular wording he denotes one particular street. It seems therefore that we have every reason to assume that the temples of Penates and Tellus stood in the same street. What we know about the street em Kagivag is that it was a short-cut, that it led to the Carinae from the general direction of the Forum and that it certainly skirted the northern, and possibly also the western, slope of the Velia; the basis of the argument that follows is that both temples stood in that street 41. The majority of our sources locate the temple of Tellus simply in Carinis, the only texts providing more specific information being Dionysios and the Regionary Catalogues. Dionysios says that after the death of Sp.Cassius the ground on which the latter's house had stood remained unoccupied until his time E%O xoi) veò) tfjg Tfjg, öv iicxegoig r\ jróXig naxecnevace xQÓvoig èv \IEQEI xivi aìjxfjg xaxà xf|v èm Kagivag qpegoucav óòòv 42. In the Regionary Catalogues, the beginning of the description of the Fourth Region (Templum Pads) is as follows 43: Notitia: Porticum absidatam. Aream Vulcani. Auram. Bucinum. Apollinem sandaliarium. Templum Telluris. Horrea chartaria. Tigillum sororium. Curiosum: Porticum absidatum. Aurafm]. Bucinum. Apollinem Sandaliar[i]um. Templum Telluris. Tigillum sor or urn. Except for the tigillum sororium, approximately located thanks to the finding of the compitum Acilii 44, the position of all the structures listed above is uncertain; all that can be said is that they stood in the northern part of the Fourth Region, between the 132

Templum Pacis and the Basilica Maexentii to the south and west, and the fork of the Argiletum and the eminence of S. Pietro in Vincoli to the north and east 45. The other important point is that the Catalogues were compiled more than three hundred years after Dionysios' day, and we know that in the meantime the whole of the Fourth Region underwent a series of radical transformations. The finding of the compitum Acilii 46 clarified a number of questions concerning the topography of the Velia and the Carinae. Dionysios describes in the following words the street on which stood the compitum (before its destruction in the fire of A.D. 64?): ecxi [tigillum sororium] ò' èv xa> cxevomcp x(b qpegovxi curò K(XQivr]g xdxoo xoig em xòv KUJIQIOV ègxouivoig cxevomóv 47. These words have often been misunderstood as signifying that the Vicus Cuprius was an extension of the street in which the tigillum sororium stood, but Livy's account of Tullia's route home after the death of her father proves that the two streets intersected. In his account Tullia, having come to the Curia and hailed Tarquinius as king, a quo facessere iussa ex tanto tumultu cum se domum reciperet pervenissetque ad summum Cyprium vicum, ubi Dianium nuper fuit, flectenti carpentum dextra in Urbium clivum, ut in collem Esquiliarum eveheretur 48... The fact that the queen returning from the Curia turned right from the Vicus Cuprius in order to reach the Esquiline ( = Oppius) indicates that this street ran along the north-western slope of the hill, parallel to the Argiletum. The Vicus Cuprius can therefore be safely identified as the forerunner of the modern Via Frangipane (see fig. 3 [p. 294]). The tigillum sororium stood ad compitum Acilii 49, ie. on the southern edge of the saddle between the Velia and the Oppius, overlooking the valley of the Colosseum 50. The street which led thence towards the Vicus Cuprius had to traverse the whole width of the saddle, from south-east to north-west51. As such, it can only be identified with the predecessor of the paved track of the Imperial period that followed the course of the present-day upper Via del Colosseo and Via del Cardello 52. Two inscriptions found by the compitum and dedicated by magistri vici compiti Adii (one of them dated to the year 5) 53 indicate that in Dionysios' day the name of the street was Vicus Compiti Acilii54, at least down to the intersection with the Vicus Cuprius. The different orientation of the compitum in relation to the Imperial track suggests that originally the street followed a slightly different, more westward course than its post-Neronian successor, at least at its southern end. 133

There is little doubt that in Dionysios' account cxevoojtog in which stood the tigillum sororium is not the óòòg in which he locates the temples of Penates and Teilus, and which must have skirted the northern foot of the Velia, just as the western section of the Via del Colosseo does today. We can therefore conclude that Dionysios' street EJII Kagivag joined the Vicus Compiti Acilii close to, if not right at the spot where the Via del Colosseo merges with the Via del Cardello. Only the section of the Via del Colosseo west of the confluence is to be identified with that street. There remains the question as to where the other end of the street èjtl KaQivac; should be situated. As noted above, it is commonly assumed that the so-called «Vicus ad Carinas» reached the Sacra Via and that its extreme south-western section should be identified with the paved track between the Basilica Maxentii and the «temple of Romulus». Yet on the other hand Dionysios calls the street em Kaoivag: èjtixouog óòóg, and I am not sure whether a track skirting both the northern and western slopes of the Velia would have deserved such a qualification. The street would in that case have consisted of two distinct sections meeting at an almost right angle, one broadly corresponding with the Via del Colosseo and the other with the Via del Tempio della Pace. The appellation «short-cut» is naturally very vague; we also do not know the exact course of the streets in Dionysios' days 55. But one thing is obvious: as regards the urban street pattern, the ancient forerunner of the Via del Tempio della Pace was first and foremost the beginning of an important artery leading from the Sacra Via towards the eminence of S. Pietro in Vincoli without, however, reaching beyond its foot. We learn from Livy that Tullia turned into the Clivus Orbius at the end of the Vicus Cuprius {ad summum Cyprium vicum); we also know that she was then on her way home. The antiquaries situated the regia of Tarquinius Superbus supra clivum Pullium ad Fagutalem lucum 56, ie. somewhere in the vicinity of S. Pietro in Vincoli. This clearly indicates that there was no direct ascent from the Vicus Cuprius to the Fagutal 57; one negotiated the slope by taking at least two turns: first to the right, from the Vicus Cuprius into the Clivus Orbius, than to the left, most probably into the Clivus Pullius. The turning mentioned by Livy could not lie farther up than the foot of the eminence of S. Pietro in Vincoli: thus, the Vicus Cuprius extended northwards only up to this point. If an analogy with the Argiletum, its twin street leading from the Forum through the valley of Subura and ending against the spur of the Cispius, is of any value, we should rather expect the name of Vicus Cuprius to cover the whole track 134

which led from the Sacra Via along the Velia and the Carinae on the right and the Cometa and the Macellum on the left, and terminated against the steepening slope of the Fagutal. But there is another argument for stretching the Vicus Cuprius down to the Sacra Via. According to Varrò, vicus Ciprius a cipro, quod ibi Sabini cives additi consederunt, qui a bono ornine id appellarunt: nam ciprum Sabine bonum 58 . Palmer deserves the credit for connecting this passage with the tradition on the burial ground of the gens Valeria and with the elogium of the Valerii Messalae found north of the Basilica Maxentii 59 . The Valerii, Sabini cives par excellence, would have been thought by the later tradition, whether rightly or wrongly, to have had their earliest dwellings in that street 60 : the Vicus Cuprius would therefore have extended southwards at least as far as the northern slope of the Velia. It would be strange if the last hundred metres or so of the artery had borne a different name than the remaining part. If all this is correct, the street ejti Kagivag would have been no more than a short-cut connecting the Vicus Cuprius and the Vicus Compiti Acilii along the northern slope of the Velia, corresponding with the central section of the Via del Colosseo between its intersection with the Via del Cardello and with the Via del Tempio della Pace - a truly emtouoc; óòóg. The temple of Penates would in this case have stood above its western end, close to its confluence with the Vicus Cuprius. [Thus my location of the temple of Penates is the same as Castagnoli's, though I have come to it by a different route]. 1

Varrò LL 5.54. Inslt XIII 2, p. 154. 3 RGDA 19.2. See n. 12. 4 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 521, is of the opinion that 14th October was the original dies natalis. 5 Zevi 1981, p. 156-158. 6 Zevi 1981, p. 157. 7 Dion. Hal. 1.68.2. 8 Zevi 1981, p. 157. 9 See now Radke 1981, Luschi 1984, p. 53 n. 24, 25. 10 According to Zevi these were Dii Penates of Alba Longa, brought to Rome by Tullus Hostilius. Apart from everything else, this presupposes the existence of Alba Longa, whose ghost has now been exorcised, let us hope for good, by Grandazzi 1986. 11 Dii Penates from the relief on the Ara Pacis look throughly hellenized, but this is not an argument since we do not know whether they 2

135

represent the original cult statues or new effigies set up during the Augustan restoration; we do not even know whether the reliefs topographical setting is Rome or Lavinium. 12 Varrò LL 5.54.1 (see above); RGDA 19.2: aedem deum Penatium in Velia I ftewv xaxoixiouov èv OòeXCai. See Varrò ap. Non. 531. 19M; Solin. 1.22. 13 Dion. Hal. 1.68.1. In the Mss the temple is located M'èXaioog or VKeXaiaic, (hence Jacoby's tift* Ekxiag, accepted by Lugli 1953-69, III p. 280 no. 106). Jordan's reading VKÒ OùeXicug or vrtOveXiau;, (Jordan 1871-85, I 2, p. 417 n. 132) is clearly the only acceptable one. 14 Varrò ap. Donat. ad Ter. Eun. 2.2.25. 15 See now Cassatella 1985. 16 A street other than the Sacra Via running at the foot of the Velia towards the Carinae had to follow the northern foot of the hill; a street skirting the western slope did not lead to the Carinae unless it constituted a part of an artery which also comprised the northern track. 17 Colini 1937, p. 38, Colini 1961-62, p. 148-149, 157. 18 Platner-Ashby, p. 388-389. 19 Castagnoli 1946, see also Castagnoli 1982, Castagnoli 1983. 20 Coarelli 1986A, p. 1-20. 21 Dion. Ha. 5.48.3: cvveyyvq xfjg ayoQcxg àjcéòei^ev VKÒ OveXiaq, see Plut. quaest. Rom. 79. 22 Inslt XIII 3, 77. The stone bearing the inscription was re-used in a later edifice, so it is impossible to specify more accurately its original site. 23 Castagnoli 1946, p. 158-160. 24 Coarelli 1968A, p. 6. 25 Coarelli 1983, p. 49, Coarelli 1986A, p. 20. 26 Castagnoli 1946, p. 159-160. 27 Coarelli 1986A, p. 6-7. 28 Dion. Hal. 5.19.1: IJ:IX£QX£1|LIEVOV xfjg àyogag; Plut. Popi. 10. 3: èjtiHQafia|LiévT)v xfj àyoQy. 29 Cic. de rep. 2.53. 30 Varrò ap. Non. 531.19M; Solin. 1.22. Liv. 1.30.1 and Dion. Hal. 3.1.5, situate Tullus' regia on the Caelian. 31 Dion. Hal. 5.19.1. 32 Plut. Popi. 10.3. 33 Ibid. 34 Cic. de rep. 2.53 (see above); Liv. 2.7.6: in summa Velia ibi alto atque munito loco arcem inexpugnabilem) Val. Max. 4.1.1.: excelsiore loco... instar arcis; de vir. ill. 15.2: in Velia tutissimo loco. 35 Reina 1911, pi. II, V. See also Castagnoli 1946, p. 163, Castagnoli 1983, p. 284 fig. 7. 36 Just as cannot be reconciled tirc'OtteXiaig and VJIZQ OveXiav. 37 Coarelli 1986A, p. 7. 38 For recent discussion on the nature of the «temple of Romulus»,

136

see Talamo 1980, Castagnoli 1983, Luschi 1984, Coarelli 1986A, p. 1120. 39 Dion. Ha. 8.79.3. 40 I am putting aside for a moment the question of whether the border line between the Velia and the Carinae ran along the Via del Colosseo, as most scholars maintain (see now Colini 1983, p. 140-141, Pisani Sartorio 1983, p. 163), or at the back of the Basilica Maxentii, as argued by Coarelli 1983, p. 18-19, Coarelli 1986A, p. 24, or between the two. See n, 51. 41 Thus already Jordan 1871-85, I 2, p. 417. 42 Dion. Ha. 8.79.3. 43 Nordh 1949, p. 77-78. 44 See n. 46, 49. 45 Rodriguez Almeida 1981, p. 88-91. 46 Colini 1961-62, passim, esp. p. 149 fig. 4. See also Nash 1968, I p. 290-291. 47 Dion. Hal. 3.22.8. 48 Liv. 1.48.6. See Varrò LL 5.159.2-3. 49 Fasti Fratrum Arvalium for 1st October: tigillo soror(io) ad compitimi Adii (Inslt XIII 2, p. 36-37). 50 See Cassatella 1985, p. 104-105. 51 The other thing we learn from Dionysios is that the street in which the tigillum sororium stood descended towards the Vicus Cuprius from the Carinae: the Carinae were therefore this very saddle. Without forejudging how far they spread towards the Velia and the Oppius, we can safely state that the street in question and buildings abutting it, like the tigillum sororium or the compitum Acilii, lay on the Carinae. 52 Lanciani FUR, pi. 22, 29. 53 Tamassia 1961-62, see Marlin in AnnEpigr 1964, no. 74, p. 3233. 54 Colini 1961-62, p. 155-156. 55 As recently demonstrated by Pallarès5 findings under the pavement of the «Vicus and Carinas». 56 Solin. 1.26. For reading lucum instead of lacum, see HülsenJordan, p. 257. 57 Or perhaps, more cautiously, no direct ascent for a carpentum. There may have existed a lane by which a pedestrian could reach the top of the Fagutal straight from the valley below, but even this lane would not have been a part of the Vicus Cuprius. 58 Varrò LL 5.159.2. 59 Palmer 1973, p. 373. 60 It goes without saying that the fragment of the elogium of the Valerii Messalae, not found in situ, only corroborates the tradition of the burial ground of the gens Valeria at the foot of the Velia, but by itself does not indicate its site.

137

PORTUNUS in Portu Platner-Ashby, p. 430-431 (s.v. Portunium) Varrò explains that Portunalia dicta a Portuno, cui eo die aedes in portu Tiberino facta est et feriae institutae ]. On the Portunalia, 17th August, the Fasti Vallenses read: Portuno [a]d pontem Aemilii 2, the Fasti Allifani and Amiternini: Portuno ad pontem Aemilium 3. The sources do not specify the date of the temple's construction. Its position is pinpointed by the calendars and the list of monuments of the Eleventh Region (Circus Maximus) in the Notitia, where Fortunium, rightly read Portunium by Hülsen 4, is preceded by Herculem Olivarium and followed by Velabrum 5. But it was only in 1925 that Marchetti Longhi first identified the shrine of Portunus with the rectangular temple in the Piazza Bocca della Verità 6, though even then Hülsen's identification with the round temple on the Tiber had the greatest following 7. The discovery of the twin temples of S. Omobono and their identification by Colini as the Servian foundations to Mater Matuta and Fortuna finally disproved the old attribution of the rectangular temple to «Fortuna Virilis» 8 and decisively corroborated Marchetti Longhi's view; today practically no one doubts the structure's identification with the temple of Portunus 9. The identification of the temple makes it possible to date it to the third century. The excavations of 1936-37 and 1947-48 revealed the existence of a high podium, larger than the one visible today, more than six metres below the present structure 10. Numerous pottery fragments, found in the infill of the enbankment on which the rectangular temple had been built 11, provide an approximate date of its construction: 292-219. It seems that the time limits of this temple's founding can be narrowed further. In the extant calendars the dies natalis of Portunus precedes that of Ianus, whose temple was also dedicated on the Portunalia 12. Although relative dating of temples according to the order in which they are enumerated in the calendars is treacherous, the fact that both the temples were dedicated on the Portunalia strongly suggests that Portunus received his shrine before Ianus. As pointed out by De Sanctis, it is difficult to imagine that Ianus would have been given a temple on the Portunalia earlier than the patron deity of the day 13. The Portus Tiberinus must have been constructed some time at the beginning of the third century: the temple of Portunus, located in Portu and 138

dedicated on the Portunalia, probably crowned that great work 14. It seems therefore that the temple of Portunus was built after the break of Livy's narrative in 293 and before the vowing of the temple of Ianus in 260. 1

Varrò LL 6.19. Irish XIII 2, p. 148-149. Irish XIII 2, p. 180-181, 190-191. 4 Hülsen 1896, p. 262. Nordh 1949, p. 91, omits this entry, while Buzzetti judges it «extremely doubtful» (Colini-Buzzetti, p. 21. 5 Nordh 1949, p. 91. 6 Marchetti Longhi 1925, passim, esp. p. 343-350. 7 Hülsen 1896, p. 263, see Platner-Ashby, p. 431 and even Nash 1968, I p. 411 (still hesitating between the two temples of the Piazza Bocca della Verità). 8 Lyngby 1954, p. 35-40, see now Lugli 1970, p. 308, Coarelli 1985A, p. 320, Colini-Buzzetti, Ruggiero 1987. 9 One sceptical voice is that of Lisi Caronna in NS 1977, p. 299-325, who stubbornly refers to the «tempio ed. della Fortuna Virile» and quotes Marchetti Longhi in support of this identification, though she grudgingly admits that «la critica moderna è propensa a considerarlo [the rectangular temple] tempio di Portuno» (p. 299 n. 1). 10 Colini-Buzzetti, see also Lissi Caronna in NS 1977, p. 320 and n. 29, Coarelli in Roma medio-repubblicana, p. 106. 11 Roma medio-repubblicana, p. 106-111, see also Gros-Adam. 12 See above, p. 61. 13 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 215. 14 Colini 1986, see Colini-Buzzetti. 2

3

QUIRINUS in Colle Quirinali Platner-Ashby, p. 438-439 There are two accounts of the founding of the temple of Quirinus. Livy reports under 293 that the consul L.Papirius Cursor aedem Quirini dedicavit, quam in ipsa dimicatione votam apud neminem veterem auctorem invenio (neque hercule tarn exiguo tempore perficere potuisset), ab dictatore patre votam filius consul dedicavit exornavitque hostium spoliis l. Pliny reads: princeps solarium horologium statuisse ante XII annos quam cum Pyrro bellatum est ad aedem Quririni L.Papirius Cursor, cum earn dedicaret a patre suo votam, a Fabio Vestale proditur 2 . Livy's account indicates that L.Papirius Cursor cos.I 326 vowed the temple in 325, during his famous dictatorship 3 , though the historian is sure only of the date of the dedication.

139

The extant sources give two dies natales of the temple. On the Quirinalia, 17th February, the Fasti Antiares Maiores read: [Qui]rino 4, Fasti Caeretani: Quirino in colle 5, Fasti Farnesiani: Quirino in collie) 6. Ovid relates on this day Romulus' disappearance and his subsequent epiphany to Proculus Iulius as Quirinus, and adds: tempia deo fiunt collis quoque dictus ab ilio est7. Under 29th June, the Fasti Venusini read: Quirino in coll(e) 8, while in Ovid's Fasti we find: tot restant de mense dies quot nomina Parcis, cum data sunt trabeae tempia, Quirine, tuae 9. According to Wissowa, the original dies natalis was 29th June whereas 17th February stands for the Augustan rededication 10. But already Mommsen pointed out that 29th June, added to the Roman calendar by Caesar, could not have been the dedication day of the third century temple n . The finding of the pre-Caesarian Fasti Antiares Maiores fully vindicated his view 12. The location of the temple of Quirinus is the key to the topography of the Quirinal, because of the temple's position on the list of the Argei of the regio Collina 13, and of the many sites which are located by our sources in relation to this holiest and for a long time most imposing structure of the Quirinal hill. The orthodox position of the temple was fixed by Lanciani in the eastern part of the Quirinal Gardens near the northern edge of the hill 14. Hülsen, though in general disagreement with Lanciani over the topography of the Quirinal, in this particular case accepted the latter's reasoning 15. Lanciani based his proposal on two arguments. One is a drawing by G. Alberti di Borgo S.Sepolcro of a Doric capital «di squisito intaglio», which the artist saw in the garden of Cardinal Ippolito d'Este, ie. in the area where Gregory VIII was to lay down the foundations of the Quirinal Palace. As the temple of Quirinus was one of the very few Doric temples in Rome, its connection with the capital in question would seem assured 16. Lanciani's other argument are two Republican inscriptions 17 dedicated to Mars 18 and Quirinus 19, and found in hortis Quirinalibus pontificiis. Hülsen, though not convinced by the first argument - all that we know about the aforesaid capital is that Alberti di Borgo S.Sepolcro saw it in the garden of Cardinal d'Este, which does not mean that it had been found there 20 - nevertheless accepted the second one and also situated the temple of Quirinus in the eastern part of the Quirinal Gardens, though slightly more to the east, in the direction of the Via delle Quattro Fontane 21. But the location based on a very vague mention of the prove140

nance of two inscriptions, one of which had already been re-used in the beginning of the second century 22, cannot be considered as proved. The vagueness of the phrase in hortis Quirinalibus pontifìcia is even greater considering that in A.D. 1626, during the pontificate of Urban Vili Barberini, when the finding took place, the papal possessions extended eastwards beyond the present Palazzo Barberini 23. But the most obvious weakness of Lanciani's proposition appears when we set it against the topography of the Quirinal as given in the list of the sacrarla Argeorum. In Varro's list the sacrarlum on the collls Qulrlnalls proper, uls aedem Qulrinl, the third station of the regio Collina, is the easternmost of the four Argei there mentioned, the other three being located from east to west on the colles: Salutarls, Mucialls and Latiaris. In his reconstruction of the topography of the Quirinal Lanciani did not take into account the order of the Argei 24, but Hülsen did, with the result that, in his reconstruction, the four sacrarla mentioned by Varrò huddle together west of the Via delle Quattro Fontane in the western half of the Quirinal tongue 25, leaving the eastern half and the Viminal with the remaining two stations. From the methodological point of view Hülsen's approach is the only right one 26, but the arrangement of the sacrarla in his reconstruction, though not outright impossible per se, looks very odd: we would rather expect the stations of the Argei to be more widely and evenly distributed. A possible counterargument that the sacrarla were situated according to the natural features of the terrain or, in the case of the Quirinal, on the colles which formed the ridge, is unconvincing. It would leave the eminences of the Palazzo Barberini and Largo di S.Susanna unaccounted for and, at the same time, situate the temples of Quirinus and Salus in one of the flattest parts of the hill. The levellings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries A.C.27 do not suffice to evade this objection. The first breach in the wall of orthodoxy has been Coarelli's identification of the temple of the gens Flavia with the vestiges found under the Caserne dei Corazzieri in the Via XX Settembre, near the church of S.Susanna 28. This would suggest that the temple of Quirinus, like that of the gens Flavia mentioned by Martial as standing near his house 29, was located further eastwards than Lanciani and Hülsen allow. But the turning point in the study of the Quirinal's topography in general and of our temple's position in particular, has been a recent paper by Manca di Mores 30. First of all, she defends the one eminently sensible point in Lanciani's reconstruction, namely his situating the temple of 141

Salus at the site of the Palazzo Barberini 31 . Hülsen's rejection of this location as incompatible with the order of the Argei only proves that the position of the temple of Quirinus as hypothesized by Lanciani and accepted, by Hülsen is wrong; instead of placing the temple of Salus on the site of the Quirinal Palace, as Hülsen did 32 , we should rather look for the temple of Quirinus east of the Palazzo Barberini 33 . After this basic premise Manca di Mores raises the question of the provenance of architectural terracottas found in 1907 under the seat of the Ministero d'Agricoltura in the Largo di S.Susanna 3 4 and of the votive deposit dating from the seventh-tofourth centuries, found in 1878 under the stairs of the church of S. Maria della Vittoria 35 . These two findings unmistakably indicate the existence of an old cult centre at the eastern side of the Largo di S. Susanna 36 . As for the fragments of terracotta decorations, one of them, dated in Andren's classification to the turn of the fourth century 37 , matches perfectly the dating of the original temple of Quirinus 38 ; three others, in Doric style 39 , comply with Vitruvius' presentation of the temple as aedis Quirini dorica 40 . The site where these remains were discovered is even today elevated in relation to its surroundings: in Antiquity, its dominating position would no doubt have been much more pronounced 4 1 . All this leads to the conclusion that the collis Quirinalis proper and the temple of Quirinus are to be situated in the zone of the Largo di S. Susanna. It seems that another argument in favour of this hypothesis is a marble plate carrying Trajan's inscription, found under the stairs leading to the church of S.Maria della Vittoria 42 . The inscription states that in A.D. 114 the emperor sacrarla numinorum vetustate collapsa a solo restituii 43 . An old public shrine, one of many of its kind 44 , denoted as sacrarlum 45 and dedicated to a numen, ie., in the eyes of the Romans of the second century A.C., some ill-defined spirit, would most probably be a station of the Argei. Considering the position of the find at the root of the Quirinal tongue thrusting westwards towards the Capitol, it seems highly probable that the sacrarlum mentioned in the inscription was the easternmost of the Colline shrines of the Argei, listed by Varrò as located on the collis Quirinalis... uls aedem Quirini. 1 2 3 4

142

Liv. 10.46.7. Piin.NH 7.213. Broughton 1951-52, I p. 147. Inslt XIII 2, p. 5.

5

Inslt XIII 2, p. 65. Inslt XIII 2, p. 224. 7 Ovid. Fasri 2.511. 8 Inslt XIII 2, p. 59. 9 Ovid. Fasti 6.795-796. 10 Wissowa 1912, p. 154-155. On Augustan restoration of the temple of Quirinus, see RGDA 19.2; Cass. Dio 54.19.4. 11 Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 310. 12 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 87, see Platner-Ashby, p. 439, Degrassi in Inslt Xlll 2, p. 411-412, Gros 1976, p. 33. 13 See above, p. 35-36. 14 Lanciani FUR, tab. 16. 15 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 407-410. 16 Lanciani 1889, p. 338-339. 17 Lanciani 1889, p. 390-391. 18 See above, p. 92. 19 CIL I2 8 0 3 = VI 565 =ILLRP 251: Quirino LAemilius L.f. praitor. 20 Hülsen 1894, p. 406 n. 5, see Hülsen-Jordan, p. 409 n. 43. 21 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 409-410. 22 See above, p. 92. 23 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 337. 24 See below, p. 144 on his situating the temple of Salus east of the temple of Quirinus, which means placing the fourth sacrarium of the Argei east of the third one. 25 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 395-408. 26 See below, p. 144-145 and Platner-Ashby, p. 439, Pietraflgeli 1976, p. 13-68, esp. fig. 43, Coarelli 1985A, p. 237. 27 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 394-395, Platner-Ashby, p. 437, Santangelo 1941, p. 79. 28 Coarelli 1985A, p. 244-245. 29 Mart. 5.64.5: tarn vicina iubent nos vivere Mausolea; see 9.3.12, 34.2. See also above, p. 36. 30 Manca di Mores 1982-83, passim. 31 See below, p. 144. 32 See below, p. 145. 33 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 341-342. 34 NS 1907, p. 504-525, esp. p. 517-518. 35 Gjerstad 1960, p. 145-160, Gjerstad 1966, p. 376-377. 36 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 326-327. 37 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 349 no. 1. 38 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 347. 39 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 350-351 no. 6-8 and probably no. 9. 40 Vitr. 3.2.7, see Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 347. 41 Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 342. 42 What follows has been suggested to me by Professor F. Coarelli. 43 CIL VI 962. 44 The term sacrarla signifies that the particular shrine to which the 6

143

inscription was attached was only one among many sacred places of its kind restored by Trajan. 45 See Van Doren 1958; passim, esp. p. 39-41, Coarelli 1983, p. 7778.

SALUS in Colle Quirinali Platner-Ashby, p. 462 Livy reports under the year 306: eodem anno aedes Salutis a C.Iunio Bubulco censore locata est, quam consul bello Samnitium voverat K Of the consulates held by C.Iunius Bubulcus Brutus cos. 317, 313, 311, the one most likely to warrant a vow to build a temple was his latest, during which he earned a triumph de Samnitibus 2. Bubulcus dedicated his temple as dictator in 302: aedem Salutis quam consul voverat, censor locaverat, dictator dedicavit3. The dies natalis of the temple fell on 5th August; see the Fasti Antiates Maiores: Salu[ti\ Fasti Lateranenses: Sa[luti in colle] 5, Fasti Vallenses: Saluti in colle Quirinale 6, Fasti Amiternini and Antiates Ministrorum: Saluti in colle 7, Fasti Filocali: N(atalis) Salutis 8. Cicero, too, mentions 5th August as the dedication day of the temple of Salus 9. According to Lanciani, the position of the temple is indicated by two inscriptions found in the area of the Palazzo Barberini, dedicated salutis ergo to the Roman people by the cities of Ephesos and Laodikaia: Populus Ephesiu[s populum Romanum] salutis ergo, quod o[ptinuit maiorum] sovom leibertatem /[---] 10, and Populus Laodicensis af Lyco populum Romanum quei sibei salutei fuit, benefici ergo, quae sibei benigne fecit / 'O òfj^tog ó Aaoòixécov xcóv jtQÒg TOH Atixooi xòv òfjuov xòv 'Pcofiaicov yeyovOTa é[awa>i] ccotfJQa xai evEQyéxr\v àQetfjg evexev xal £i)voi[ag] xfjg eie; èauTÓv n . Since the one obvious addressee of inscriptions dedicated salutis ergo would have been the temple of Salus, Lanciani's conclusion is that this temple stood on the site later occupied by the Palazzo Barberini 12. This proposition was rejected by Hülsen as incompatible with the order of the sacrarla Argeorum 13. The majority of scholars, with the notable exception of Santangelo 14, have been following his rejection in spite of the shortcomings of the alternative Hülsen put forward (see below) 15. One unhappy voice, that of Coarelli, suggests of Varro's list: «è anche possibile che la posizione di "Salutaris" e "Quirinalis" debba essere invertita» 16. But there is no reason to question the order in which Varrò enumerates the 144

sacrarla and, since it is the collis Quirinalis that opens the list, followed by the collis Salutaris and the other two 17, the temple of Salus must have stood west of the temple of Quirinus: Lancianes reconstruction/which reverses this order, is therefore wrong. Hülsen's reasoning was impeccable, but we still do not know where Lanciani's fault lay: in his location of the temple of Salus or Quirinus, or both. Hülsen himself had no doubts: like Lanciani, he located the temple of Quirinus in the Quirinal Gardens 18, which left the area of the Palace as the only possible general location of Bubulcus' foundation. In Hülsen's opinion, the exact site of the temple is indicated by an inscription found at the south-western end of the Via del Quirinale, which he read as follows: M.Ag.[---] aede [auctore] Imp. Cae[sare divi f. / / ] / vir. r(ei) [piublicae) c(onstituendae iterum) aediculam vi]ci Salu[--refic(iendum) cur(avit)] 19. This Vicus Salutis or Salutaris, probably identical with the Clivus Salutis mentioned by Symmachus 20, would have been located near the western front of the Quirinal Palace; the temple would have stood on the site of the Palace itself, in its western part 21 . Yet, nothing is known about the vicus in question and its course; we do not even know, considering that Vicus Salutis was a common street name in Rome 22, if the street mentioned in the inscription had anything to do with the temple of Salus. Least of all do we know whether the Vicus Salutis/Salutaris can be identified with the Clivus Salutis mentioned by Symmachus and the Liber Pontificalis. Much more significant is Hülsen's attempt to negate the value of the inscriptions salutis ergo as an indication of the site of the temple of Salus. To that end he took up Mommsen's old hypothesis 23, which, incidentally, the master had repudiated (see below), that dedications of Asiatic peoples and kings, set up in Rome after the end of the First Mithradatic War, were executed in two copies, one on the Capitol and the other on the Capitolium vetus 24. The two inscriptions of the Palazzo Barberini would thus have marked the site of the Capitolium vetus, not of the temple of Salus 25. Hülsen's reconstruction has met with general approval26, though on closer scrutiny it appears inadequate and misleading. First and foremost, it presupposes the religious significance of the Capitolium vetus which the latter certainly did not have, at least in the time when the inscriptions were being set up. Mommsen himself became aware of this difficulty and repudiated his original hypothesis, though his later view that, since all the inscriptions of this group 27 are of the same material and dimensions, they had 145

been set up in one place, on the Capitol, and only later were dispersed all over the City 28 , is hardly more convincing than the one upheld by Hülsen. The Capitoline temple having been destroyed by fire in 82, the inscriptions of Asiatic cities and kings could not have been set up there. Degrassi speculates about «uno speciale monumento... che popoli e re dell'Asia avrebbero eretto per onorare il popolo romano offrendo ciascuno un proprio donano» 29 , but it is much more probable that, with the Capitoline temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus reduced to ashes, the eastern allies set up their honorary inscriptions in other temples. Colini observed some time ago that inscriptions belonging to this group found in the zone of S.Omobono 30 , ie. in the area from which comes the text of the lex Antonia de Termessibus, had probably been fastened in the temple of Fides 31 . Similarly, two inscriptions dedicated salutis ergo and found on the Quirinal, in a place which in Antiquity formed a separate height on the Quirinal ridge 32 , point to the collis Salutaris and the temple of Salus 33 . The identical material and dimensions of all the inscriptions of this group do not contradict the above inference, since they were all executed at the same time and, most probably, in the same workshop. Thus everything seems to corroborate Lanciani's location of the temple of Salus on the site of the Palazzo Barberini, in its southern part within the Servian Wall, in the place which even today dominates the surrounding area, a reminiscence of the collis Salutaris. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

492.

10

Liv. 9.43.25. /«S//XIII 1, p. 542. Liv. 10.1.9. Inslt WW 2, p. 16. Inslt Xlll 2, p. 101. Inslt XIII 2, p. 148-149. Inslt X1U 2, p. 190-191, 208. Inslt XIII 2, p. 252-253. Cic. ad Att. 4.1.4, pro Sestio 131; see Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p.

CIL I2 727 = VI 373=VI 30926 = ILLRP 176. CIL I2 728=VI 374 = VI 30925=ILLRP 177. 12 Lanciani 1871, p. 58, see Lanciani 1892, p. 271-274 (the location of the Porta Salutaris on the basis of the aforementioned positioning of the temple of Salus). 13 Hülsen 1894, p. 404 n. 1, see also above, p. 140-141. 14 Santangelo 1941, p. 114-115, 128-129. n

146

15

Platner-Ashby, p. 462, Pietrangeli 1976, p. 26, Coarelli 1985A, p. 23 7 (see also below and the subsequent notes). 16 Coarelli 1985A, p. 237. 17 See above, p. 35-36. 18 See above, p. 140. 19 CIL VI 31270. I quote, correcting one obvious misprint, the reading in Hülsen-Jordan, p. 405 n. 28; the one in Hülsen 1894, p. 404 is slightly different. 20 Symm. Ep. 5.54.2: Ampelium... parvas aedes quas pretioso awcit ornatu sub clivo Salvias emisse. 21 Hülsen 1894, p. 403-405, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 403-405. Hülsen's other argument, based on a passage in the Liber Pontificalis enumerating Vestinia's donations to Innocent I for building the church of S.Vitale and which it would be too long to quote and analyse here (Lib. Pont. I p. 220224, see Hülsen 1894, p. 405, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 405 n. 28), only corroborates the existence of a Clivus Salutis, possibly the one mentioned by Symmachus, but does not provide any detailed information about its position. See Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 339-341. 22 See two Vici Salutis in the Tenth and Fourteenth Regions quoted in CIL VI 975. 23 Mommsen in CIL I p. 170. 24 Hülsen in RM 4 (1889), p. 252-254, 276, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 411412. 25 Lanciani situated the Capitolium vetus in the north-eastern part of the Quirinal Gardens, on the site of the so-called «mons Apollinis et Clatrae», levelled off by Urban VIII. See Lanciani in BC 1876, p. 167-168, Lanciani FUR, tab. 16. 26 Platner-Ashby, p. 98 (s.v. Capitolium vetus), 125 (s.v. clivus Salutis), 462 (s.v. Salus, aedes), Pietrangeli 1976, p. 51 fig. 43, Coarelli 1985A, p. 246. Contra Santangelo 1941, p. 114-116, 134-136. 27 ILLRP 174-181ab. 28 Mommsen 1887, p. 71-74, followed by Degrassi 1951-52, p. 3841. 29 Degrassi 1951-52, p. 41. Mellor 1978 is of the opinion that the inscriptions displayed on this commemorative monument were Sullan copies of originals destroyed in the fire of 83 (see also Lintott 1978). For an attempt to identify remains of this hypothetical memorial, see Bertoldi 1968, Giuliani 1968. 30 ILLRP 178a, 18lab, see also 180. 31 See above, p. 29. 32 Frutaz 1962, II, XLI 83. 33 See now Manca di Mores 1982-83, p. 330, 341-342 and fig. 1 (p. 343). The great advantage of Hülsen's proposal is that it fits better with the order of the Regionary Catalogues and especially with their first entry referring to the Fifth Region: Templum Salutis et Serapis (see above, p. 35). But the order in which the Catalogues enumerate monuments of this region is far from clear. In the Curiosum, the position of the Thermae

147

Constantinianae is unexplicable; in the Notitia they are brought together with the Thermae Diocletiani as Thermas Diocletianas et Constantinianas. The position of the temple of gens Flavia on the list - wherever it actually stood - between the Horti Sallustiani and the Thermae Diocletiani is also puzzling. Besides, the temple of Salus is listed before that of Serapis, which implies some peculiar, roundabout order of enumeration, if any. So, although in the Catalogues the general order from west to east seems obvious, the particulars are so confusing that it is impossible to reconstruct the topography of the Quirinal on their basis alone.

SOL INDIGES in Colle Quirinali Platner-Ashby, p. 434 (s.v. pulvinar Solis) The shrine of Sol Indiges is known from the calendars. The Fasti Vallenses for 8th August read: Sol (is) Indigitis in colle Quirinale sacrifìcium publicum ]. Other calendars mention this feast on 9th August, the Fasti Allifani: Soli Indig(eti) i[n colle] 2 , Fasti Amiternini: Soli Indigiti in colle Quirinale 3 , Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: [Soli Indig(eti)] in coll(e) .Quir(inali) 4 . Considering the unreliability of the Fasti Vallenses, there is little doubt that the latter dies natalis is to be preferred. According to Wissowa, the epithet Indiges was given to Sol only under Augustus, as a sort of counterweight to the ascendancy in Rome of solar cults of Oriental origin; the temple of Sol would therefore, in his opinion, date from the first emperor's reign 5 . But the discovery of the Fasti Ostienses, where under 11th December we find: [Ag]on(alia) Ind(igeti) 6 , corroborated Domaszewski's reading of that day's entry in the Fasti Amiternini as Ag(onalia) In(digeti) 7; together with a passage in Lydus on 'AywvdXia òaqpvrjqpÓQO) xai yevàQ%r\ c HXicp 8 this proves the antiquity of the cult of Sol Indiges 9 . The cult of Sol Indiges may have been old, but the question is whether his shrine was a temple and, if so, how are we to date it. The dies natalis different from the Agonalia and having no obvious solar connotations strongly suggests a temple, not a mere shrine. As for its dating, it is worth observing that had Augustus founded it, he would have surely mentioned it in his Res gestae. The closing years of the Republic are out of the question, too, which leaves us with the alternative: 292-219 10 or 179/166-91. According to Hülsen, this, as he calls it, «kleine Heiligthum des Sol» was not built before the Second Punic War on account of the presumably Greek character of the cult l l. But the worship 148

of Sol Indiges was undoubtedly a native one, as testified by the god's surname, by the agonalla held in his honour and by Varro's enumerating Sol among the deities to whom T.Tatius had set up altars after the peace with Romulus 12. The temple could therefore have been founded before the Second Punic War as well as after the final break of Livy's narrative; in my opinion, the cult's obvious antiquity favours the former possibility. The location of the temple (or lesser shrine?) is not explicitly specified in our sources. In the list of the Argei of the regio Collina, the fourth sacrarlum is rendered as: collls Salutarti quartlceps, adversum fest pllonarols [a]edem Salutls 13. The corrupt words are usually read: Apolllnar uls/cls or pulvinar uls/cls, through association with Quintilian's remark: in pulvinari Solls, qui colltur luxta aedem Qulrlnl 14. Hülsen suggests, in keeping with his view about the proximity of the temples of Salus and Quirinus, that Varrò and Quintilian speak of the same pulvinar, which he accordingly situates between the two temples 15. But Wissowa pertinently observes that the presumed pulvinar from the list of the Argei cannot be the one mentioned by Quintilian, because the former stood next to the temple of Salus and the latter close to that of Quirinus 16. Considering that Quintilian's pulvinar Soils is actually the only securely testified cult place of Sol on the Quirinal, the templum (and so, most probably, the aedes as well) of Sol Indiges would have been located on the collls Qulrlnalls proper, near the temple of Quirinus. 1

InsItXlll 2, p. 148-149. InsItXlll 2, p. 180-181. 3 InsItXlll 2, p. 190-191. 4 MEFRA 98 (1986), p. 401-402. 5 Wissowa 1904, p. 180-181, Wissowa 1912, p. 317. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 106. 7 Inslt XIII 2, p. 198-199. See Domaszewski 1909, p. 73 contra Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 336, Wissowa 1912, p. 317 and n. 3. 8 Lyd. de mens. 4.155 (on 2nd December). 9 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 234-235 and n. 469, Weinstock 1960, p. 117, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 536. 10 Thus Latte 1960, p. 232 n. 1. 11 Hülsen-Jordan, p. 406. 12 Varrò LL 5.74. 13 Varrà LL 5.52. 14 Quint. Inst 1.7.12. 15 He interprets Varro's restored text as signifying that the shrine of Sol Indiges stood west of the temple of Salus (Hülsen-Jordan, p. 406). 16 Wissowa 1912, p. 317 n. 2. 2

149

SOL ET LUNA in Circo Maximo Platner-Ashby, p. 491 The temple of Sol et Luna is alluded to under 28th August in the Fasti Filocali: Solls et Lunae c(ircenses) l. To this day belongs most probably the unattributed fragment of the Fasti Praenestini: [---]it subin[de ---]/[--- So]lis et Lun[ae ---]/[---] Martern [---] 2. In the Regionary Catalogues Templum Solis et Lunae opens the list of monuments of the Eleventh Region (Circus Maximus) 3, which proves that it is to this temple that Tacitus refers in his passage on thanksgivings offered by Nero after the exposure of Piso's conspiracy: dona et grates deis decernuntur, propriusque honos Soli, cui est vetus aedes apud circum, in quo facinus parabatur 4. This may also be the temple quoted by Vitruvius as one of the examples of hypaethral shrines: statione, cum Iovi Fulguri et Caelo et Soli et Lunae aedificia sub divo hypaethraque constituentur5. Tacitus' wording vetus aedes would suggest that the temple was built in the years 292-219 rather than in the second century, though it must be admitted that, to men of his epoch, every Republican foundation may well have appeared «old». But we know from Tertullian that Sol (and, by proxy, Luna) was the chief deity of the Circus Maximus: circus Soli principaliter consecratur: cuius aedes medio spatio et effigies de fastigio aedis emicat 6; the apologist adds in the same passage that quadrigas Soli, bigas Lunae sanxerunt7. Now, whereas the type of Sol riding a quadriga first appears on coins struck in 132 8, the god's first image dates from 217-215 9, and the Luna type on which she is shown riding a biga - from 194-190 10. This would indicate that the temple of Sol et Luna existed already at the beginning of the second century, which would date its construction to the years 292-219 n . Isidorus of Sevilla obviously thought that the quoted passage by Tertullian referred to the Obelisk; it is under this heading that he comments on the apologist's remark: oboliscus enim sagitta dicitur, qui ideo in medio Circo ponitur quia per medium mundum sol currit. Medio autem spatio ab utraque meta constitutus oboliscus fastigium summitatemque caeli significat, quum sol ab utroque spatio medio homrum discrimine transcendit 12. But Tertullian clearly distinguished between the Solis aedes and the Obelisk which in the quoted text he mentions a couple of lines below: obelisci enormitas... Soli prostituta 13. We should therefore take Tertullian literally and concede that the temple of Sol et Luna stood medio spatio, whatever that means. 150

On this, two hypotheses are available. One is that the temple was built into the cavea and that it is depicted on some of the Imperial presentations of the Circus Maximus, featuring a tetrastyle or hexastyle temple-like structure on the Aventine side of the seating area 14. The Republican temple was a distylos, as shown on a coin struck by M. Antonius in 42 15, but an Imperial restoration would account for the difference 16. The temple of Sol et Luna is actually the only aedes publica located by our sources in Circo, which makes its identification with the unattributed templelike building very attractive. But the structure in question looks very much like an ordinary temple, whereas the temple of Sol et Luna should have been hypaethral (incidentally, one wonders how an open temple would have been shown on schematic representations on coins and mosaics that have come down to us). A distylos, ie. a narrow temple, could have been squeezed into the spina and such a position would go better with Tertulliano medio spatio and with Lydus, who plainly located the altar of Luna within the euripus 17. Architecturally the temple of Sol et Luna would have been sufficiently atypical to warrant a possibility of its being one of the many odd-looking structures depicted on representations of the spina 18. The only slim chance of ever reaching an universally acceptable solution to this question lies in the excavations in the Circus Maximus. 1

Inslt XIII 2, p. 252-253. Inslt XIII 2, p. 134-135. 3 Nordh 1949, p. 91. 4 Tac. Ann. 15.74.1. 5 Vitr. 1.2.5. 6 Tertull. de spect. 8.1. 7 Tertull. de sped. 9.3. See Ant.Lat. 1.197.17: Lunae biga datur semper Solique quadriga. 8 Crawford 1974, no.250/1. 9 Crawford 1974, no.39/4. 10 Crawford 1974, no.133/3. 11 So Wissowa 1912, p. 595, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 235. Latte's objections to the antiquity of this temple (1960, p. 231-233) is of no consequence, since it is contradicted by Tacitus, whom he makes light of, and by the Republican coins, which he does not consider at all. 12 Isid. Etym. 18.31.1-2. His view has been taken up by Turcan 1958, who argues that Tertulliano aedes Solis was the Obelisk, and that the temple of Sol stood outside the Circus, in accordance with the literal meaning of apud. But she forgets that Piso and his fellow-conspirators planned to murder Nero during the games, ie. inside the Circus Maximus 2

151

(Tac. Ann. 15.53), which suggests that the temple of Sol mentioned by the historian stood literally in Circo. 13 Tertull. despect. 8.5. 14 Humphrey 1986, p. 92-94. 15 Crawford 1974, no.496/1. 16 Humphrey 1986, p. 91-93. 17 Lydus de mens. 1.12. 18 On the euripus or spina of the Circus Maximus, see Humphrey 1986, p. 175-294, esp. 282-292.

SPES in Foro Holitorio Platner-Ashby, p. 493-494 We learn from Cicero that the temple of Spes was built by AAtilius Caiatinus cos.258, 254: recte edam Spes a Calatino consecrata est l. His words are corroborated by Tacitus: Spei aedes a Germanico sacratur: hanc AAtilius voverat eodem [primo Punico] bello 2 . It is impossible to ascertain the exact date of Caiatinus' vow, which may have taken place in 258-257, 254 or 249 3 . The temple's dies natalis fell on 1st August. The Fasti Antiates Maiores for that day read: Spei 4 , the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: [Spei] in foro Holit(orio) 5, the Fasti Praenestini: Spei in foro Holitorio 6 , and the Fasti Vallenses: Spei ad forum Holitorium 7 . Livy locates this temple either in Foro Holitorio (et aedem Spei, quae est in foro Holitorio, fulmine ictam 8 ) or extra Portam Carmentalem (alteri reficiendis aedihus Fortunae et Matutae Matris intra portam Carmentalem et Spei extra portam 9 ) . This temple is usually identified with the southernmost Doric temple of S.Nicola in Carcere 10 or with its immediate neighbour, the central Ionic temple of the area sacra u . Coarelli's identification of the temple of Bellona effectively rules out other possibilities 12. The argument for the former identification, put forward by Frank 13, is that whereas the temple of Spes perished in the fire of 213, the temple of Ianus, securely identified with the northernmost temple of S.Nicola in Carcere, was spared. This implies some free space between the two structures, later occupied by the temple of Iuno Sospita. The other possibility, as formulated by Hülsen, is chiefly based on the fact that in the extant calendars the temple of Iuno Sospita figures only in the Republican Fasti Antiates Maiores 14, while that of Spes is mentioned in the Imperial calendars. Together with Ovid's Fasti 2.55-62, thought to refer to the temple of Iuno Sospita in Foro Holitorio 15, this is supposed 152

to signify that the latter ceased to exist by the turn of the first century. And since on fragment 68.6 (314) of the Pianta Marmorea only the two Ionic temples of S.Nicola in Carcere are shown, the inference is that the central one should be identified with Caiatinus' foundation to Spes 16. Hülsen's reasoning is, however, difficult to uphold, since the fragment in question is broken precisely at the southern side of the central temple of S. Nicola in Carcere, so that we simply do not know whether the southern Doric temple was shown on the Pianta Marmorea or not. Frank's most penetrating observation seems sufficient in itself for identifying the temple of Spes with the southern structure of S.Nicola in Carcere; fortunately, the excavations of 1961-62 have provided the decisive argument for his proposal 17. During these excavations a wall of Grotta Oscura tufa, with some blocks of the Monteverde variety, was found in the narrow gap between the southern and the central temple of S. Nicola in Carcere 18. The wall, slightly oblique to the perfectly parallel axes of the three temples, must have belonged to an earlier phase of the southern temple 19 whose outer foundations overlap with the wall itself 20 . This means that, at a certain moment, the southern temple was moved slightly to the south 2 *. Even if we cannot be sure that it was done to make room for the central temple, it is clear that the latter's construction was posterior to the first phase of the former. And since the two temples can only be identified with the foundations of A. Aitilius Caiatinus cos.I 258 (Spes) and C.Cornelius Cethegus cos. 197 (Iuno Sospita), the conclusion is self-evident: the southern Doric temple of S.Nicola in Carcere was dedicated to Spes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9

Cic. de leg. 2.28. Tac. Ann. 2.49.2. See above, p. 29. Inslt XIII 2, p. 16. Inslt Xlll 2, p. 31. Inslt XIII 2, p. 134-135. Inslt XIII 2, p. 149. Liv. 21.62.4.

Liv. 25.7.6. 10 Lanciarli 1897, p. 513-514, Delbrück 1903, p. 24, Frank 1924, p. 127, Blake 1947, p. 165-166, Crozzoli Aite 1981, p. 119, Coarelli 1985A, p. 319. 11 Hülsen 1906, p. 190-192, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 513-415, Delbrück 1907-12, II p. 43.

153

12 13 14 15 16 17

Coarelli 1965-67, p. 61, see above, p. 18-19. Frank 1924, p. 126-127. Inslt XIII 2, p. 4, see above, p. 77. See above, p. 77-78. Hülsen 1906, p. 189-19Ì. What follows is based on the exemplary monograph on the three temples of S. Nicola in Carcere by Crozzoli Aite 1981. 18 Crozzoli Aite 1981, p. 58-61. 19 First phase in Crozzoli Aite's terminology. 20 Crozzoli Aite 1981, p. 59-60, fig. 70 and tab. I. 21 Crozzoli Aite 1981, p. 61.

SUMMANUS ad Circum Maximum Platner-Ashby, p. 502 Ovid reports that on 20th June reddita, quisquis is est, Summano tempia ferentur tum, cum Romanis, Pyrrhe, timendus eras 1. The Fasti Venusini and Esquilini for that day read: Summan(o) ad Cir(cum) Maxim(um) 2, the Fasti Amiternini: Summano ad Cir(cum) Maxim (urn) 3. The date of the temple's vowing is provided by a passage in Cicero's de divinatione, where Quintus defends the fulgural lore by means of the following example: ...cum Summanus in fastigio lovis optumi maxumi, qui tum erat fìctilis, e caelo ictus esset nee usquam eius simulacri caput inveniretur, haruspices in Tiberim id depulsum esse dixerunt, idque inventum est eo loco, qui est ab haruspicibus demonstratus. Livy mentions this portent in the periochae of book 14, between Pyrrhos' departure for Sicily and the beginning of the second consulate of M\ Curius Dentatus, ie. between 278 and 275: cum inter alia prodigia fulmine deiectum esset in Capitolio lovis signum, caput eius per haruspices inventum est5. If alia prodigia included the pestilence which ravaged Rome in 276 6, the temple would have been vowed that year 7, probably by the order of the decemvirs. The only clue to the temple's location apart from the calendars is Pliny's mention of dogs crucified alive inter aedem Iuventatis et Summani 8 . This helps little, for we do not know the exact location of the temple of Iuventas either; we can only guess that it stood near the temple of Hercules Invictus, not far away from the carceres of the Circus Maximus 9. This conjecture would support the identification of the temple of Summanus with that of Dis Pater, listed in the Notitia immediately before the sanctuary of 154

Ceres 10, especially as by the Late Empire Summanus had been relegated to the underworld as Dis Pater 11. 1

Ovid. Fasti 6.731-732. Inslt XIII 2, p. 58, 88. 3 Inslt XIII 2, p. 186-187. 4 Cic. de civ. 1.16. 5 Liv. per. 14. 6 Oros. 4.2.1-2, Aug. CivDei 3.17. 7 Torelli RRF, p. 197, contra Wissowa 1912, p. 135, Latte 1960, p. 416, who prefer the year 278. De Sanctis 1953-68, II p. 515, dates the temple's founding to 272. This dating, apparently suggested by Dentatus' censorship, has little basis, since we do not hear about any links between Summanus and this general. 8 Plin. NH 29.57. 9 See above, p. 50-51. 10 Nordh 1949, p. 91: ...Aedem Ditis patris. Cererem. 11 Arnob. adv. nat. 5.37.6,8, 6.3.44. 2

TELLUS in Carinis Platner-Ashby, p. 511 The temple of Tellus was vowed by P.Sempronius Sophus cos. 268 during an earthquake which occurred when the Romans were fighting a battle with the Picentes; in Florus' account: domiti ergo Picentes... Sempronio duce, qui tremente inter proelium campo Tellurem deam promissa aede pacavit l. According to Dionysios the temple was built by the state some time after the death of Sp.Cassius cos.Ill 486: xov vecb xfjg Tfjg öv ucTsooig r\ Jtokg xatecxeiJace xQÓvoig 2 . Valerius Maximus says the same but links the two events chronologically: senatus enim populusque Romanus non contentus capitali eum supplicio adficere interempto domum superiecit, ut penatium quoque strage puniretur: in solo autem aedem Telluris fecit 3 . The insistence of the two authors may reflect nothing more than the growing popularity of the tradition of Sp. Cassius1 fall, which managed to stamp itself on the temple built two hundred years later on the spot said to have been occupied by the would-be tyrant's house. But it is also possible that Dionysios who, unlike Valerius Maximus, is obviously aware of the time gap between the two events, implies that Sempronius' vow was taken over and fulfilled by the state, ie. by the senate. The dies natalis of the temple of Tellus was 13th December; in 155

the Fasti Ostienses for that day we find: Tellu[ri in Carinis] 4, in the Fasti Praenestini: [Tellu]ri in Carinis5, in the Fasti Antiates Ministrorum: Tel[luri] 6. The temple is usually situated according to a given scholar's view on the position of the secretarium Tellurense, whose very name implies close vicinity to the temple of Tellus. But this conveys little, if anything, about the temple's exact location. Even if we accept Lanciani's location of the secretarium Tellurense between the Via del Colosseo, Via della Polveriera and Via Frangipane 7, the temple of Tellus could then be situated at the foot of S.Pietro in Vincoli as well as on the edge of the Colosseum valley, or between the Via Frangipane and Via Cavour 8. The secretarium Tellurense path leads nowhere; only information directly relating to the temple of Tellus might give us a clue as to its location. The temple's location in Carinis is to be found in the calendars (see above), in Suetonius (Lenaeus, Magni Pompei libertus... docuitque in Carinis ad Telluris, in qua regione Pompeiorum domus erat 9) and in Servius (Carinae sunt aedificia facta in carinarum modum, quae erant circa templum Telluris 10 ). The two texts which provide more detailed information about its location are the regionary Catalogues and Dionysios' mention of the house of Sp.Cassius n . I have already discussed these texts together with the crucial question of the street em Kagivag, in which the temples of Tellus and Dii Penates apparently stood, in the context of the latter's location 12. If my proposition is correct, the temple of Tellus stood near that street's confluence with the Vicus Compiti Acilii, ie. near the branching off of the Via del Colosseo and Via del Cardello. This location agrees with the information provided by the Regionary Catalogues. The Notitia enumerates the horrea chartaria after the statue of Apollo Sandaliarius and the temple of Tellus, and before the tigillum sororium. This indicates that someone going from the Subura towards the tigillum and the compitum Acilii first passed the temple of Tellus and then the horrea chartaria. The temple of Tellus could not therefore had been an immediate neighbour of the tigillum sororium: the horrea chartaria lay between them. In my reconstruction, the two sites are separated by the section of the Vicus Compiti Acilii south of its confluence with the street èjii Kagivag, which leaves enough room to accomodate between them the horrea chartaria, no matter how large they may have been. Coarelli bases his positioning of the temple of Tellus on a different argument 13. Panvinio and Ligorio record the finding, in 156

the first half of the sixteenth century A.C., of richly decorated vestiges of a marble temple together with some fragments of an inscription on which there occurred the word Tellus 14. Panvinio located the site of the finding «prope Coliseum in Carinis prope S.Andr(eae) in Portugallo, coniunctum hortulis S.Mariae novae». Ligorio gave two locations, one in nearly the same words as Panvinio («poco discosto all'amphiteatro di Vespasiano, poco discosto alla Chiesa di Sant'Andre in Portogallo, ciò è attacato al sito dell horto di Santa Maria nova»), the other as follows: «[the temple of Tellus] era in un sito, che si poteva dire vicino al Tempio del sole e della luna, al Coliseo, alla meta sudante e alle Carine». Coarelli interprets these passages as indicating a place halfway between the church of S.Andrea in Portogallo (today's S.Maria della Neve, at the confluence of the Via del Colosseo and Via del Cardello) and the Colosseum, ie. close to the compitum Acilii 15. This enables him to identify the original temple of Tellus with the podium found barely eight metres north-west of the compitum, built over the remains of two earlier structures, one of Grotta Oscura tufa and the other of opus incertum, and a votive deposit from the third-second centuries 16. The dimensions of the podium - ca. 25 x 15 m. - are typical of a temple, while the earlier strata fit well with the temple of Tellus vowed in 268. The temple would have been destroyed in the fire of A.D.64 and rebuilt in the immediate vicinity; this later temple would be the one mentioned by Panvinio and Ligorio 17. Coarelli's proposition does not appear convincing for a number of reasons, quite apart from the information provided by the Notitia which suggests that the temple of Tellus and the compitum Acilii were not close neighbours. The podium which he identifies with the original temple did not yield any traces of superstructures or decorations, which suggests that it had never been completed; it also seems to have been very quickly buried in the successive raising of levels 18. This would imply that it was one of Nero's constructions, left unfinished after his death. The fact that no temple was built on its site afterwards makes the sacred character of its immediate predecessor rather unlikely, the MidRepublican votive deposit notwithstanding, since otherwise the Flavians would have surely restored it to its former function and on the former site 19. There remain the testimonies of Panvinio and Ligorio. Ligorio's statements of the kind quoted above are usually met with well-deserved scepticism 20. The fact that Panvinio's note was found in Ligorio's papers and that it clearly repeats in Latin 157

Ligorio's words, makes it impossible to defend the information provided by the two antiquarians with Panvinio's authority. Modern doubts seem further justified by the fact that the Renaissance writers, while mentioning the discovery of the inscriptions, do not quote them, as they normally would have done. This is why today, apart from Coarelli, hardly anybody takes the trouble of discussing the testimonies of Ligorio and Panvinio in the context of the location of the temple of Tellus 21. The question of whether this information can be believed is to a large extent an insolvable one, since it boils down to what individual scholars think about Ligorio's integrity: would he have been able to fabricate ex nihilo information of this kind? But it would be too easy to dismiss out of hand the quoted texts only because they have been reported by the «homo in perniciem rei epigraphicae totiusque antiquitatis natus» 22: we should rather give them the benefit of the doubt and put them to test as any other piece of information. Until the second half of the sixteenth century A.C., the temple of Tellus had been linked the fictitious church of S.Salvatore in Tellumine (or in Tellure), supposedly standing at the eastern foot of the Capitol 23. The first antiquarian to locate the temple on the Carinae was B.Marliano in a work published in 1534 24. On his map of Rome that appeared ten years later, the temple of Tellus is quite accurately situated north-east of the «Templum Pads», ie. the Basilica Maxentii 25. The position of the temple on the map of G.Opporino, published in 1551, is identical26. The placement of the temple of Tellus on these maps corresponds too well with the finding reported by Ligorio and Panvinio to be accidental. The question is what was the relation between the two. A cynic would say that, once the antiquaries started paying greater attention to ancient literary texts, sooner or later one of them was bound to notice that the temple of Tellus stood «sulle Carine», as Marliano eventually came to realize by 1534. Ligorio would have supplied this discovery with a pseudomaterial base in the guise of an invented information about vestiges of the temple of Tellus ostensibly found in the area pointed out by his predecessors on literary basis. The alternative view is that it was precisely the discovery recorded by Ligorio and Panvinio that broke the medieval tradition about the temple's location at the foot of the Capitol. This would push the terminus ante quern of the discovery back to 1534, which agrees with Ligorio's statement that he was able to see only a small part of objects found 27, since the event would then have occurred a long time before his day. 158

I think there is one point which apparently settles the question in favour of the latter possibility: the site of the discovery as reported by Ligorio, be it fictitious or real, does not correspond with his view on the position of the Carinae. We do not know when he wrote the reports under discussion, but in one of them he calls the Colosseum «Amphiteatro di Vespasiano», exactly as on his map of Rome of 1553 («Amphiteatrum Vespasiani») 28; on the great map of Rome of 1561 we find «Amphiteatrum Flavium» 19. Now, on the map of 1553 the Carinae are still identified with the Colosseum valley; only on the map of 1561 are they situated south of the Thermae Traiani. Thus there is a patent discrepancy between Ligorio's positioning of the Carinae and the location of the temple of Tellus in Carinis as implied by his information about the site where the supposed vestiges of that temple had been found. This might explain the strange way in which he, and Panvinio after him, describe the site of the discovery. In the first of Ligorio's passages we have the Colosseum on the one hand and the obscure church of S. Andrea in Portogallo and the wall of the garden of S. Maria Nuova (S.Francesca Romana) on the other. In my opinion, this can only point to a site between the church of S. Andrea and the gardens which at that time stretched up to the Villa Silvestri-Rivaldi 30. As for the Colosseum, Ligorio most probably added it to bring the site of the discovery closer to the Carinae as he situated them; Panvinio did exactly the same with his «prope Coliseum in Carinis». My suspicion is strengthened by the second of Ligorio's texts quoted, where the presumed site of the temple of Tellus in Carinis is described as lying close to the Basilica Maxentii, the Colosseum, the Meta Sudans (!) and the Carinae (!!). The site's location clearly did not fit with Ligorio's ideas about Rome's topography in general and the position of the Carinae in particular, and this is the best possible argument for the veracity of the information he provides. It would seem that the exact site of the discovery is determined by the second and third elements in Ligorio's and Panvinio's reports: «prope S. Andreae in Portugallo, coniunctum hortulis S.Mariae novae» and «poco discosto alla chiesa di Sant'Andre in Portogallo, ciò è attacato al sito dell horto di Santa Maria nova». This points to a limited area between the junction of the Via del Colosseo and Via del Car dello, and the northern wall of the garden of the Pio Istituto Rivaldi, ie. to the same area as that proposed on the basis of the hypothetical reconstruction of the course of the street èrci KaQivag. It seems that this argument can be developed further. On the 159

map of Rome by Du Pérac, published in 1574 31, we find, from south to north, the double temple of Sol et Luna (Venus et Roma) on its lofty podium, then a very large structure named domus Marci Antonii, composed of two distinct parts aligned on an axis parallel to that of the temple of Venus et Roma, and finally the temple of Tellus. Not only the position but also the particular form of the «domus Marci Antonii» leave no doubt as to the identity of its original: it is the same two-part structure that we know from the drawings by Ligorio and Francesco (or Antonio the Younger) da Sangallo32, which would have occupied the whole width of the Via dei Fori Imperiali north of the temple of Venus et Roma 33, and which Coarelli identifies with the secretarium Tellurense 34. The temple of Tellus on Du Pérac's map is situated north of that structure: once again we find ourselves in the immediate vicinity of the junction of the Via del Colosseo and Via del Cardello (see fig. 3 [p. 294]). As it is well known, no vestiges identifiable with the «domus Marci Antonii» were found during the construction of the Via dei Fori Imperiali, and this made Colini call into question the reality behind the two drawings, ie. the structure's existence 35. His objection may be well founded, though, this time at least, it would be not Ligorio but a member of the Sangallo clan who would have invented a fictitious ancient structure. But the real significance of Du Pérac's map for the problem of the location of the temple of Tellus lies in that he called this structure domus Marci Antonii. The only thing the 'Cinquecento antiquaries did - and modern scholars do - know about the location of this once Pompeius' house is that it stood on the Carinae close to the temple of Tellus. There is little doubt that, on Du Pérac's map, this structure, whether real or imaginary, got its name from its vicinity to the site thought, rightly or wrongly, to be that of the temple of Tellus. It would be rash to take this as a proof that the temple did in fact stand there; but it pinpoints the area where, according to Ligorio and Panvinio, the vestiges of the temple of Tellus were found. Yet again we find ourselves immediately south of the confluence of the Via del Colosseo and Via del Cardello. To sum up. If the argument based on the attempt at reconstructing the course of the street em Kaoivag is correct, the temple of Tellus stood close to the confluence of that street and the Vicus Compiti Acilii, broadly corresponding with the fork of the Via del Colosseo and Via del Cardello. If the information provided by Ligorio and Panvinio about the finding of vestiges of the temple of Tellus is true, this would still further specify the site of this 160

temple between the said confluence and the garden wall of the Pio Istituto Rivaldi. 1

Flor. 1.14.2; see Frontin. Strut. 1.12.3; Iordan. Rom.160. Dion. Hal. 8.79.3. 3 Val. Max. 6.3.1b. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 106. 5 Inslt XIII 2, p. 136-137. 6 Inslt XIII 2, p. 210. 7 Lanciani 1892, followed by practically all later scholars, see eg. Hülsen-Jordan, p. 306-307, 323-325, Platner-Ashby, p. 511, Chastagnol 1960, p. 244. The dissedent voice is that of Coarelli 1986A, p. 22-35, see below. 8 Particularly instructive from this point of view is the hypothetical placement of the secretarium Tellurense in Chastagnol 1960, pi.VI 2. 9 Suet, de gramm. 15. 10 Serv. ad Aen. 8.361. 11 See above, p. 132. 12 See above, p. 132-135. 13 Coarelli 1986A, p. 22-35. 14 Lanciani 1892, p. 34-37. 15 Coarelli 1983, p. 39-40, Coarelli 1986A, p. 25. 16 Colini 1933, p. 80-82, Colini 1961-62, p. 151. 17 Coarelli 1986A, p. 25. 18 Colini 1961-62, p. 151 n. 11. 19 It must be admitted that the presence of the votive deposit, albeit found not immediately under the podium though close by, is a strong argument in favour of Coarelli's proposal (though see Castagnoli 1988, p. 112 n. 55). But the modest dimensions of the structure in its earlier phases seem incompatible with the fact that M .Antonius chose the temple of Tellus as the meeting place of the senate after the Ides of March 44 (App. BC 2.525-526; Cic. Phil. 1.31, adAtt. 16.14.1; Plut. Brut. 19; Cass. Dio 44.22.3). Of course, the main reason for this choice was the temple's vicinity to the consul's house, but he surely would have had to summon Caesar's oversize senate to a very large building. The dimensions of the presumed temple of Tellus as recorded by Ligorio and Panvinio 158x59 feet (Lanciani 1892, p.34) -fit perfectly. 20 Ligorio's reputation reached its lowest ebb in the second half of the nineteenth century, when the first volumes of CIL began to appear. See eg. Henzen's Zu den Fälschungen des Pirro Ligorio (Henzen 1877), de Nolhac 1887 (see below). Today the antiquary seems to have regained some favour, witness Mandovsky-Mitchell, passim, esp. p. 50-51. 21 See Hülsen's comment on Lanciani 1892 in RM 8 (1893), p. 301302, and Platner-Ashby's brief: «Ligorio's account of the discovery of remains belonging to [the temple of Tellus] is open to suspicion» (p. 511). See also Castagnoli 1988, p. 110-112. 22 De Nolhac 1887, p. 319. 2

161

23

Hülsen 1927, p. 522 (71). For a different position of this church, see Lanciani 1892, p. 33-34. 24 Hülsen 1927, p. 522. 25 Frutaz 1962, II, XII 21. 26 Frutaz 1962, II, XV 24. 27 Ligorio reports: «Cavandosi dunque nel sudetto luogo, furono levati molti ornamenti dell'epistili et corone del tempio di marmo nei quali era scritto il nome di Tellure con altre cose, che perla rovina non sene poteva retrarre senso alcuno eccetto, quel che accusava di chi fusse il Tempio, et tutti essi ornamenti sono con malPesempio stati guasti; et si come rhavemo veduti così sono disegnati qui sotto del trattato» (Lanciani 1892, p. 35). 28 Frutaz 1962, II, XVI 25. 29 Frutaz 1962, III XVIIb 679(8). 30 See Lanciani 1891, p. 164-167, Pisani Sartorio 1983, p. 148-154. 31 Frutaz 1962, II, XXII 6, 43. 32 Lanciani 1891, p. 159-167 and pl.HI (Sangallo), Minoprio 1932, p. 18 fìg. 14 (Ligorio). 33 Lanciani FUR, pi. 29. 34 Coarelli 1986A, p. 27-28. 35 Colini 1983, p. 143-144.

TEMPESTATES extra Portam Capenam Platner-Ashby, p. 511-512 The vowing of the temple of Tempestates is known from two sources. In the elogium of L. Cornelius Scipio cos. 259 we find: Hec cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe dedet Tempestatebus aide mereto [d] 1. Ovid writes under 1st June: Te quoque, Tempestas, meritam delubra fatemur cum paene est Corsis obruta classis aquis 2 . It follows that Scipio vowed a temple to Tempestates during his Corsican campaign, when his fleet was nearly destroyed by the storm 3 . The Fasti Antiates Maiores mention a feast Tempe(statebus) on 23rd December 4 . Mancini, Wissowa 5 , Platner-Asby 6 and Lugli 7 think that this was the dies natalis of Scipio's temple. As for Ovid's date, Mancini suggests that the poet threw in the remark about the temple of Tempestates under 1st June not because this was its dedication day, but because the temple could be seen from the Porta Capena just as its more famous neighbour, the temple of Mars in Clivo, which was the real addressee of these lines and had no doubt been dedicated on 1st June 8 : 162

Lux eadem Marti festa est, quem prospicit extra adpositum Tectae porta Capena viae. Te quoque, Tempestas, meritam delubra fatemur, cum paene est Corsis obruta classis aquis. Haec hominum monimenta patent. Wissowa's explanation is simpler: 1st June is the day of the temple's rededication by Augustus, otherwise unattested 9. Degrassi rejects both these hypotheses 10. Mancini's because, he says, «ego vero Ovidianum testimonium neglegendum non putaverim», Wissowa's because in the Fasti Antiates Maiores for 23rd December the temple of Tempestates is quoted after those of Diana and Iuno Regina in Circo Flaminio, both dedicated in 179 n . In Degrassi's view this indicates that this particular temple of Tempestates was built after that date 12. In his opinion Scipio's temple was dedicated on 1st June; as for the entry in the Fasti Antiates Maiores, it points to the existence of another temple of Tempestates elsewhere in Rome built after 179. Methodologically, the problem is insolvable. On the one hand, two different feasts to a single deity imply two temples of the deity 13. But on the other, the Fasti Antiates Maiores are our only extant Republican calendar, which suggests that, as hypothesized by Wissowa, in this particular case we are dealing with a rededication of a single temple. Besides, our only authority on 1st June as the dies natalis of Scipio's original foundation is not a calendar but a text of a poet, full of ambiguities. We should not therefore discard too easily Mancini's explanation, because the fact is that the temples of Mars and Tempestates were neighbours and the former, by far the more famous and most probably more imposing of the two, had its dies natalis on 1st June 14. It seems therefore that our evidence is too scanty to allow for two temples of Tempestates. Rather, it would seem that there was only one sanctuary extra Portam Capenam, originally dedicated on 23rd December 15, and that, possibly, some time during the first century it was rededicated on the dies natalis of its great neighbour, the temple of Mars in Clivo. Ovid's passage is not the only text which makes the temple of Tempestates a close neighbour of Mars' sanctuary extra Portam Capenam. In the Notitia these two temples are listed in the First Region under the same heading, together with the otherwise completely unknown temple of Minerva: Aedem Martis et Minervae et Tempestatis 16. The temple of Tempestates must therefore have stood not far from the Porta S. Sebastiano, most probably very close to the family tomb of the Cornelii Scipiones 17. 163

1

CIL I2 8, 9=VI 1256, Ì2S7=ILLRP 310. Ovid. Fasti 6.193.-194. 3 De Sanctis 1953-68, III 1, p. 130-132. 4 Mancini in NS 1921, p. 121, see Inslt XIII 2, p. 25. 5 Wissowa 1923, p. 385.' 6 Platner-Ashby, p. 511. 7 Lugli 1953-69, III p. 39. 8 Ovid. Fasti 6.191-196. 9 Wissowa 1923, see also Bömer 1957-58, II, p. 347. 10 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 463. 11 Inslt XIII 2, p. 25, 463, see p. 544-545 (Degrassi). 12 For the order of enumeration of temples in calendars on a single day being indicative of their relative dating, see Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 370-371. 13 See above, p. 14, 75. 14 See above, p. 101. 15 Degrassi's «chronological» intepretation of the order of enumeration of temples in the calendars is too narrowly based to be more than a conjecture. 16 Nordh 1949, p. 74. 17 Scamuzzi 1963, p. 99. 2

TIBERINUS in Insula Platner-Ashby, p. 536 The temple of Tiberinus is known from the calendars only. Under 8th December the Fasti Antiates Maiores read: Tiberino 1, the Fasti Amiternini: Tiberino in Insula 2 . The temple of Tiberinus must therefore be dated either to 292-219 or to 179/166-91. Le Gall has endeavoured to prove that no temple nor even a lesser shrine of Tiberinus ever existed 3 . First, he admits that «lorsque les calendriers indiquent le lieu où se déroule une fète par une formule analogue - in Campo, in Circo Flaminio, in Capitolio par example - cela signifie généralement que la divinité y possedait un temple» 4 . But although we hear of three «important shrines» in the Insula Tiberina -those of Aesculapius, Faunus and Veiovis - no text alludes to a temple of Tiberinus. Now, if the Romans wished to found a temple to Tiberinus, it would not have been a paltry building and we would have heard of it. The inference is that there was no temple of Tiberinus in Insula 5 . His second argument is that the ludi piscatorii took place either trans Tiberim 6 or in Campo 7, although no shrine of Tiberi164

nus stood in those areas - Tiberine ludi which did without a shrine of the god of the river. And since there existed, says Le Gall, an undeniable chronological correspondence between the ludi piscatorii and Tiberinus' feast in Insula - they were celebrated six months one after another, on 8th June and 8th December - the latter feast would have also made without a shrine. For Le Gall this is the proof that in the calendars the entries for 8th December do not indicate the dies natalis of the temple of Tiberinus 8. The third argument is the text of an inscription found in 1605 in Orte: Sex. Atasius Sex.f. Fabia Roma Priscus evoc(atus) Aug(usti) primus omnium aram Tiberin(o) posuit quam caligatus voverat 9. In Le Gall's words, «il ne faut pas amoindrir la portée de son affirmation: le sens de la phrase est clair et Atasius Priscus était un Romain de naissance don la carrière militaire, peut brilliante, avait du se dérouler uniquement dans l'entourage de l'empereur, il connaissait sans aucun doute YInsula Tiberina... nulle part il n'avait pas vu d'autel dédié au dieu» 10. The last argument would carry some weight had Atasius' inscription been found in Rome and not in Orte; as it is, there is very little doubt that SexAtasius was the first member of that small Tiberine community to set up an altar to Tiberinus. The logic of the second argument is, to say the least, unclear, quite apart from Le Gall's shifting the ludi piscatorii from 7th June to the 8th u. But even putting this aside, one looks in vain for a reason why the fact that the feast of Tiberine fishermen was not centred on a shrine of Tiberinus should mean that, six months later, the calendars's entry Tiberino in Insula does not denote the dies natalis of the god's temple in the Insula Tiberina. The utter irrelevance of this argument is highlighted when we find in Festus an account about live fishes being offered at the ara Volcani at some stage of the ludi piscatorii 12. The only inference one can legitimately draw is that the cult of Tiberinus was introduced after the establishment of the ludi piscatorii. As regards the first argument, Le Gali forgets that out of the three temples he mentions only that of Aesculapius was an important, well known sanctuary 13. The other two we know from the calendars, as is the case with the temple of Tiberinus, and from one mention in Livy and another in Ovid; the temple of Faunus is also mentioned once by Vitruvius as an example of a prostylos in antis 14. This might suggest that the cults of Veiovis and Faunus were really much more important than that of Tiberinus; but they are mentioned by Ovid simply because, unlike the 165

temple of Tiberinus, they were dedicated on 1st January 15 and 13th February 16 respectively, ie. during the part of the year covered by the Fasti. Similarly, they are mentioned by Livy because both happened to be founded in 194, the year covered by his extant narrative 17; his silence about the temple of Tiberinus only means that the latter was not founded in 218-180/167. Finally, Le Gall's assertion that «si Ton avait voulu élever un temple à Tiberinus, ce n'eüt pas été un edifice mediocre et nous en connaitrions I'existence» 18 is, to put it mildly, not borne out by what we know about Roman topography. As previously mentioned, the temple must have been founded either in 292-219 or in 179/166-91. The first mention of Tiberinus in the extant literature is Horatius Codes' prayer to Tiberinus pater in Ennius 19 . This implies that by the turn of the third century Tiberinus, obviously not an archaic Roman deity 20 , was already worshipped in the City. It seems therefore that De Sanctis was right when he dated the temple's founding to the years 292219 21 . 1

Inslt XIII 2, p. 24. Inslt XIII 2, p. 198-199. 3 Le Gali 1953, p. 57-60. 4 Le Gali 1953, p. 57. 5 Le Gall 1953, p. 57-58. 6 Festus 232, 274-276 L. 7 Ovid. Fasti 6.235-240. 8 Le Gall 1953, p. 57-58. 9 CIL XI 3057. 10 Le Gall 1953, p. 60. 11 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 466. 12 Festus 274-276 L. Le Gall's attempt to interpret this passage away (1953, p. 49-50) is utterly unconvincing. 13 See above, p. 17. 14 Vitr. 3.2.3. His wording - est in Insula Tiberina in aede Iovis et Fauni - is ambiguous, but considering how difficult it would have been for copyists to change aedibus into aedes, it is safer to infer that the temple of Faunus was dedicated to Jupiter as well (like that of Iuppiter [et] Libertas, see above, p. 85-86) than assume that in the quoted passage Vitruvius also mentions the temple of Veiovis, in later tradition notoriously confused with Jupiter. The fact that the temple of Faunus was dedicated on the Ides (13th February) is an additional argument. See Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 409. 15 Ovid. Fasti 1.293-294, see Inslt XIII 2, p. 388. 16 Ovid. Fasti 2.193-194, see Inslt XIII 2, p. 409. 17 Liv. 34.53.4 (Faunus), 7 (Veiovis). 2

166

18

Le Gall 1953, p. 58. Ennius fr. 26 Skutsch. 20 The original god of the Tiber was no doubt Volturnus (see Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 327) with his flamen Volturnalis and the feast of Volturnalia celebrated on 27th August (Varrò LL 7.45, Paulus in Festus 519 L, Inslt XIII 2, p. 503), whereas Tiberinus had neither a priest not a feast in the Numan calendar. See De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 233 and n. 462, Momigliano 1966, p. 632-633. 21 De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 233. 19

VENUS LIBITINA Esquiliis Platner-Ashby, p. 552 The only mention of the shrine of Venus Libitina is Festus' passage on Rustica vinalia: eodem autem die Veneri tempia sunt consecrata, alterum ad Circum Maximum, alterum in luco Libitinensi, quia in eius deae tutela sunt hortis l. These words have sometimes been thought to signify that in the lucus Libitinae 2 there was a temple of Venus 3 . But under 19th August (the day of the Rustica vinalià) Roman calendars mention only one aedes publica of the goddess, founded by Q. Fabius Maximus Gurges 4 . Varrò, too, says about this day: quod turn Veneri dedicata aedes et [h]orti ei deae dicantur 5 . This can only mean that the presumed shrine of Venus in Libitina's grove was not an aedes publica 6 . 1

Festus 322 L. See Platner-Ashby, p. 319. 3 Platner-Ashby, p. 552, Schilling 1954, p. 202, Koch in RE 8A 1 (1955), c. 850-851 s.v. Venus, De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 155 and n. 111. 4 Inslt XIII 2, p. 497-498, see also below, p. 167-170. 5 Varrò LL 6.20. 6 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 498, Torelli 1984, p. 88, 132, 168. One wonders whether in this case templum is an equivalent of aedes (as is the case with Venus Obsequens) or just a precinct, ie. a fanum in the lucus Libitinae. 2

VENUS OBSEQUENS ad Circum Maximum Platner-Ashby, p. 552 There are two accounts of the founding of the temple of Venus ad Circum Maximum. In Livy, under 295, we find: eo anno Q.Fabius Gurges, consulis filius, aliquot matronas ad populum stupri

167

damnatas pecunia multavit, ex quo multaticio aere Veneris aedem, quae prope circum est, faciendam curavit1. Servius auctus says: dicitur etiam Obsequens Venus, quam Fabius Gurges post peractum bellum Samniticum ideo hoc nomine consecravit, quod sibi fuerit obsecuta: hanc Itali postvotam dicunt 2. The two accounts, although dealing with one temple, stand poles apart: in Livy we have an aedilician foundation financed by fines collected from women convicted for adultery; in Servius there is a postvotum of a general whose prayers had been answered by the goddess. In the first case the temple would have been vowed in 295, in the second the circumstances which had led to the vow, if not the vow itself, would have occurred in 292291 3. According to Schilling, Servius' account should be preferred 4. Replying to Grimal's critique that the grammarian's report «repose sur une confusion de personne (du fils au père, de l'édile au consul), et il dénote surtout l'influence de la théologie syllanienne de Vénus, évidemment anachronique en 295» 5, he retorts: «c'est vraiment se rendre la partie trop facile que de renier purement et simplement le commentaire servien, qui situe cette épithète [Obsequens] dans son contexte historique, en même temps qu'il lui donne sa définition précise», and sticks to the opinion that Livy's account is but an «anecdote secondaire» 7. Schilling's view, though accepted by some scholars 8, is indefensible. It is true that Servius situates the vowing of the temple of Venus in a historical context, but it is no less true that he makes a very bad job of it. In his account the vow is to be related to Gurges' singularly unsuccessful first consulate in 292 or to his sham triumph a year later 9, whereas we learn from Livy that the temple's locatio took place in 295. Schilling first accepted Servius' account at its face value: while accepting Livy's date of the vow (!) he spoke of its circumstances as «Vénus Obsequens est invoquée... par un général en difficulté tel que Fabius Gurges» 10 (!!). Later, no doubt influenced by Grimal's criticism, he realized that, taken literally, Servius' account is chronologically incompatible with Livy's, so he restated his position in the following words: «en 295 avant J.C., au cours d'une guerre acharnée contre les Samnites, Q. Fabius Gurges voua un temple à Vénus Obsequens, tandis que son père Q.Fabius Rullianus adressait un voeu analogue à Jupiter Victor»11.As can be seen, this time he simply omits the troublesome, if fundamental, question as to in what capacity Gurges made his vow; he only says that father and son made their vows at the same time and for the same reason of summoning the gods' 168

help against the Samnites (this again would imply similar circumstances, but this time Schilling cautiously does not draw this logical though impossible conclusion). Now, it cannot be excluded a priori that curule aediles could in the City - make vows in order to help their fathers on the battlefield. But, first, this is not what Servius says, and secondly, Schilling overlooks, or rather dismisses as a «secondary detail», the capital question as to whence came the money to finance the temple's construction. In the case of aedilician foundations the sources always specify the category of the offenders 12; Livy's mention of the provenance of the multaticium imposed by Gurges - fines on women convicted for adultery - is therefore a vital piece of information about this particular temple. Besides, as rightly pointed out by Grimal, in Rome of 295 numerous cases of adultery would have constituted major dirae which would have to be expiated 13, especially - and here one can only agree with Schilling's intuition - in the decisive year of the war which sealed the fate of Italy. The account of Servius leaves no doubt that in his opinion Gurges vowed the temple of Venus as a thank-offering for the victorious outcome of his imperium. Even if the reading postvotam is suspect 14, the alternative postvortam would also refer to Gurges' initial defeat allegedly redressed with his father's help 15. And thus we are once again in 292-291, the years of Gurges' consulate and proconsulate. Servius can be reconciled with Livy only by assuming that Gurges vowed and located his temple as curule aedile but had it dedicated as an ostensibly manubial postvotum after the end of the Third Samnitic War. This hypothesis may sound risky, considering that we do not know of similar changes in the character of temple foundations, but there is one thing that can be said for it, namely the efforts of the two Fabii Maximi, father and son, to present Gurges and not the real victor, L. Postumius Megellus, as the conqueror of the Samnites 16. There is little doubt that the temple ostensibly dedicated as a manubial foundation would have given as much, or more, substance to this claim as Gurges' phoney triumph; this would also explain its character of postvotum. It is true that Servius' account is a typical example of a Roman antiquary at work, hunting for easy aitia and disdaining to check the annalistic tradition, but his etymology of the goddess' surname presupposes the temple's having been a postvotum, and this is something which neither Servius nor his source, be it Donatus or someone else, would have invented 17. 169

The calendars mention this temple on 19th August; in the Fasti Antiates Maiores we find: Venere l8, in the Fasti Vallenses: Veneri ad Circum Maximum 19. One certain thing about its location arises from two passages in Livy about censors' activities. The censors of 204 viam e foro Bovario ad Veneris circa foros publicos... locaverunt 20 , and those of 174 intra eadem portam [Trigeminam] in Aventinum porticum silice straverunt et... ab aede Veneris fecerunt 21 . The first passage implies that the temple stood behind the spectators' stands and the second that it was situated at the foot of the Aventine (allusions to the Clivus Publicius and the Porta Trigemina). / Palmer locates the temple of Venus at the south-western coté? ner of the Circus Maximus 22 on the basis of the following translation of the course of the street constructed by the censors of 204: «out of the Forum Boarium at the temple of Venus around the public standouts» 23 . But this translation is defective, since e...ad means «from... to»; Palmer's location thus remains unproved. Torelli's inference that the wording circa foros denoted the area by the southern side of the carceres, which would imply the location of the temple close to the sanctuary of Ceres 24 , is quite uncertain and, besides, has no value for positioning Gurges' temple because Livy does not say that the latter stood circa foros. The hypothesis that it stood near the shrine of (Venus) Murcia, the latter having most probably been located on the Aventine side of the Circus' curve 25 , is also unsupported by the evidence. It seems that at the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to indicate the position of the temple of Venus Obsequens more accurately than the Aventine side of the Circus Maximus. 1

Liv. 10.31.9. Serv. auct. ad Aen. 1.720. Broughton 1951-52, I p. 178, 181, 183. 4 Schilling 1954, p. 27 n. 1, 200-202, Schilling 1958, p. 23. 5 Grimal in REA 58 (1956), p. 143. 6 Schilling 1958, p. 23. 7 Ibid., see Schilling 1954, p. 27 n. 1: «en tout etat de cause, l'origine de Tarnende est un detail secondaire dans l'érection du temple de Venus Obsequens». 8 Bayet in REL 34 (1956), p. 402, Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 498. 9 See Torelli RRF, p. 36-40, 40-59. 10 Schilling 1954, p. 202. On the other hand, he admits elsewhere in the same work that Gurges was aedile whilst making his vow (Schilling 1954, p. 94 and n. 3). It is hard to see how this can be reconciled with his notion of «Gurges, un general en diffìculté». 2

3

170

11

Schilling 1958, p. 23. See above, p. 21-22, 31-32, 85-86, and also Liv. 10.23.11-13 on the activity of the two pairs of aediles in 296, and Liv. 34.53.4 on the dedication of the aedilician temple of Faunus. 13 Grimal in REA 58 (1956), p. 143. 14 See Servius' Harvard edition, II (1946), p. 295. 15 See below, p. 175-176. 16 Ibid. 17 It might as well be added that Servius is our only authority on this surname, so that it is not altogether certain whether Venus Obsequens was the official appellation of the temple otherwise simply called that of Venus ad Circum Maximum. On the other hand, see De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 155 andn. 113. 18 Inslt XIII 2, p. 17. 19 Inslt XUl 2, p. 148-149. 20 Liv. 29.37.2. 21 Liv. 41.27.9. 22 Palmer 1976-77, p. 145 fig. 1. 23 Palmer 1976-77, p. 148. 24 Torelli 1984, p. 79. 25 See Humphrey 1986, p. 95-96. 12

VICA POTA in Velia Plainer-Ashby, p. 569 The Fasti Antiates Maiores mention the temple of Vica Pota on 5th January: Vicae Pota [e] l. All other references to this temple are made in the context of the second house of P.Valerius Poplicola, whose site the temple was said to occupy. Livy locates it infra Veliam... ubi nunc Vicae Potae aedes est and adds that domus [Valerii] in infimo clivo aedificata 2 . In Plutarch, Poplicola built his house OJIOV vöv IEQÓV ècxiv Ovinaq Hóxac, òvo^a£óu£vov 3 . Asconius speaks of his house sub Veliis, ubi nunc aedis Victoriae est 4 . The temple of the goddess half-forgotten in Cicero's time 5 would have been an old foundation datable to the years 292-219. One might argue that the tradition about its having occupied the site of Poplicola's house dimly reflects the person of a Valerius as its founder, but the proximity of the burial ground of the gens Valeria 6 sufficiently accounts for this tradition. The temple stood at the foot of the Velia, perhaps in the north-western part of the hill 7 , at the beginning of a clivus about which nothing else is known but which most probably led to the summit of the Velia. Coarelli's hypothetical identification of the 171

house of Poplicola with the archaic house excavated by Boni at the back of the burial ground east of the temple of Faustina 8 can be neither proved not disproved. One might only point out that nothing even remotely resembling a temple has yet been found on that site. 1

Inslt XIII 2, p. 2. Liv. 2.7.12. 3 Plut. Popi 10.6. 4 Asc. ad Pis. 52. See Weinstock in RE 8A 2 (1958), c. 2014-2015 s.v. Vica Pota, on assimilation of Vica Pota with Victoria. 5 Cic. de leg. 2.28. 6 See above, p. 129. 7 See above, p. 129, 134-135. 8 Coarelli 1983, p. 80-82, see Gjerstad 1953, p. 118-128, Gjerstad 1966, p. 403-417. 2

VICTORIA in Palatio Platner-Ashby, p. 570 Livy reports that L. Postumius Megellus cos. 305, 294, 291, at the beginning of his second consulate aedem Victoriae, quam aedilis curulis ex multaticia pecunia faciendam curaverat, dedicavit i. The temple was dedicated on 1st August, as shown by that day's entries in the Fasti Antiates Maiores: Victor[iis] II2, and in the Fasti Praenestini: Victoriae, Victoriae Virgini in Palatio 3 . The dies natalis rather late in the year matches Livy's remark that in 294 Megellus was detained in Rome by an illness and marched out against the Samnites only after having received news of his colleague's misfortunes on the battlefield; the dedication of the temple of Victoria took place just before his departure 4 . Although everything seems to fit in neatly in this picture, I am convinced that the temple of Victoria was not an aedilician foundation. Before proceeding with my case I shall discuss the temple's location, since this will provide an important argument for including it among manubial foundations. The temple of Victoria was tentatively identified by Castagnoli with the remains of a shrine between the temple of Magna Mater and the «Casa di Augusto» 5 . Recently, Pensabene and Wiseman have taken up this identification in a much more elaborate and comprehensive manner. Wiseman's arguments are as follows. First, according to Dionysios 7, Evander settled his Arcadians at the foot of the Palatine; the exact site of the colony is indicated

172

by its most important shrine dedicated to Pan and situated at the Lupercal. The second shrine built by the Arcadians was dedicated to Nike and located èrci... xfj xogucpfj xoi5 Xóqpou; it seems obvious that the cliff on which this shrine stood overlooked the Lupercal and the dwellings of the Arcadians. Now, the presumed temple of Victoria stood at the upper end of the scalae Caci, ie., right above the Lupercal 8. This location seems to be corroborated by a wallpainting in the house of Fabius Secundus in Pompei, which depicts the story of Rhea Silvia and her sons. The temple at the top right corner of the painting (ie. at the top of the Palatine, right above the Lupercal and the ficus Ruminalis) is no doubt the temple of Victoria, said to have been founded em xfj xooucpfj xov Xóqpou long before the birth of Romulus and Remus 9. Secondly, two inscriptions dedicated to Victoria, one on a Republican cippus 10 and the other on a fragment of a marble architrave of Augustan age * l, have been found below the western corner of the Orti Farnesiani 12. If, as seems most probable, they had fallen there from above, their original location would have been either the westernmost part of the later Domus Tiberiana or the terrace occupied by the temple of the Magna Mater and the presumed temple of Victoria - another argument for the proposed identification 13. Thirdly, before the completion of the temple of the Magna Mater in 191, the holy black stone from Pessinus had been kept in the temple of Victoria 14, the most probable reason for this having been that temple's proximity to the site selected for the temple of the Magna Mater 15, as already conjectured by Castagnoli 16. Pensabene's excavations around the temple of the Magna Mater have decisively corroborated this hypothesis 17. The small structure at the top of the «scalae Caci», tentatively identified with the temple of Victoria, turned out to be just the frontal part of a podium 33x20 metres large 18 . This discovery has solved the problem raised by Livy's remark that M. Porcius Cato cos. 195 built a small temple (aedicula) to Victoria Virgo prope aedem Victoriae 19, which shows that the temple of Victoria was flanked by another, much smaller shrine. Now, adjacent to the extensive remains excavated by Pensabene there stands a small structure (ca. 12x7 m.), known as the «Auguratorium» 20. The respectable dimensions of the larger podium imply an important temple whose identification with that of Victoria is further corroborated by the recent finding in the neighbouring «Casa di Augusto» of a small marble base with a votive inscription to Victoria: [---] L.l(ibertus) donum solvit Victoriae 21. As for the «Auguratorium», its 173

extremely small dimensions and location close to the other structure fit perfectly with the information about the aedicula of Victoria Virgo situated prope aedem Victoriae 22. The identification of the temple of Victoria strongly argues against its inclusion among aedilician foundations. Flavius' temple of Concordia was an aedicula 23, Gracchus' temple of Iuppiter Libertas was a distylos 24; the large dimensions of the temple of Victoria imply an imperatore manubiae rather than an aedile's multae 25. Another questionable point is that in the case of the temple of Victoria Livy does not specify the exact source of Megellus' money, as he always does when reporting on the building activity of the aediles 26. Besides, a temple dedicated to the goddess of victory would have hardly been an aedilician foundation of the man who during his first consulate determined the outcome of the Second Samnitic War 27. This brings us to the chronological aspect of Livy's account of the founding of the temple of Victoria. The first aedile to found a temple was Cn. Flavius in 304. If we were to follow Livy's report we would have to date Megellus' vow to the years 303 or 301, the year 299 being out of the question as the year of the aedilship of Q.Fabius Maximus Rullianus and L. Papirius Cursor 28, and 297 as too close to the temple's dedication in 294. In other words, Megellus' first consulate would have preceded his aedilship 29. There is nothing impossible in this: we are still in the period when cursus honorum was not as rigid as in the second and first centuries 30; besides, Megellus may have held two aedilships, one before and the other after 305 31. But even so, Megellus' vowing of the temple of Victoria would have been posterior to his victorious first consulate which should have logically provided an occasion for such a vow. Now, before the break of his narrative in 293, Livy reports on the works of the aediles of 304 32, 296 33 and 295 34, whereas his only mention of Megellus' aedilship is the quoted remark made in the context of the latter's consulate. Furthermore, Livy ends his account of the year 305 - Megellus' first consulate and the last campaign of the Second Samnitic War - with the remark: Herculis magnum simulacrum in Capitolio positum dedicatumque 35, without, however, specifying who set it up, Megellus or the plebeian consul suffectus of that year, M. Fulvius Curvus. This, again, begs a question. Naturally, arguments ex silentio are always suspect, but in the case of L.Postumius Megellus we are clearly dealing with a conspiracy of silence and distortion. In his account of the campaign of 305, after the main narrative which is on the whole favourable 174

to Megellus 36, Livy mentions another version which ascribes Roman victories to the plebeian consuls of that year, Ti.Minucius and M.Fulvius Curvus37. In the Fasti Triumphales, which obviously represent the same tradition, only Curvus' triumph is recorded 38. Even more significant is Livy's account of Megellus' second consulate. Towards the end of the description of the campaign of 294 he says: Et huius anni parum constans memoria est. Postumium auctor est Claudius in Samnio captis aliquot urbibus in Apulia fusum fugatumque saucium ipsum cum paucis Luceriam compulsum: ab Atilio in Etruria res gestas eumque triumphasse. Fabius ambo consules in Samnio et ad Luceriam res gessisse scribit traductumque in Etruriam exercitum - sed ab utro consule non adicit - et ad Luceriam utrimque multos occisos inque ea pugna Iovis Statoris aedem votam 39. Considering that it was Megellus' colleague, MAtilius Regulus, who was defeated at Luceria, and that only Megellus fought in Etruria 40, the distortion of truth in the two accounts is simply monstrous. Fabius Pictor, who wrote less than one hundred years after these events, worked chiefly by concealment and suggestio falsi, although even he lied by making Megellus an accomplice in Regulus' defeat; the late annalist Claudius Quadrigarius simply credited Regulus with Megellus' deeds and vice versa 41. The Fasti Triumphales back up Claudius' version by recording Regulus' fictitious triumph 42. The loss of Livy's second decade makes it impossible to follow in detail Megellus' impeachment and condemnation at the end of his third consulate in 291 43, during which he effectively eliminated the Samnites from the war 44. But the names of the annalists who gave so distorted a picture of his second consulate suggest that both the Fabii and the Claudii participated in engineering his condemnation. We do not know the nature of the feud, clearly implied by Quadrigarius' account, between Megellus and the Claudii (or Ap. Claudius Caecus?), but as for Fabius Pictor, Megellus must have been the arch-enemy of his gens at the time of the Third Samnitic War 45. It so happened that during that war Megellus' consulates followed in the wake of those held by the Fabii Maximi, Rullianus' in 295 and Gurges' in 292. In 294 Megellus exploited Rullianus' decisive victory at Sentinum by conquering much of the enemy territory46; in 291 he captured the main centres of Samnite resistance 47, thus effectively reducing the mortal foes of Rome, who had managed to inflict a major defeat on Q.Fabius Gurges a year earlier 48. Rullianus succeeded in proroguing his son's Imperium and having himself elected the latter's legate; in this way he was able to save Gurges' face on the 175

battlefield49. The conflict which flared up on this occasion between the two Fabii and Megellus 50 strongly suggests that Rulliamo enormous influence was decisive in bringing about Megellus' condemnation at the end of the year. But the Fabii and Megellus' other enemies could to nothing about the fact that the most visible proclamation of Rome's victory in the Samnitic Wars was the great temple of Victoria, towering over the highest part of the Palatine, in full view of the Circus Maximus, the Forum Boarium and the Velabrum: a lasting memorial of Megellus' achievements. The only way to dissociate this temple from the fallen hero of the two Samnitic wars was to present it as an aedilician foundation, financed ex multaticia pecunia and not ex manubiis. It is interesting to note that, in a parallel though inverted process, his adversary's Gurges' aedilician foundation to Venus apparently ended up as a postvotum for the victory in the Third Samnitic War 51. To achieve this, Megellus' enemies did not have to resort to outright lies, as they had been obliged to do while narrating his campaigns; what they needed was apparently one, almost innocent, suppressio veri, namely the omission to mention the vow itself which, as it has been said above, must have been made during his first consulate. We do not need to doubt Livy's information that Megellus commenced the construction of the temple of Victoria as aedile: the campaign of 305 must have ended very late in the year and he may simply have had no time to perform its locatio as consul. If so, he would have had to put off this ceremony, which launched the temple's construction, to his next office which turned out to be aedilship 52. But since aediles normally located temples ex multaticia pecunia, not ex manubiis, this suppressio veri inevitably led to a suggestio falsi, namely that the temple of Victoria was an aedilician foundation. Exactly as one would expect of him, Livy fell into this trap: having had nothing to say about Megellus' aedilship while narrating the events of that year (whichever year it was), under 294 he duly comes out with the information quoted at the beginning, which is quite true except for the words ex multaticia pecunia, thrown in by himself or by whoever of his predecessors was the first to be duped. 1 2 3 4 5

176

Liv. 10.33.9. Inslt XIII 2, p. 16. Inslt XIII 2, p. 134-135. Liv. 10.31.3, 33.8-9. Castagnoli 1964, p. 186.

6

Pensabene 1980, p. 72-73, Pensabene 1981, p. 110-112 and fig. 3, Pensabene 1985, p. 200-201, Wiseman 1981. 7 Dion. Hal. 1.32.3-33.1. 8 Wiseman 1981, p. 35-36. 9 Wiseman 1981, p. 36-37. 10 CIL I2 805= VI 3733= VI 31059 =ILLRP 284: [Vict]oriai/ [— ]cius C.f.l \p.]R.S.C.DD. 11 CIL VI 31060: [Imp. C]aesar divi f. [aedem Vi]ctoria[e refecit], 12 Hülsen 1895, p. 23-25. 13 Wiseman 1981, p. 37-40, see already Pensabene 1980, p. 73. 14 Liv. 29.14.13. 15 Wiseman 1981, p. 46. I leave out Wiseman's two other arguments, one about the position of the Porta Romanula at the lower end of the Clivius Victoriae by the church of S. Giorgio in Velabro, the other about the casa Romuli on the Palatine. The former (Wiseman 1981, p. 40-42) is of secondary importance to the main issue; Castagnoli 1964, p. 181-185, situates the Porta Romanula at the north-western corner of the Palatine, but this does not preclude him from locating the temple of Victoria at exactly the same site as Wiseman (see also Coarelli 1983, p. 230-234, whose criticism of Wiseman's location of the gate has now been accepted by the latter, see Wiseman 1987, p. 399-401). The second argument is unacceptable, see n. 22. 16 Castagnoli 1964, p. 185. 17 See now Pensabene 1985. 18 Pensabene 1985, p. 200-201 and fig. 1. 19 Liv. 35.9.6.; see Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 489. 20 Pensabene 1985, p. 198-199, see fig. 7. 21 Pensabene 1980, p. 73 n. 35, Schippa 1980-82. 22 Wiseman 1981, p. 45-46, identifies the «Auguratorium» with the temple of Iuppiter Victor as a result of the following argument about the Palatine casa Romuli: 1) the hut of Faustulus (xfjg OaicTUXou Òicaxng), located by Konon (FrGrH 26, 48.8) èv xcp XOXJ Aiòg lecxp, can only be identified with the casa Romuli on the Palatine, there being no evidence that the Capitoline hut had ever been identified with Faustulus' domicile. This indicates that near the casa Romuli on the Palatine there was a temple of Jupiter. 2) Mirabilia 25 mentions a temple of Jupiter on the Palatine known as the casa maior; though the Regionary Catalogues list the Palatine temple of Jupiter (Victor) separately from the aedes Romuli, the passage in the Mirabilia makes sense only in the light of Konon's report. The temple of Jupiter he mentions was therefore that of Iuppiter Victor. 3) This temple was no doubt mentioned in Cassius Dio's remark about lightning bolts falling in 43 èg xòv vecbv xcp KamxcoA.icp èv xcp Nixaicp övxa (Cass. Dio 45.17.2): thus, the temple of Iuppiter Victor stood in the precinct of Victoria. Apart from what has been said above about Cato's aedicula of Victoria Virgo, I would make the following comments: ad 1) Faustulus was the guardian of Romulus and Remus, so that both the casae Romuli,

ill

Capitoline and Palatine, could by definition be identified with the tugurium Faustuli; ad 2) the Palatine temple of Jupiter from the Catalogues and the Mirabilia is to be identified with the great complex of the Vigna Barberini, see above, p. 81-82; 3) Cass. Dio 45.17.2 is so corrupt to prove anything: as such it is useless, see above, p. 94 n. 7. 23 See above, p. 21. 24 See above, p. 86. 25 The only pair of aediles who apparently acquired pecunia multatieia comparable to the generals' manubiae were the Publicii brothers, see above, p. 33. But theirs' was an exceptional case: all of a sudden they smote the pecuarii after what must have been close to twenty years of indulgence. 26 See above, p. 169 and n. 12. Liv. 24.16.19 is not an argument, because in this passage the historian mentions the founding of the temple of Iuppiter Libertas in the context of the painting placed there by the founder's son, see above, p. 85. There is no doubt that in the missing book 19 Livy specified the offenders whose fines enabled Gracchus to build his temple. 27 Liv. 9.44.5.16. 28 Liv. 10.9.10-13, see Broughton 1951-52, I p. 173-174. 29 Seidel 1908, p. 12-13, dates Megellus' aedilship to 307, the last possible year before his first consulate, without, however, taking into account the implications of Livy's remark. 30 See Seidel 1908, passim. 31 Like Q.Fabius Rullianus, Ap.Claudius Caecus and, most probably, M.Valerius Corvus, see Seidel 1908, p. 10-11, 14. 32 See above, p. 21. 33

34

Liv. 10.23.11-13.

See above, p. 167-168. 35 Liv. 9.44.16; see above, p. 56 n. 21. 36 Liv. 9.44.5-14. 37 Liv. 9.44.15. 38 Inslt XIII 1, p. 542-543. In Livy's main narrative, magna gloria rerum gestarum consules triumpharunt, though he apparently thought that the plebeian triumphator was the consul Ordinarius Ti.Minucius. De Sanctis 1953-68, II p. 322 and n. 136, rejects Livy's main narrative and thus denies Megellus any role in the final victory: the decisive battle would have been won by Minucius (otherwise known to have been mortally wounded in this very battle), while the conquest of Bovianum would have been achieved by Fulvius. But the version of Livy's quidam auctores and of the Fasti Triumphales has too close a parallel in the distorted accounts of Megellus' second consulate (see below) to deserve different treatment than these obvious pieces of personal anti-propaganda. On the unreliability of the Fasti Triumphales for this period, see Mazzarino 1966, II p. 288. 39 Liv. 10.37.14-15 = Claudius, fr. 34, Fabius, fr. 19, Peter2. 40 Liv. 10.33-37. 41 Even in Livy's main narrative, on the whole rather favourable to

178

Megellus, the anti-Postumian propaganda is clearly visible in the account of the controversy over Megellus' triumph of that year (Liv. 10.37.6-12), evidently modelled on the one that flared up in connection with his triumph of 291 (Dion. Hal. 17-18.5.3, see Bruno 1907, p. 104, BravoGriffin, p. 518). 42 InsItXUl 1, p. 544. 43 Torelli RRF, p. 43-45. 44 Dion. Hal. 17-18.5.1-2; see Torelli RRF, p. 46-47, 49-50. 45 On the relations between Megellus on the one hand and the Fabii and other political groups on the other, see Cassola 1962, p. 196-198. 46 Liv. 10.37.1-5; Zon. 8.1.9 (I p. 107 Boiss.). The surrender of Volsinii, Perusia and Arretium was in fact the direct consequence of the victory at Sentinum, see Liv. 10.37.4: pax tarnen clarior maiorque quam bellum in Etruria eo anno fuerat, parta est. By launching his Etrurian expedition, Megellus transgressed into the Fabian sphere of interest (Liv. 10.32.2 indicates that Samnium was designed as province to both the consuls of 294) thus stealing the fruits of victory, if not the victory itself, from Rullianus. 47 See n. 44. 48 Torelli RRF, p. 37-39. 49 Torelli RRF, p. 37-39, 46-48. Salmon 1967, p. 275, asserts that it was Gurges who captured Cominium, but this is contradicted by Dionysios, see n. 44. 50 Dion. Hal. 17-18.4.4.4-6. See now Bravo-Griffin. 51 See above, p. 169. 52 See below, p. 240.

VOLCANUS in Campo Martio Platner-Ashby, p. 584 The temple of Volcanus in Campo first appears in Livy's list of buildings struck by lightning in 214: among others he mentions aedem in campo Vulcani 1 . In Roman calendars a temple of Volcanus is mentioned on the Volcanalia (23rd August). The Fasti Antiates Maiores read: V[olkano] 2 , Fasti Vallenses: Volcano in Circo Flaminio 3 ; as for the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium, I give this most controversial entry first as it appears in the extant fragment with only obvious supplements, and then in Degrassi's reading 4 : I:

Volcano [Nymp] his in Campo. Opi Opifer(ae) [Horae] Ouirini in colle. Volk(ano) [supra] Comit(ium)

179

II:

[Feriae] Volcano [Volk(ano) in cir(co) Flam(inio). Nymp]his in Campo. Opi Opifer(ae) [Horae] Quirini in colle. Volk(ano) [Maiae supra] Comit(ium)

The question is whether in Rome there were two temples of Volcanus, one in Campo Martio (built in 292-219), and the other in Circo Flaminio (built in 292-219 or 179/166-91), or just one temple built in 292-219 and perhaps situated in a zone that could be indicated as lying both in Circo and in Campo 5. The problem disappears once we admit the existence of two temples 6, but Plutarch apparently knew of only one temple of Volcanus in Rome, situated outside the pomerium, probably not far from the palus Caprae 7. This is not a very strong argument but in view of the proximity of the Circus Flaminius and the Campus Martius as well as the fact that time limits of the temple or temples of Volcanus in Livy and in the calendars overlap, it is generally assumed that all our sources mention only one temple 8 . If so, it would actually have been the only structure whose location is specified in our sources with these two toponyms 9; this is why those who believe in the existence of only one temple of Volcanus assume that someone, Livy or the Fasti Vallenses, made a mistake. Castagnoli has shown that the main argument of those who opted for Livy's location - the presumed close relationship between the temples of Volcanus and Iuturna (sometimes identified with that of Nymphae 10) - is quite unfounded; in his opinion, our temple stood in Circo Flaminio 11. But I fail to see why we should prefer the Fasti Vallenses to Livy: the little that has remained of this calendar shows that, apart from more or less obvious errors 12, it sometimes positions temples in a manner not found in other calendars 13. Of course, it would have been easier to confuse Hercules Magnus in Circo Flaminio with Hercules lnvictus ad Circum Maximum or to list, mistakenly but consistently, Ops in Capitolio on the Opiconsivia instead of the Volcanalia, than to think up a new compound: Volcanus in Circo Flaminio. But Livy was very precise in topography 14 and Plutarch suggests a place in the neighborhood of the Villa Publica and the Ovilia. Degrassi based his reading of the fragment of the Fasti Fratrum Arvalium on Castagnoli's authority 15, but if we read the second extant line as [Volkano, Nymp]his in Campo..., as we have every right to do, the site of the temple of Volcanus will be indi180

cated by the location of the temple of Nymphae, ie. in Campo 16. As for the entry in the Fasti Vallenses, Mommsen's old intuition that the temple of Volcanus bordered upon the two zones 17 would, if correct, provide a sufficient explanation for this calendar's location of the temple. Gatti's identification of the Circus Flaminius 18 narrowed the range of possible sites for the thus localized temple of Volcanus to the angle between the northern temples of the Circus Flaminius those of Iuppiter Stator, Iuno Regina and Hercules Musarum and the Porticus Minucia, ie., the Via delle Botteghe Oscure. It is precisely in this area, under the Palazzo Mattei, that a dedicatory inscription Volcano d.d., set up by a certain Cn. Octavius Titinius Capito 19, was found. This area was already suggested as the site of the temple of Volcanus by Zevi 20, but it is Coarelli who has topographically connected the inscription with the temple of Volcanus and identified the latter with the structure partly visible on fragment 634 of the Pianta Marmorea 21, which had stood in the centre of the Crypta Balbi 22. His most convincing proposition solves the puzzle why this temple could be located both in Campo and in Circo; it stood on the confines of the Campus Martius bordering on the Circus Flaminius 23. It also seems that we might try to date this temple more accurately than the limits provided by Livy's lost second decade. The possible clue is the issue of denarii serrati minted in Rome in 105, with a bust of Volcanus on the obverse and an eagle on a thunderbolt with a legend L.COT on the reverse 24. The figures on both sides are surrounded by laurel-wreaths; a similar garland binds the cap on the god's head. The obverse type recalls the standard coinage of Lipara, a great centre of Hephaistos' worship; the moneyer who struck the series is identified by Crawford with L.Aurelius Cotta tr.pl. 103 25. The coins under discussion obviously allude to the triumph of CAurelius Cotta cos.I 252, the conqueror of Lipara 26: it looks as if a bust of Volcanus, the patron deity of that city, and standard allusions to a triumph sufficed to bring the memory of the deed of L. Cotta's ancestor back to the public at large. Yet, it is difficult to believe that the capture of a relatively unimportant Greek town could by itself be remembered in Rome a hundred and fifty years later. There must have existed in the City some reminder which kept afresh the memory of that event. The only memorial one can think of would undoubtedly be the temple of Volcanus - if founded by CAurelius Cotta. Admittedly, the capture of Lipara was the most dramatic and 181

costly of Cotta's achievements 27 for which he later triumphed de Poeneis et Siculeis 28 . Besides, while the town may have been of little renown, its patron god was surely not: the local cult of Hephaistos owed its origin and fame to the nearby volcano of Stromboli, the lighthouse of the Tyrrhenian Sea. There is, however, another argument for ascribing the founding of the temple of Volcanus to C.Cotta. The figure of Volcanus is extremely rare on Roman coins. Apart from the denarii under discussion, in Crawford's catalogue the bust of the god appears only on the obverse of dodrantes struck in 127 and 126 by a Metellus 29 and a C. Cassius 30 , and as an extra to the main figures of Lares Praestites on the reverse of denarii struck in 112 or 111 by L. Caesius or Caesilius 31 . The figure of the god on all these coins is identical: a bust of a bearded man, draped and wearing a cap, with tongs over his shoulder. This similarity indicates that they all copied one archetype, almost certainly the cult statue of the god as worshipped in Rome, but stylistically hardly distinguishable from the Liparaean Hephaistos 32 . Considering that the temple of Volcanus was founded between 292 and 219, the one man who could have brought to Rome the cult statue of the god worshipped in Lipara was the city's conqueror, C.Aurelius Cotta cos. 252, 248. 1

Liv. 24.10.9. Inslt XIII 2, p. 17. Inslt Xlll 2, p. 148-149. 4 Inslt XLU2, p. 30-31. 5 Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 326. 6 As observed by Castagnoli 1948, p. 161-162. 7 Plut. Rom. 27.5-6, quaest. Rom. 47. 8 See Castagnoli 1948, p. 161-162. 9 Castagnoli 1948, p. 161. 10 Mommsen in CIL I2 p. 326-327, Hülsen-Jordan, p. 481-483, Guarducci 1936, p. 33 n. 15, 35-36. 11 Castagnoli 1948, p. 160-163. 12 See above, p. 24, 49 n. 12, 122-123. 13 Spei ad forum Holitorium, Vortumno in Loreto maiore. 14 Zevi 1976, p. 1059. 15 Degrassi in Inslt XIII 2, p. 501. 16 See Platner-Ashby, p. 584. 17 Seen. 5. 18 Gatti 1960. 19 CIL VI 798. 20 Zevi 1976, p. 1054, 1059. 21 Gatti 1960, p. 9 fig. 7, Cozza 1968, p. 20. See also Gatti 1979, p. 244 fig. 2. 2 3

182

22

Coarelli 1985A, p. 288 (first put forward in the second edition of Roma Laterza, published in 1980), see now Manacorda 1982; Manacorda 1987. 23 On the confines of the Circus Flaminius and the Campus Martius, see the masterly analysis of the topographical structure of the Augustan Ninth Region in Castagnoli 1948, p. 148-151. Although written before Gatti's epoch-making article, this study demonstrated that the central Campus Martius consisted of two topographical units (or three, if the zone of the Via Lata is included) : the northern, orientated on the cardinal points, and the southern, whose axis determined the orientation of the temples of Iuppiter Stator, Iuno Regina and Hercules Musarum, with their respective porticoes, and of the temple under S. Salvatore in Campo {Mars Invictus); see Castagnoli 1948, p. 149 fig. 3, Coarelli 1968, p. 310 fig. A, Coarelli 1985A, p. 271. Since 1960 we have known that the latter area was the zone of the Circus Flaminius. Balbus' complex filled the triangle between the two zones so that, though the orientation of the structure which stood within the Crypta Balbi leaves no doubt as to its being a part of the Campus Martius area, the location in Circo Flaminio is not entirely without foundation. 24 Crawford 1974, no. 314. 25 Crawford 1974, ad locum, p. 322. 26 Zon. 8.14.7 (Ip. 164Boiss.). 27 Zon. 8.14.7 (I p. 164 Boiss); Frontin. Strat. 4.1.31. 28 te/*XIII l,p. 549. 29 Crawford 1974, no. 263/2. 30 Crawford 1974, no. 266/2. 31 Crawford 1974, no. 298. 32 See eg. BMC (Sicily), p. 256-257, Head 1911, p. 191, Babelon 1924-36, I p. 275-276, Zagami 1959, p. 40-42 and tab. IX-X.

VORTUMNUS in Aventino Platner-Ashby, p. 584 The temple of Vortumnus is mentioned together with that of Consus in Festus' entry on pietà: pictum in aede Vertumni et Consi, quarum in altera M.Fulvius Flaccus, in altera T.[sic] Papirius Cursor triumphantes ita picti sunt l. Its dedication day was 13th August, see that day's entries in the Fasti Antiates Maiores: Vortu(mno) 2 , the Fasti Vallenses: Vortumno in Loreto maiore3, the Fasti Allifani and Amiternini: Vortumno in Aventino 4 . Torelli5s reading of the inscription on the donarium found in 1961 in the area sacra of S.Omobono: M.Folv[io(s) Q.f. cos]ol d(ono) [or d(edet)] Volsi[nio] cap[to] 5 , finally vindicated the entry in the Fasti Triumphales: M.Fulvius Q.f.M.n. Flaccus de Vulsi-

183

niensibus 6, against the literary tradition which presented as the conqueror of Volsinii either Flaccus' colleague Ap. Claudius Caudex or Q.Fabius Maximus Gurges cos. 265, or some unknown Decius Mus.7 Vortumnus, the patron deity of the Etruscan League, had his fanum in the territory of Volsinii, so there is little doubt that his Aventine temple was built by M.Fulvius Flaccus cos.264, most probably in fulfilment of evocatio 8. The location in Loreto malore points to a site near the Armilustrum 9. In the Regionary Catalogues Armilustrum opens the list of monuments of the Thirteenth Region (Aventinus), followed by the temples of Diana and Minerva 10. This might suggest the north-western part of the hill, though the Thirteenth Region is one of those regions where it is well-nigh impossible to trace out topographical order in the enumeration by the Catalogues n . In the zone traversed by the Via di S.Sabina two inscriptions set up by the magistri vici Armilustri have been found, one by the church of S.Alessio 12, the other slightly to the north, near the church of S.Sabina 13. This would suggest that the Vicus Armilustri was the forerunner of the Via di S.Sabina. The Armilustrum itself may have been situated at the northern end of that street, not far from the Circus Maximus, or between S.Sabina and S.Alessio 14. Yet we know nothing about the exact relationship between the Loretum maior and the Vicus Armilustri; so, though Merlin's location of the temple of Vortumnus near that of Iuno Regina 15 two sanctuaries of two great Etruscan deities «evoked» to Rome, one marking the beginning and the other the completion of the subjugation of Etruria - is very attractive, it is safer to admit ignorance. Coarelli observes that, on fragment 21 of the Pianta Marmorea, the temple shown at the back of the Thermae Suranae corresponds to the position of the temple of Vortumnus 16 - provided that we accept the location of the Armilustrum north of S.Sabina and assume that the Loretum maior ran parallel to the northern slope of the Aventine 17. But again it seems safer to admit ignorance and wait for some archaeological or epigraphic findings that would clear the matter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

184

Festus 228 L, see above, p. 24. Inslt XIII 2, p. 16. Inslt XIII 2, p. 148-149. Inslt XIII 2, p. 180-181, 190-191. Torelli 1968, p. 72. Inslt Xlll 1, p. 547. Torelli RRF, p. 257-261, see Torelli 1968, p. 71.

8

Merlin 1906, p. 201-202, Van Doren 1954, p. 492-493. Le Gall 1976, p. 523 puts Vortumnus together with luno Curritis and Minerva Capta (the latter wrongly, see above, p. 113-114) among deities probably brought to Rome through evocatio, the Veientine luno Regina being the only incontestable case. 9 Varrò LL 5.152: Lauretum, ab eo quod ibi sepultus est Tatius rex, qui ab Laurentibus interfectus est, [aut] ab silva laurea, quod ea ibi excisa et aedifìcatus vicus; Festus 496 L: Tatium occisum... sepultum in Aventiniensi laureto; Plut. Rom. 23.3: cwua xov Taxiov... xeixca JIEQÌ TÒ nakovU£VOV 'AQIWAOIJCTQIOV ÈV ' AODEVTIVCO. 10

Nordh 1949, p. 94. Eg. Hülsen-Jordan, p. 163, situates the Armilustrum in the centre of the Aventine, see below. 12 CIL VI 31069. 13 CIL VI 31070. 14 Merlin 1906, p. 312-314, Platner-Ashby, p. 54 s.w. Armilustrum. 15 Merlin 1906, p. 202. 16 Coarelli 1985A, p. 345. 17 As another possible attribution of the temple at the back of the Thermae Suranae, Coarelli mentions the temple of Consus about whose location we know nothing except that it stood on the Aventine; see above, p. 24. 11

185

III. THE LIST OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS

Date of Name and location vow 396 Iuno Regina in Aventino 390 Mars in Clivo 345 Iuno Moneta in Arce 325 Quirinus in Colle Quirinali 311 Salus in Colle Quirinali 305 Victoria in Palatio 304 Concordia in area Volcani 296 Bellona in Circo Flaminio 295 Venus Obsequens ad Circum Maximum 295 Iuppiter Victor in Colle Quirinali 294 Iuppiter Stator ad Portam Mugoniam 293 Fors Fortuna trans Tiberim 292 Aesculapius in Insula 292- Hercules Invictus ad Circum 269/6 Maximum 292- Portunus in Portu 260 276 Summanus ad Circum Maximum 272 Consus in Aventino 268 Tellus in Carinis 267 Pales (in Palatio?) 264 Vortumnus in Aventino

Vow maker M. Furius Camillus L. Furius Camillus L. Papirius Cursor C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus L. Postumius Megellus Cn. Flavius Ap. Claudius Caecus Q. Fabius Maximus Gurges Q. Fabius Maximus Rulliamo M. Atilius Regulus Sp. Carvilius Maximus

L. Papirius Cursor P. Sempronius Sophus M. Atilius Regulus M. Fulvius Flaccus 187

263/2 Minerva in Aventino 260 lanus in Foro Holitorio 259 Tempestates ad Portam Capenam

C. Duillius L. Cornelius Scipio

258/71

A. Atilius Caiatinus Spes in Foro Holitorio 254A. Atilius Caiatinus Fides in Capitolio 249 C. Aurelius Cotta 252 Volcanus in Campo Martio L. Caecilius Metellus 250 Ops Opifera in Capitolio 257- Neptunus in Circo Flaminio 229 C. Lutatius Catulus 242/1 luturna in Campo Martio 241 luno Curritis in Campo Martio A. Manlius Torquatus (?) Q. Lutatius Cerco (?) 241 Fortuna Publica in Colle (?) Quirinali L. M. Publica Malleoli 240 Flora ad Circum Maximum 240- Fortuna Publica citerior in 219 Colle Quirinali (?) 233

231 225 223 222

Honos ad Portam Capenam Föns ad Portam Fontinalem Feronia in Campo Martio Hercules Magnus Custos in Circo Flaminio Honos et Virtus

Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus C. Papirius Maso L. Aemilius Papus C. Flaminius M. Claudius Marcellus

The following temples were vowed some time in the years 292-219; Flora in Colle Quirinali, Hercules ad Portam Collinam, Honos ad Portam Collinam, Hora Quirini in Colle Quirinali, Lares in summa Sacra Via, Luna in Aventino, Penates in Velia, Sol et Luna in Circo Maximo, Sol Indiges in Colle Quirinali, Tiberinus in Insula, Vica Pota in Velia, and probably Iuppiter Fulgur in Campo Martio and Ops ad Forum. Also in those years one private shrine became public temple (Iuno Lucina Esquiliis). This list of Mid-Republican temple foundations, which is to be consulted with fig. 1 (p. 284), will serve as the basis for the historical and topographical commentary that makes the rest of this work. It goes without saying that a considerable part of dates, locations and temple founders on the list and on the map are only 188

more or less founded hypotheses. I wish to stress this in order to exempt myself from further repetititions in following chapters. In one or two instances later in the text I emphasize the hypothetical character of some proposals, but generally the reader is advised to consult the catalogue.

189

PART TWO: HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS

I. THE RIGHT TO FOUND PUBLIC TEMPLES: VOTUM, LOCATIO, DEDICATIO

Founding a public temple was a long and complex, manysided process l. We learn from Livy that the full «birth certificate» of a temple comprised dates of its votum, locatio and dedicatio three stages always performed by a magistrate, ordinary or extraordinary. There was also inauguratio of a templum and consecratio of an aedes; last but not least we must not lose from the sight the actual construction of a sanctuary. Yet, in an attempt to set the temples founded during the Middle Republic within the framework of Roman history and the City's landscape, it is most important to determine who had legal authority to found a public temple to a given deity on a specific site. The ritual aspect of temples' founding has been amply treated in classic works by Marquardt (who distinguished during the same ceremony the consecratio by a pontiff and the dedicatio by a magistrate) 2 ), Valeton (inauguratio, ie. principally effatio and liberatio of a locus) 3 and their followers, and so need not be discussed here, especially as the members of the priestly colleges augurs and pontiffs - performed their rites (inauguratio and consecratio respectively) only if and when summoned to do so by the magistrate. The material aspect of temple founding would be of great interest, especially in the context of that other crucial question of financing temples' construction; unfortunately, the scanti1

Of articles written specifically on the question of founding of temples, Bardon 1955 makes so many factual mistakes that it would be better to leave it out altogether. Stambaugh 1978 should also be used with caution owing to a number of errors. 2 Marquardt 1881-85, III p. 269-274. 3 Valeton 1892. 193

ness of archaeological evidence makes it absolutely impossible to try assessing the outlay of work and money required for even those few Mid-Republican temples about whose original architecture we can still form some hazy ideas. Thus, before attempting a historical commentary on temple foundations of the years 396-219, I shall concentrate on the legal aspect of the problem: who possessed the right to found public temples, ie., who could initiate a temple's construction; who could decide to introduce a new cult into the City; who selected the site; and finally, how many parties were involved in the process of the temple's founding? But again, I do not intend to touch on technical matters adequately presented in Römisches Staatsrecht, like, eg., the status and procedure of appointing extraordinary duumviri aedibus locandis dedicandis 4. As previously mentioned, Livy, our most authoritative source, distinguished three stages of the founding of a temple: votum, locatio and dedicatio; my discussion will therefore deal essentially with the question of who had the right to perform these acts, what was the legal basis thereof and whether some other party (and if so, which) had to give their assent. It seems evident that the right to found public temples was inseparably connected with the first of these stages, locatio and dedicatio being but consequences of the original votum. The question of who had this right can thus perfectly well be restated as: who had the right to vow public temples? Unfortunately, this rather banal statement has repeatedly been obscured by the fact that, of the three stages of a temple's birth, only dedication has left in our sources testimonies going beyond the bare statement of its occurrence. Political controversies, public laws, lawyers' sentences - all these appear in our sources exclusively in the context of dedicatio. The result is that, in modern scholarly discussion, the right to found public temples is in practice limited to dedicatio, even if it sometimes includes votum and locatio, and the analysis is set within the context of what was but the closing stage of the temple's founding. In my presentation, I shall follow the natural order of things and discuss votum first and then, successively, locatio and dedicatio.

4

194

Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 621-624.

1. VOTUM

The right to make solemn vows to gods in the name of the Roman people and on their behalf 5 , as a supplication, thanksgiving or expiation (vota nuncupata), seems to have been one of those royal prerogatives inherited by the magistrates of the Republic 6 . Festus gives the following definition of these vows: vota nuncupata dicuntur, quae consules, praetores, cum in provinciam proficiscuntur, faciunt7. But there is little doubt that customary vows which magistrates cum imperio addressed to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus before setting out to their provinces were only one category of vota nuncupata. Festus' definition looks as if it had been deduced from passages such as Liv. 45.39.11: consul proficiscens praetorve paludatis lictoribus in provinciam et ad bellum vota in Capitolio nuncupat; victor perpetrato bello eodem in Capitolium triumphans ad eosdem deos, quibus vota nuncupavit, merita dona portans redit. But the same Livy, when writing about the supplicatio which followed the vowing of ludi magni after the Trasimene disaster, says: votis rite nuncupatis supplicatio edicta 8 ; in this case votum nuncupatum simply means a «duly pronounced vow». In his account of the dispute between Ap. Claudius Caecus and P. Decius Mus over the rogatio Ogulnia Livy has Decius ask: quern paenitere votorum, quae pro re publica nuncupaverint tot consules plebeii, tot dictatores, aut ad exercitus euntes aut inter ipsa bella? 9 The meaning of this passage seems clear: all solemn vows made by the magistrates cum imperio on behalf of the Republic were vota nuncupata 10. 5

On votum see Mommsen 1887-88, I p. 243-246, Toutain in Daremberg-Saglio, V p. 969-978 s.v. votum, Turlan 1955, Schilling 1969, Versnel 1976. 6 See Magdelain 1978, pp. 71-72. 7 Festus 176 L, see Mommsen 1887-88, I p. 63-64. 8 Liv. 22.10.18. 9 Liv. 10.7.6. 10 On Livy's use of nuncupare and its derivatives, see Packard 1968, III p. 592. See also, eg., Cic. Phil. 3.11: nuncupare vota pro imperio populi Romani. Naturally, apart from nuncupare pro re publica or pro imperio, there were also nuncupationes made by private persons, see Gaius 2.104: nuncupare est enimpalam nominare, and Festus 176 L: nuncupata pecunia est, ut ait Cincius in lib. II de officio iurisconsulti, nominata, certa, nominibus propriis pronunciata (hence Toutain's definition of votum nuncupatum in Daremberg-Saglio, V p. 974: votum nominatum, certum, nominibus propriis pronunciatum). All vows pronounced in the manner 195

In our sources there are three texts which probably have preserved the original formulae of vota nuncupata. One is the formula of devotio recited by P. Decius Mus cos. 340 at Veseris u , two others are the formulae of evocatio of the gods of Carthage and that city's devotio to the infernal deities of Roman religion as recited by P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus in 146 12. Liv.

8.9.6-8: lane Iuppiter Mars pater Quirine Bellona Lares Divi Novensiles Di Indigetes divi, quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque, Dique Manes, vos precor veneror veniam peto oroque uti populo Romano Quiritium vim victoriamque prosperetis, hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. Sicut verbis nuncupavi, ita pro re publica [populi Romani Quiritium], exercitu legionibusque auxiliis populi Romani Quiritium, legiones auxiliaeque hostium mecum Deis Manibus Telluri que devoveo 13. Macr. Sat. 3.9.7-9: Si deus si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor venerorque veniamque a vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque Carthaginiensem deseratis, loca tempia sacra urbemque eorum relinquatis, absque his abeatis eique populo civitati metum formidinem oblivionem inicitatis, proditique Romam ad me meosque veniatis, nostraque vobis loca

prescribed above would in a certain sense have been vota nuncupata, regardless of the position of the vow-maker. But for clarity's sake it would be better to limit the use of the term to vota made by magistrates. 11 The genuineness of this formula seems assured by Plin. NH 28.12: durat immenso exemplo Deciorum patrisfiliiquequo se devovere carmen. See Wissowa 1912, p. 384 n. 5. 12 See Macr. Sat. 3.9.6: nam repperi in libro quinto Rerum Reconditarum Sammonici Sereni utrumque carmen quod ille se in cuiusdam Furii vetustissimo libro repperisse professus est. This Furius is generally identified with L. Furius Philus cos. 136, Scipio Aemilianus' friend and probably eye-witness of the fall of Carthage. See now Le Gall 1976, p. 521. 13 Strictly speaking, in this vow nuncupatio seems to be limited to the first sentence, as indicated by the beginning of the second: sicut verbis nuncupavi. See Turlan 1955, p. 519 and Versnel 1976, passim, on the complex character of devotio, in the latter's view composed of the votum sensu stricto (devotio of the enemy army) and the general's self-consecratio. But the second sentence of this text satisfies all the requisites of a votum nuncupatum, too. See Schilling 1969, p. 475-476. 196

tempia sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit, mihique populoque Romano militibusque meis praepositi sitis ut sciamus intellegamusque. Si ita feceretis, voveo vobis tempia ludosque facturum. Macr. Sat. 3.9.10-11: Dis pater Veiovis Manes, sive vos quo alio nomine fas est nominare, ut omnes illam urbem Carthaginem exercitumque [quem] ego me sentio dicere fuga formidine terrore compleatis quique adversum legiones exercitumque nostrum arma telaque ferent, uti vos eum exercitum eos hostes eosque homines urbes agrosque eorum et qui in his locis regionibusque agris urbibusque habitant abducatis, lumine supero privetis exercitumque hostium urbes agrosque eorum quos me sentio dicere uti vos eas urbes agrosque capita aetatesque eorum devotas consecratasque habeatis ollis legibus quibus quandoque sunt maxime hostes devoti. Eosque ego vicarios pro me fide magistratuque meo pro populo Romano exercitibus legionibusque nostris do devoveo, ut me meamque fìdem imperiumque legiones exercitumque nostrum qui in his rebus gerundis sunt bene salvos siritis esse. Si haec faxitis ut ego sciam sentiam intellegamque, tunc quisquis votum hoc faxit ubiubi faxit recte factum esto ovibus atris tribus. Tellus mater teque Iuppiter obtestor. In Livy we find some other examples of generals' vota in abbreviated form, some spurious 14 and some apparently genuine. Of practical interest to this paper are Camillus' vow to Apollo and Iuno Regina at Veii, and Ap. Claudius Caecus' battle vow to Bellona. Liv. 5.21.2-3: Tuo ductu... Pythice Apollo, tuoque numine instinctus pergo ad delendam urbem Veios tibique hinc decimam partem praedae voveo. Te simul, Iuno regina, quae nunc Veios colis, precor ut nos victores in nostram tuamque mox futuram urbem sequare, ubi te dignum amplitudine tua templum accipiat. Liv. 10.19.17: Bellona, si hodie nobis victoriam duis, ast ego tibi templum voveo. Macrobius' comment on the formula of devotio of enemy cities

Eg. Romulus' vow to Iuppiter Stator in Liv. 1.12.8-9. 197

- sed dictatores imperatoresque soli possunt devovere his verbis should not create an impression that other kinds of vota nuncupata could be pronounced by those sine imperio, his remark being obviously an inference from the phrase eosque ego vicarios pro me fide magistratuque meo... me meamque fìdem imperiumque. But the same ensues from other texts as well, so there is no doubt that all these formulae could be pronounced only by magistrates cum imperio. The binding character of these vows for the whole community in whose name they were pronounced seems obvious, especially in the light of Livy's comment on the commander's personal devotio: licere consuli dictatorique et praetori, cum legiones hostium devoveat, non utique se, sed quern velit ex legione Romana scripta civem devovere 15. Camillus' vicissitudes with fulfilling the vow to Apollo 16, even if invented by later generations, clearly indicate the binding character of such vows to the state. In the extant tradition both the senate and the pontiffs rally round Camillus, while the tribunes of the plebs accuse him in impotent rage of praedam Veientanam publicando sacrandoque at nihilum redegisse 17. Of course, there was a fundamental difference between a vow to build a temple and a personal devotio. The latter had practical consequences only in regard to the vow-maker or the soldier he had substituted for himself 18, whereas the former led to the construction of a new temple and often to the introduction of a new deity into the City, and so concerned the whole community. But the principle remained the same: the privilege to make vows on behalf of the Republic was the right of the magistrates cum imperio. One conclusion is that, if the matter of the vow was a promise to found a temple, the vow would have been binding to the Roman people in that at least nobody would have been able to contest its validity and the vow-maker's capability to carry it through 19. Since 304 we find the aediles, both curule and plebeian, vowing and founding temples 20; besides, the controversy over Clo-

15 16 17 18

Liv. 8.10.11. Liv. 5.23.8-11, 25.4-13, 28.1-2; Plut. Cam. 7.6-8.5. Liv. 5.25.12. On this question, see Cavallaro 1976, p. 280-285. ' i) In what measure the state, ie. in practice mainly the senate, was positively bound by the magistrate's vow, see below p. 250-252. 20 See above, p. 21-22. 198

dius5 dedication of a part of Cicero's house to Libertas suggests that by the first century the tribunes of the plebs, by then fully integrated into the magistrates of the Republic, were deemed to possess this right as well 21 . We do not know the legal basis of this right, nor do we know how those vows were pronounced. This may be nothing more than a reflection of a military bias of our sources, best visible in Livy's actually never mentioning an aedile's vow to build a temple: in his work, aedilician foundations are only being located and dedicated 22 . As a result, we do not quite know whether lesser magistrates could also make vota nuncupata (which would deprive this term of the specific meaning proposed above and reduce it to a «solemn vow on behalf of the community made by a magistrate vested with potestas») or whether they had a right to make vows of a different character de iure but of de facto similar power. The fact is that, as shall be seen below, we do not really see any difference between the vows made by the magistrates cum imperio and the aediles 23 . Apart from these two we can distinguish a third category of vows: those initiated by the Sibylline Books and perhaps by the college of pontiffs 24 . Every vow had to be made by a magistrate, but there was a world of difference between Q.Fabius Maximus Verrucosus' vowing as consul a temple to Honos during the war with the Ligures 25 and the vow he made as dictator to Venus Erycina, quia ita ex fatalibus libris editum erat, ut is voveret cuius maximum imperium in civitate esset 26 . In the first case he acted

21 This seems to reflect the change in the Romans' perception of the plebeian tribunate, which in the second and first centuries became de facto just another magistracy. 22 Cn. Flavius' vow to Concordia is recorded by Pliny, NH 33.19. 23 The binding character of vows made by magistrates cum imperio is understandable in the light of the notion of imperium, see Mommsen 1887-88, I passim, esp. p. 22-23. As for the aediles, one could argue that their right to this particular kind of vota should be linked with their original function of sacrarum aedium procuratio, from which their very name was derived, see Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 478-480, Sabbatucci 1954, p. 303-308. 24 It is not quite certain whether the temple of Honos was ordered by the libri fatales, since the sign which led to its construction (see above, p. 57) may not have warranted their consultation. It seems that in this case the initiative may have come from the college of pontiffs. 25 See above, p. 58. 26 Liv. 22.10.10.

199

on his own initiative, while in the second he merely did his duty 27. Except for the temple of Iuno Lucina, which in itself constitutes a separate category, Mid-Republican temples can be classified according to the position of their vow-makers as follows: 1. Generals' vows: Iuno Regina (396), Iuno Moneta (345), Quirinus (325), Salus (311), Victoria (305), Bellona (296), Iuppiter Victor (295), Iuppiter Stator (294), Fors Fortuna (293), Hercules Invictus (292-269/6), Consus (272), Tellus (268), Pales (267), Vortumnus (264), Minerva (263-262), Ianus (260), Tempestates (259), Fides, Spes (258/7 or 254 or 249), Neptunus (257-229), Volcanus (252), Ops Opifera (250), Iuturna (242), Iuno Curritis (241), Fortuna Publica (241), Honos (233), Fons (231), Feronia (225), Hercules Magnus Custos (223), Honos et Virtus (222). The following temples were most probably vowed by generals some time in the years 292-219: Fortuna Publica citerior, Hercules ad Portam Collinam, Lares, Penates, Vica Pota. 2. Aediles' vows: Concordia (304), Venus Obsequens (295), Iuppiter Libertas (246), Flora ad Circum Maximum (240). 3. Vows ordered by priestly colleges: Mars (390), Aesculapius (293), Summanus (276) and, in 292-219, Honos extra Portam Collinam and Iuppiter Fulgur 28. Among the temples of uncertain attribution, those of Flora in Colle, Luna, Sol et Luna and Tiberinus, were vowed in 292-219, that of Portunus in 292-260, either by generals or aediles. But considering the number of known generals' foundations as opposed to those aedilician, the majority, or all of them, would have been vowed by magistrates cum imperio. The temples of Hora Quirini, Ops ad Forum and Sol Indiges most probably also belonged to this category, if aedes publicae and not lesser shrines. Irrespective of the hypothetical character of some of these attributions, the overwhelming majority of temple vows were made by generals (thirty five certainly or very probably). Known aedilician vows number four. Five, or perhaps as many as eight temples 27

The popular misconception concerning Verrucosus' role in the introduction of the cult of Venus Erycina into Rome is nowhere stated as forcibly as in Schilling 1949, Schilling 1954, p. 95-97. The Cunctator never became decemvir sacris faciundis. 28 I reckon the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos as a general's foundation, see above, p. 53-55. 200

whose typology and/or dating are uncertain, belonged to one of these two categories. Six vows were certainly or most probably initiated by the priestly colleges, although one was appropriated by a general. There remains the question of whether a vow to build a temple, if made on the magistrate's own initiative, required authorization from some other body, such as the senate or the people. And since, in practice, authorization means the right of denial, the question can be posed in the following way: could a magistrate's vow be challenged or even ruled invalid? As I have already noted, the very character of the vota nuncupata makes questioning the validity of vows made by higher magistrates highly improbable. But the same would result from the fact that none of the vows we know about, be it a general's or an aedile's, was ever challenged. Even the votum of Cn. Flavius to Concordia, which was met with such hostility, was not put to doubt: all that could be done in that case was first to obstruct the temple's construction by refusing to finance it and then question the founder's ability to dedicate it 29. On the other hand, modern historians point out that some vows resulted in new and often enemy deities being introduced into Rome - exoratio and evocatio did that by definition. Such liberty is sometimes deemed incompatible with the senate's authority and the people's sovereignity; besides, at least one ancient author twice attributes the senate with the right to authorize or reject the generals' vows made to foreign deities. This author was the Christian apologist Tertullian and the texts in question are as follows: adv. nat. 1.10.14: mentior, si numquam censuerant, ne qui imperator fanum, quod in bello vovisset, prius dedicasset quam senatus probasset, ut contigit M. Aemilio, qui voverat Alburno dio. Apol. 5.1: vetus erat decretum, ne qui deus ab imperatore consecraretur nisi a senatu probatus. The two passages ostensibly deal with dedicatio and this is why they are usually quoted in the context of the closing stage of the temple's founding; yet, they should rather be discussed in connection with votum. As will be seen, controversies about dedi29

See above, p. 21-22, and below, p. 219-220. 201

cation concerned the suitability of dedicators, whereas Tertullian attributes the senate with the right to admit or reject the deities to whom vows had been addressed. But it is well nigh improbable that the senate would have allowed a general to choose a locus, have it inaugurated, build the temple structure and only then declare the god a persona non grata. If there is some truth in Tertulliano claim, the senate would have exercised its right to authorize generals' vows at a much earlier stage, after having learned about the vow and certainly before the vow-maker proceeded with the locatio of the temple he had vowed. As they are, Tertulliano passages imply that every general's vow had to secure the senate's approval. This is so obviously contradicted by our evidence that those who believe in the genuineness of the decretum reduce its purport. The god Alburnus quoted by the apologist was evidently a non-Roman deity: this is why Mommsen and Wissowa quote Tertullian in support of the conjecture that the senate's authorization was indispensable in order to introduce a new god into Rome 30. Unfortunately, the old masters confuse their argument by quoting Tertullian together with the law of 304 as reported by Livy, which did not concern gods but the dedicators (see below). In all the ancient literature that has come down to us only Tertullian gives the senate the right of denying admission into the City to a deity summonned by a general. What credibility can we attach to his statement? In my opinion, none whatsoever. First of all, we know nothing about the god Alburnus except for what is given in Tertullian, nor do we know who of the many Marci Aemilii may have been the hero of the story. Tertullian does not help the credibility of his assertion with another passage in which he mentions Alburnus: alioquin, si hie homo deum commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum et Tatius Cloacinam et Hostilius Pavorem et Metellus Alburnum et quidam ante hoc tempus Antinoum 31 . Finally, we do not hear of any barbarian god - as Alburnus plainly was - being

30 Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619, see also HI p. 1050-1051, Wissowa in RE 4.1 (1900), c. 898 s.v. consecratio, Wissowa 1912, p. 406. See also De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I (1895), p. 147, 164 s.v. aedes. 31 Tert. contr. Marc. 1.18.4. It has been suggested that he found this story in Varrò, but the comparison with the quoted passage in adv. nationes makes this extremely unlikely. See Schneider 1968, p. 209-210, 217.

202

introduced into Republican Rome, though we do know of Roman generals' offerings to such deities made in the provinces. I think that Tertulliano story is an enormously distorted echo of some such dedication. The comparison between Camillus' evocatio of luno Regina from Veii in Livy and Scipio's evocatio of Carthaginian gods in Macrobius is very instructive here. Scipio asked the gods of Carthage to come over to the Roman side, ie. to his military camp, without a slightest wish of introducing them into the City, whereas Camillus explicitly invited the Veientine goddess to take a prominent place in the Roman pantheon 32. Similarly, exoratio of the Latin Dioscuri brought about the founding of the temple of Castores in the Forum 33, whereas the vow made by C. Sempronius Tuditanus cos. 129 to the Istrian god Timavus led to setting up an altar in an obscure sub-Alpine site 34. The shrine of Alburnus, whoever he was, would most probably have been just such a provincial dedication made by a M. Aemilius or a Metellus; how the story developed into the form we find in Tertullian is impossible to say.

2. Locatio a) meaning of the term The importance of the second stage of the temple founding, locatio, is evident, considering that only magistrates cum imperio, aediles, censors and extraordinary duumviri aedi locandae created on the motion of a consul or praetor by the people's vote, could perform it 35. And yet, in modern literature, it has fared it even worse than votum. The first stage of the actual founding of a temple in both civil and religious spheres has been reduced to letting out contracts to build the temple structure, while important acts that constitued the essence of locatio are discussed under quite different headings 36. The main reason for this confusion was the change of meaning 32

On this foundamental differentiation betweent the two kinds of evocatio, see Le Gali 1976. 33 See Castagnoli 1983. 34 CIL I2 652 = ILLRP 335. 35 Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 623-624. 36 See below p. 214-219, on the selection of a temple's site. 203

of the verb locare and its derivative locatio. The original meaning «to place», «to put in a given position», «to locate», evolved into «to hire out», «to award contracts», or simply «to let», the original denotation having been taken over by collocare 37 . This evolution must have been completed by the first century; in de lingua Latina Varrò thus comments on the use of locare and its derivatives: locus est, ubi locatum quid esse potest, ut nunc dicunt, collocatur... ubi quidque constitit, locus. Ab eo praeco dicitur locare, quod usque idem it, quoad in aliquo constitit pretium 38 . But the original meaning of the word was not completely lost, as witnessed by the epigraphic evidence collected by Biscardi to illustrate the use of «termine-base [locare] nel senso 'collocare', 'porre', 'disporre'» 39 , from the Gracchan period through the Augustan age to the Imperial times 40 . The first mention of duumviri aedi locandae dates from 345 41 , but the office itself must have been earlier still, as indicated by its collective character, incompatible with the individual act of locatio but in line with the principle of joint action, on which the constitution of the Early Republic was based 42 . In the fourth century locare still retained its original meaning, the very notion of «letting out contracts» to build a temple being then wildly anachronistic. So, when Livy says that Camillus Iunoni Reginae templum in Aventino locavit 43 , this can only mean that the dictator located the temple in the original sense of the word, that he established it in the place he had chosen. Locatio of a temple must therefore have been a solemn act, which cannot be limited to «arranging for that temple's construction» 44 . 37 58 39

tio.

Ernout-Meillet, p. 364-365, s.v. locus. Varrò LL 5.14.2, 15.1. Biscardi in Diz. epigr., IV 45-46 (1964), p. 1429-1430, s.v. loca-

40 CIL I2 1211 =VI 15346 = /LL£P 973, CIL I2 2103 ab =XI 4687, CIL VI 34002, CIL VIII 5367. 41 Liv. 7.28.5 (locatio of the temple of Iuno Moneta); the exact wording appears for the first time under 217 (Liv. 22.33.8). 42 Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 622, writing on duumviri aedi dedicandae. 43 Liv. 5.23.7. 44 As far as I know, the only modern scholar who has pointed out that in the fourth century locatio can only be understood as collocatio of classical Latin, is Baillet in Tite-Live, Histoire romaine, V, Paris 1954 (Les Belles Lettres), p. 39: «il [Camillus] choisit ensuite pour le temple de Junon Reine un emplacement sur l'Aventin». See ad locum, p. 39, n. 2.

204

Two cases reported by Livy, one from 217, the other from 180-173, show in fact that in the context of temple founding locatio was much more than letting out contracts to build it. The first is the debate in the senate about the vow to Concordia, made a year earlier by the praetor L. Manlius: in religionem etiam venit aedem Concordiae, quam per seditionem militarem biennio ante L. Manlius praetor in Gallia vovisset, locatam ad id tempus non esse. Itaque duumviri ad earn rem creati a M. Aemilio praetore urbano C. Pupius et K. Quinctius Flamininus aedem in arce faciendam locaverunt45. Foster's translation of the first sentence of the quoted passage - «they [the Romans] were troubled, too, that the contract for the temple of Concord had hitherto not been let» 46 is not a very happy one. First, translating in religionem venit as «being troubled» misses the most important point embodied in the term religio; secondly, one looks in vain for a reason why the purely technical operation of letting out contracts for a temple's construction would, if delayed, be recognized as a disregard of the religio. The obvious meaning of the sentence is that nothing had yet been done to found the temple of Concordia, with a strong emphasis on the religious side of this neglect, visible not only in the higly technical expression in religionem venit but also in the context of the debate which was just one of the issues in the search for the reasons of the gods' wrath against Rome. What had to be done in the first place was of course, to select a site, to position the temple vowed by L. Manlius, to locate it in the original sense of the word. And this is exactly what the duumviri aedi locandae did: aedem in arce faciendam locaverunt. Similarly, the first thing we read in Livy after his report on the creation of duumvirs ad aedem Iunonis Monetae faciendam is locus in arce destinatus 47. As a devil's advocate one might argue that in the case of the temple of Concordia, the selection of a site on the Arx and the actual locatio faciendam were two different things. But «arranging to have a temple built» need not necessarily have entered the scope of the functions of duumviri aedi locandae, as shown by the second case, that of the temple of Fortuna Equestris. This temple was vowed in 180 in Spain by the propraetor Q. Fulvius Flac-

45 46 47

Liv. 22.33.7-8. In Loeb Classical Library. See above, p. 71. 205

cus48. The following year Flaccus became consul. According to Livy, Fulvius consul priusquam ullam rem publicum ageret, liberare et se et rem publicum religione votis solvendis dixit velie. Vovisee... ludos Iovi optimo maximo et aedem Equestri Fortunae sese facturum: in earn rem sibi pecuniam collatam esse ab Hispanis. Ludi decreti et ut duumviri ad aedem locandam crearentur The sense of this passage is clear: the temple was to be founded in order to free Flaccus and the whole Republic from the obligation imposed by the vow he had made; hence the motion to create the duumviri aedi locandae. But when it came to the actual construction of the temple, it was Flaccus' exclusive concern: five years later we find him busy building his sanctuary (Q. Fulvius Flaccus censor aedem Fortunae equestris quam in Hispania praetor bello Celtiberico voverat, faciebat enixo studio ne ullum Romae amplius aut magnificentius templum esset) 50 , going so far as - by abusing the office of censor - to despoil the sanctuary of Hera Lakinia of its marble tiles to adorn his own foundation &. In this case at least, the temple's locatio and arranging for its construction were two separate things. The reason for it was undoubtedly that the vow-maker, though consul and as such fully entitled to perform the locatio by himself, for some reason decided to have it done by the duumviri aedi locandae, despite the fact that the temple having been conceived as a manubial foundation (see below) its construction became once again his particular concern 5 2 . But this most unusual procedure is the proof of the 48

Liv. 40.40.10. Liv. 40.44.8-10. Liv. 42.3.1. 51 Liv. 42.3.2-11. 52 One of the reasons why Flaccus resorted to such an unusual procedure may be that he vowed both the temple and the ludi votivi. In those years the senate tried to limit spending on games, both regular (after the 1 experience of the ludi Romani celebrated in 182 by Ti.Sempronius Gracchus - Liv. 40.44.11-12) and votive (the ludi celebrated in 187 by M. Fulvius Nobilior - Liv. 39.5.7-10, see 39.22.1-2). But L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, whose relations with the senate were far from cordial, celebrated ludi votivi, in obvious rivalry with Nobilior, without asking the senate to fix the limit of money spent (Liv. 39.22.8-10). It seems that in those years it became a fashion (very short-lived) to consult the senate on vota nuncupata (on this, see also Liv. 36.36.1-2). The only way in which the senate could participate in the founding of a temple vowed by the general who intended to finance it ex manubiis, was to initiate the creation of duumviri aedi locandae. 49

50

206

fact, obscured by the change of meaning of locare and its derivatives, that in the context of temple founding locatio was essentially the act of establishing the temple's site. The reason why «aedem locare» became practically synonymous with «aedem faciendam curare» 53 is that letting out contracts for its construction, ie. locatio in the secondary sense of the word, no doubt followed immediately in the wake of the solemn locatio. The duumviri aedi locandae would thus have been officials created to establish the temple in a given place, though normally, apart from selecting the site, this would have included arranging for the temple's construction. The office, analogous to that of duumviri aedi dedicandae, emphasized the solemn character of temples' locatio as opposed to locatio of other public buildings which in fact boiled down to arranging for their construction. The fact that, apart from duumviri and magistrates cum imperio, temples were being located by aediles and censors, who ex officio located ordinary buildings of public utility, was no obstacle to the solemn character of locatio. Mommsen's assertion that building temples (ie. their locatio as he understood it) did not come within the sphere of normal activities of censors «als dem Censor keine Liberalitätshandlung auf Kosten der Gemeinde gestattet ist» 54 , misses the point in spite of being superficially correct. Although our sources fail us in the most intensive temple founding period in Rome's history, it is evident that locating temples by censors was quite normal. C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus located the temple of Salus while holding that office 55 ; the senate. entrusted the censors of 204 with locatio of the temple of Magna Mater 56. Livy's slip about the temple of Fortuna Primigenia dedi-

53 Faciendam curavit - Liv. 24.16.19; see faciendam locavit - Liv. 10.46.14, faciendam locaverunt - Liv. 22.33.8. 54 Mommsen 1887-88, 11 p. 455, see p. 623. 55 See above, p. 144. 56 Liv. 36.36.3-4, see 29.37.2. This temple, ordered by the Sibylline Books, was a communal foundation. The senate may have entrusted the censors with locating it (and thus, among others, arranging for its construction from the pecunia censoria) in order to spare the aerarium extra costs in the time of Rome's total exhaustion at the end of the Second Punic War. On the other hand, under Livy's careless stylus, locaverant aedem faciendam ex senatus consulto M. Livius C. Claudius censores does not preclude the people's vote.

207

cated in 194: voverat earn decern annis ante Punico bello P. Sempronius Sophus consul, locaverat idem censor 57 (in reality, the temple was vowed by P. Sempronius Tuditanus cos. 20458, who had been censor in 209, before his consulate 5 9 ) , is also very significant, since it shows that it was normal for a consul to vow a temple which was subsequently located by him in his capacity of censor. The only known case of duumviri aedi locandae who had no known connections with the vow-maker and yet were created at the time when the censors were in office is that of Fortuna, Equestris. But Mommsen, who adduces this as an example of the censors' incapability of founding temples, fails to notice that, as has been said above, this particular pair of officials were created at the motion of the vow maker who was at that time holding the consulate and was thus fully entitled to perform locatio himself 60 . What was really exceptional about censors as compared with other higher magistrates, was that they could not finance temples they located with funds they had by virtue of their office 61; an obvious thing considering that they lacked manubiae of the magistrates cum imperio and multae of the aediles (see below). As for their unquestionable power to locate temples, this was something entirely different from their right to farm out taxes and award contracts for buildings of public utility. The latter right stemmed from functions particular to their office, the former they shared with aediles, magistrates cum imperio and, last but not least, duumviri aedi locandae. In other words, it was less their particular censoria potestas which empowered them to locate temples than the potestas with which all higher magistracies were vested 62 .

57

Liv, 34.53.6. Liv. 29.36.8. 59 Broughton 1951-52, I p. 285, 305. 60 A precis of Mommsen's views discussed above can be found in Suolahti 1963, p. 65-66. 61 This does not refer, of course, to temples built by the orders of the priestly colleges (see n. 56). The note in Eum. pro rest, schol. 7: aedem Herculis Musarum in circo Flaminio Fulvius ille Nobilior ex pecunia censoria fecit, is a mistake, most probably suggested by the fact that Nobilior dedicated his temple as censor. See Wiseman 1974, n. 38. 62 As admitted by Mommsen himself in a different context (1887-88, II p. 623-624). 58

208

b) Locatio-inauguratio One obvious aspect of the potestas in question was the right to summon an augur to perform inauguratio of the locus selected for the temple 63. But, to start with, it should be emphasized that clearing away the site on which a temple was to be constructed and marking out its boundaries do not seem to have been the work of the inaugurating augur, as envisaged by Valeton 64, but of the magistrate who performed locatio. Festus' definition of the templum minus makes it possible to distinguish between the augur's and the magistrate's role in one of the phases of inauguratio: minora tempia fiunt ab auguribus cum loca aliqua tabulis aut linteis sepiuntur, ne uno amplius ostio pateant, certis verbis definita. Itaque templum est locus ita effatus et ita septus 65. It seems obvious that the fencing in of a locus was the magistrate's work66, while its definition certis verbis, ie. its effatio, the augur's 67. Unfortunately, our only direct indications of the magistrate's role in tracing out the boundaries of a future templum are Livy's and Plutarch's accounts of the restoration of desecrated cult places after the withdrawal of the Gauls in 390. In Livy's words, Camillus omnium primum... senatus consultum facit, fana omnia, quoad ea hostis possedisset, restituerentur, terminarentur, expiarenturque 68. It is on this basis that Valeton singled out a separate phase of inauguratio, which he called terminare, terminos ponere 69. There is no doubt that such an operation had to be undertaken for every locatio, but it is highly improbable that it was performed by the augur as Valeton would have it; first, because of its physical character, whereas, as aptly put by Varrò,

63 On inauguratio of a locus, see Valeton 1892, Valeton 1895, Catalano 1960, p. 247-291. 64 Valeton 1892, passim, esp. p. 363-365. 65 Festus 146 L. 66 Contra Valeton 1892, p. 373-375, who ascribes all the actions leading to the constitution of the templum minus to the augurs, eg. «tarnen locus ab auguribus relinqui debeat consaeptus». 67 Serv. auct. adAen. 3.463: loca... ab auguribus inaugurata «effata» dici. 68 Liv. 5.50.2; see PLUT. Cam. 32.6: oi òè xoùg IZQOVQ, xónovg àvakxßeiv xai ÓQicai xax^évteg vnò xoii KafwXAo'u. 69 Valeton 1892, p. 366-373.

209

augures augurium agere dicuntur, quom in eo plura dicant quam faciant 70 , secondly, because the operation of terminos ponere would have had to be performed even when we have every reason to believe that no inauguratio took place (see below). It is for the same reason that clearing away all the traces of former occupation from the chosen locus, superficially analogous and chronologically anterior to the augur's liberatio, would have been done on the order of the locating magistrate 71 . Although it is only logical that inauguratio was a part of locatio, it must be admitted that our sources never explicitly link these two ceremonies. But the sources do not have much to say about either; besides, there is a characteristic cleavage in the texts at our disposal, with Livy the annalist mentioning almost exclusively locatio 72 , and Varrò, Festus, Servius, Macrobius and other representatives of the antiquarian tradition speaking only about inauguratio. But even so, there is at least one case where we can establish a very close chronological concurrence between a temple's locatio and inauguratio. In December 45 Cicero wrote to Atticus: Scripseram iam: ecce tibi orat Lepidus ut veniam. Opinor augures vult habere ad templum effandum 73 . Cassius Dio says that in the beginning of 44 Lepidus' temple of Felicitas was already being built on the site of the destroyed Curia Hostilia 74 . The demolition of the Curia Hostilia-Cornelia must have been the first stage of the new temple's locatio, or rather its prerequisite. An act of such political significance can only be dated to the period after Caesar's return from Spain, ie. to September or

70

Varrò LL 6.42. Plut. Cam. 32.6, characterizes those whom Camillus ordered to clear away the sacred places as cxeuwQoti^evoi òè xai xaöaiQovteg. I cannot imagine the augurs engaged in such a work; as for Camillus, he gave these orders as dictator, ie., as the magistrate. Either way there is no place for the augurs here. 72 On locare and its derivatives in Livy in the context of locatio, see Packard 1968, III p. 100-103. As for inauguratio, Livy used it only in regard to persons, except for one place where the whole city of Rome is mentioned (Liv. 5.52.2: urbem auspicato inaugurato conditam habemus), see Packard 1968, II, p. 1152. 73 Cic. ad Att. 13.42.3. 74 Cass. Dio 44.5.1-2. Caesar's Felicitas, see Weinstock 1971, p. 112-118, 127. 71

210

October 45 75 . As can be seen, the demolition of the Curia and Lepidus' calling upon Cicero to perform effatio of the temple which was to be located on the site of the old senate-house were contemporaneous. It follows that the effatio of a locus by the augur was an element of the locatio of a temple by the magistrate. A typical locatio would thus have consisted in the first place in clearing away, at the order of the locating magistrate, of the locus chosen for the temple and marking out its boundaries (Valeton's terminos ponere). The magistrate then summoned an augur to perform liberatio and effatio of the locus, thus transforming it into a templum 76 . This having been done, the magistrate proceeded with making arrangements for the temple's construction. Of course, there would have been atypical locationes too. Gellius says that inter quae id quoque scriptum reliquit [Varro] non omnes aedes sacras tempia esse ac ne aedem quidem Vestae templum esse 77 . Valeton connected this passage with a remark by Servius: aedes autem rotundas tribus diis dicunt fieri debere, Vestae, Dianae, vel Herculi vel Mercurio 78 , and inferred from them that round temples were not inaugurated 79 . This inference, accepted by some scholars 80 , is of course mistaken, being based on the confusion between the form of the templum and that of the aedes 81 . Valeton, while drawing his conclusion, did not remember what he himself had written three years before: «tempia in quibus aedificia erant constructa, in duo genere dividi posse 75

In summer 45 Caesar was expected in Rome before the ludi Romani, ie. before 4th September (Cic. ad Att. 13.45.1). On the Ides of September he was in Labicum (Suet. Caes. 83). His triumph is to be dated to the first half of October (Veil. 2.56.3), before 13th of that month, when the triumph of Q. Fabius Maximus took place (Quint. Inst. 6.3.61). See Inslt XIII 1, p. 567, Carcopino 1965, p. 349 and n. 302, 303. 76 Valeton 1892, passim. 77 Gell. NA 14.7.7. 78 Serv. auct. adAen. 9.406. Since three Roman temples of Hercules are known to have been circular (that of Hercules Musarum and the two temples of Hercules Victor), there is no doubt that the god whom the commentator's source meant was Hercules, not Mercurius. 79 Valeton 1895, p. 49-50. 80 Bouché Leclercq in Daremberg-Saglio, III 1, p. 436 n. 2, s.v. inaugurano, Catalano 1960, p. 258-259. 81 The circular temple of Hercules Musarum stood on the rectangular podium inside the square precinct, the later Porticus Philippi (Pianta Marmorea, tab. 29, see I p. 90). In this case the templum is to be identified with one of the rectangles, not with the round aedes.

211

videntur: alterum genus est templorum quorum area tota occupabatur aedificio... ad alterum genus refero aedes quae aream ampliorem habebant, extra muros aedificii in unam vel plures partes longius productam». 82 . The fact that later antiquaries were apparently unable to find another example of an uninaugurated temple and contended themselves with quoting Varrò's remark about the temple of Vesta, strongly suggests that in Rome such sanctuaries were extremely rare. Servius says that templum Vestae non fuit augurio consecratum, ne illuc conveniret senatus, ubi erant virgines 83 . There may be something in this explanation 84 ; it is also very probable that the temple of Bona Dea, being to all intents and purposes closed to men 85 , was not inaugurated, too. The temple of Iuno Lucina, which started as an exclusively women's foundation before becoming a public temple 86 , may have belonged to this category as well. But there is no doubt that temples founded in the regular way stood in tempia. This still leaves open the question of whether inauguratio was a constant feature of locatio. We know that some temples were located within already existing sacred precincts, as eg. Temple B of the Largo Argentina within the precinct of Temple C 87 . Of course, we do not know for certain if in this and similar cases the whole area within the enclosure was identical with the templum inauguratum, it being theoretically possible that the latter was confined to the temple and the paved area in front of it, with the altar in its centre 88 . But Cn. Flavius' temple of Concordia was built in area Volcani 89 and this might signify that it was located within the pre-existing templum. The hypothesis that, in this case, inauguratio was unnecessary is very seductive as it would eliminate the question of how that parvenu, detested by

82

Valeton 1892, p. 374. Serv. adAen. 7.153, see Serv. auct. adAen. 9.4: quod Numa cum sciret, Vestae aediculam, non templum statuii, ne ibi senatus haberi posset. 84 Catalano 1960, p. 259-260, who however, finally (p. 259 n. 4) inclines towards the interpretation put forward by Dumezil 1954, p. 2643. 85 C. Aelius Gallus puts in aedem Bonae deae virum introire in the category of religiosa (Festus 348 L). 86 See above, p. 67-69. 87 Ziolkowski 1986, p. 630. 88 On this question, see Castagnoli 1984, p. 3-13. 89 See above, p. 21-22. 83

212

the nobility, could have summoned the augur to perform the ceremony, especially considering that he was aedile before the passing of the lex Ogulnia. o n the other hand, the aforementioned case of the temple of Felicitas, built on the site of the inaugurated curia and yet requiring effatio, would suggest that inauguratio had to be performed whenever a new temple was being located, irrespective of the character of the site. The temples of S. Nicola in Carcere raise a different problem still. The central temple of Iuno Sospita, squeezed between those of Ianus and Spes, slightly encroached on the original site of its southern neighbour 90. If we assume, as seems most probable, that templum was identical with the walled in area 91 , then, by analogy with the temples of the Largo Argentina, the temple of Iuno Sospita would have been straddling the junction of two contiguous tempia. The question is whether its site would have to be inaugurated anew. In regard to the temple of Concordia, we simply do not know whether aedilicia and, for that matter, censoria potestas were strong enough to compel an unwilling augur to perform inauguratio 92. But since Livy and Obsequens in their reports on the prodigies of the years 183 and 181 situate them in the area Volcani and Concordiae 93 , it might be concluded that in 304 no separate inauguratio of the templum of Concordia took place. This would signify in turn that inauguratio need not have been a necessary feature of each and every locatio. As for the temple of Felicitas, the demolition of Faustus Sulla's Curia most probably led to the exauguration of its site 94 . But in most cases one would rather imagine the locating magistrates following the policy of expedience. If my attribution of Temple C of the Largo Argentina is correct, then a separate inauguratio of Temples B and D would appear unlikely, since the position of the two temples would have

90

See above, p. 153. Castagnoli 1984, p. 3-4, 12. 92 Linderski 1986, p. 2225, observes that our sources, by focusing on unusual cases, tend to create a false impression that the augurs had to be dragged by the magistrates to perform their duties, whereas in reality it was a singular honour to be the celebrant at the inauguration. He is obviously right, but it is also evident that Cn. Flavius' was one of those unusual cases. 93 See Coarelli 1983, p. 163-164. 94 Catalano 1960, p. 321-334, esp. p. 324 (though he hardly considers temples and concentrates on the pomerium and priests). 91

213

been dictated by their founders' wish to stress their affinity, symbolic and real, with the temple founded by the victor of the First Punic War 95. In more complicated cases, like that of the central temple of S. Nicola in Carcere, the final say probably belonged to the college of augurs. With inauguratio or without it, one can hardly imagine the founding of a temple being initiated without some sort of ritual. Of course, the analogy with dedicatio/consecratio cannot be pushed too far, but, eg., the fencing in of the temple's site will have been a solemn act, even if not followed by effatio. c) Selection of a temple's site Choosing a temple's site meant/often, though not always, alienation of a piece of public land and ultimately transferring it to the category of res sacrae 96. Reflecting on the legal basis for such proceedings Mommsen concluded, by analogy with adsignatio, that the right to perform such transfers, inherited by magistrates cum imperio from the royal prerogatives, was later limited by the principle of the people's authorization 97. Unfortunately, he thought that this principle can be detected in the law of 304, passed in the wake of the controversy over Cn. Flavius' temple of Concordia, and in the lex Papiria quoted by Cicero in de domo sua 98. Since both dealt exclusively with the right to dedicatio (see below), Mommsen concluded - quite logically - that the question of assigning a site for a temple arose only at the final stage of the temple's founding. This conclusion, restated even more forcibly by De Ruggiero 99, has never been seriously challenged, even by those who do not share Mommsen's view on the nature of the two laws 100. As said above, one result of this has been the virtual disappearance of the term locatio from the scholarly discussion on subjects related to the founding of temples. 95 96

Ziolkowski 1986, p. 629-630, 632-633. Inauguratio resulted in a res sancta, consecratio in a res sacra, see Valeton 1892, p. 338-354, esp. 342-345. Of course, whether sanctus or sacer, a locus would still belong to the category of loca publica, see Valeton 1892, p. 345. 97 Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 618-619. 98 Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619 and n. 1, III p. 1050. 99 De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I (1895), p. 144-169, s.v. aedes. 100 See eg. Wissowa 1912, p. 467-479. 214

Passing on to the question of duumviri aedi locandae {duumviri aedi dedicandae having naturally been discussed in the first place), Mommsen clearly realized the basic difficulty stemming from his linking the assignation of a locus with dedicatio, which usually took place many years after the beginning of the temple's construction. His solution was that the construction of a temple on public land could proceed without the people's vote «als die Weggäbe des öffentliche Bodens dadurch nur eingeleitet, nicht vollzogen ward» 101 . This, obviously, is not a very convincing explanation; Mommsen must have felt it too, for in the next sentence he came forth with the following supplement: «doch ist wahrscheinlich, seit überhaupt für die Verschenkung des Gemein deigenthums ein Gemeindeschluss nothwendig erschien, so lange man es streng mit den Rechten der Gemeinde nahm, das Volk schon über die Location befragt worden» I 0 2 . He thus envisaged that the people would have been asked to vote twice on what would in practice have been the same thing 103 . The alternative view of the magistrate's freedom to select a site for the temple is represented by scholars specializing in the augural law. Their approach is, or rather should be, diametrically opposed to Mommsen's and De Ruggiero's since, as observed by the dean of that school, Valeton, «qui inaugurabatur esset locus (antequam quidquam in eo constructum erat), quod consecrabatur vero esset aedificium (postea in eo conditum)» 104 . But in practice his conclusion hardly differed from Mommsen's; observing that inauguratio resulted in a res sancta 105 and consecratio in

101

Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 623. Ibid. «Location», as everywhere in Mommsen, means building a temple, or rather awarding contracts for its construction. 103 De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 151, did not share Mommsen's dobuts. In his view, «trattandosi d'una costruzione come quella d'un tempio, che doveva durare qualche tempo, naturalmente Yinauguratio procedeva di molto la consecratio-dedicatici; nondimeno idealmente i due atti eran così connessi fra loro, che si potevano concepire siccome contemporanei». There follows a precis of Livy's fictitious account of the establishment of the shrine of Iuppiter Feretrius by Romulus, during which in fact everything happens at the same time: votwn, locatio and dedicatio (Liv. 1.10.5-6). But finally we do not know when, in De Ruggiero's view, the locus left the domain of publicum, during the consecratio-dedicatio or the «ideally contemporaneous» inauguratio ( = locatio). 104 Valeton 1895, p. 59. 105 See above n. 96 and Linderski 1986, p. 2249 n. 406c. 102

215

a res sacra, he arrived at the conclusion that «nulla loca autem consecrari neque sancta fieri potuerunt nisi iussu publico» 106 . His wording lacked precision (what is «iussu publico»?) and his textual basis was quite irrelevant 107 , but still what we finally get is Mommsen's theoretical double vote on the locus passing from publicum to sacrum via sanctum. Residual vestiges of this confusion can be discerned in Catalano's argument. While discussing the question of the magistrate's freedom to choose a locus to inaugurate 108 (in overwhelming majority of cases a site for a future temple), he arrives on the basis of Liv. 3.20.6 and 7.16.7 109 at the conclusion that «certi magistrati [no doubt those cum imperio - A.Z.] potevano liberamente scegliere un loco e farlo inaugurare» n o , but then adds: «questo almeno più in antico; per l'epoca successiva, se si accogliesse l'opinione che per il potere di dedicatio solo tardi si fossero introdotti limiti, si potrebbe pensare che analoga evoluzione avesse avuto il potere di fare inaugurare, considerato che l'inaugurazione era generalmente un presupposto per la dedicatio e la corrispondente consecratio» H 1 . As the basis of his addendum he cites Mommsen and De Ruggiero, though in passages mentioned the two scholars did not deal with the right to dedicatio but with the legal basis of transferring a public locus to the category of res sacrae 112 , which is a different thing. Linderski is slightly more emphatic than Catalano - «we should rather expect that legal developments in this sphere paralleled the evolution of the right to dedicatio 113 - and cites with approval the quoted vertict by Valeton. Yet he does not get entan-

106

Valeton 1892, p. 345. Valeton 1892, p. 345 n. 2: Marc. Dig. 1.8.6.3 (5/ quis ergo privatim sibi sacrum constituent, sacrum non est, sedprofanum), Festus 424 L {quod autem privatis suae religionis causa aliquid earum rerum deo dedicent, id pontifices Romanos non existimare sacrum). 108 Catalano 1960, p. 273-274. 109 Liv. 3.20.6: augures iussos adesse [by the consul] ad Regillum lacum fama exierat, locumque inaugurari ubi auspicato cum populo agi posset. The other passage quoted by Catalano is not relevant to the issue, see Linderski 1986, p. 2223 n. 296. 110 Catalano 1960, p. 274. 111 Catalano 1960, p. 274, n. 112. 112 He cites Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619 sq and De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 164 sq. See above and n. 98, 99. 113 Linderski 1986, p. 2224. 107

216

gled in the maze of Mommsen's and De Ruggiero's reasoning and draws his parallel exclusively on the basis of the analogy with the two aforementioned laws which dealt with the right to dedicano U4. As can be seen, all these scholars base their views on the right to choose a site for a temple on the analogy oidedicatio. Mommsen's hypothesis was logical in that it envisaged the same procedure for two acts concerning one and the same object: locus. Valeton, having first distinguished between the objects of inaugurano and consecratio, ended by putting them practically on one level («nulla loca autem consecrari neque sancta fieri»). But he, too, considered the two acts as regarding the transfer of a place from one domain to another. Catalano and Linderski do not say whether in their opinion the «right to dedication concerned the temple to be dedicated or the person of dedicator, or both; the same could be said about their views as to «selecting a locus and having it inagurated» ! 15 (this is the best definition of locatio I can think of). They all arrive by different means at a broadly identical conclusion, namely that the assignation of a locus required from a certain moment a vote of the people (Mommsen) or some ill defined, yet clearly identical in nature, consent from above (Valeton, Catalano, Linderski). The point is, however, that in our sources there is not a single instance of such legislation; we do not hear of any controversy over a magistrate's choice of a locus, either. Mommsen's attempt to dodge this disquieting silence - «so lange man es streng mit den Rechten der Gemeinde nahm», implying that in practice the people's rights in this matter were not strictly observed, which would explain the said silence, Q.E.D. - testifies to the weakness of his reasoning. The analogy of the right to dedicatio, underlying Catalano's and Linderski's argument, is deceptive, too. Whatever its purport, that right obviously had nothing to do with the ground on which stood the temple to be dedicated (Valeton's brilliant differentiation between res sacrae and res sanctae notwithstanding); this had already been settled in the ceremony of locatio I inauguratio. It is also worth noting that in the quoted case of the temple of Fortuna Equestris the senate's answer to Flaccus' motion was a decretum advising the creation of duumviri aedi 114 The other example he adduces, that of the extension of the pomerium, does not seem to be relevant here. 115 Linderski 1986, p. 2224, see Catalano 1960, p. 274.

217

locandae; had the consul decided to locate the temple himself, as he had every right to, no decree of the senate and, consequently, no people's vote would apparently have been needed. I t might be argued that, whether ordinary magistrate or duumvir aedi locandae, the founder of a temple would still have needed the people's assent to choose a locus. But this seems to be contradicted by the symbolic significance, clearly discernible in spite of the lamentable state of our sources, in the choices of some sites; no doubt, the ancients would have been able to provide topographical exegesis for the location of the majority of Rome's temples. Eg. L. Cornelius Scipio cos. 259 built the temple of Tempestates close by his family's tomb U6\ Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus located the "temple of Honos in the place oféntry of the City of the procession of cavalrymen during the ceremony of transvecdo equitum, established by his great-grandfather Rullianus 117. It cannot be excluded that the two men asked for, and obtained, the permission to build their temples in those particular sites precisely for the reasons mentioned above. But how are we then going to interpret the location of the temples of Hercules Musarum and Juno Regina in Circo Flaminio, founded side by side by two of the most bitter personal enemies of the day, M. Fulvius Nobilior cos. 189 and M. Aemilius Lepidus cos. 187 118? Did they, or duumviri chosen in their stead, invoke their feud while asking for allocation of these particular lots? Different fashions for temples' locations, detectable in various periods, point to magistrates' conscious choices, unconstrained by authorization from above (eg. the sudden focusing of generals' attention on the Circus Flaminius once the building activity was resumed in the eighties of the second century after the break caused by the Second Punic War). And the argument that the magistrates always received what they asked for from the people would, of course, be no argument at all. I think that the magistrate's freedom to choose a site for the temple resulted inevitably from his right to vow it. As I have tried to demonstrate above, the binding character of vota nuncupata, even if not always manifested in the state's cooperation with the vow-maker, precluded any activity aiming at preventing his fulfilling the obligation he had contracted. The hypothetical limitation 116 117 118

218

See above, p. 163. See below, p. 290, 292. Liv. 40.45.6-46.15.

of the magistrate's freedom to select a site for his temple would have curtailed either his right to transform a piece of public land into res sancta, or his right to locate the temple according to his wish: here and not elsewhere. Yet the first right was implied in his prerogative to make this particular kind of vow on behalf of the Republic; it would have been utterly illogical to empower someone to vow a public temple without giving him power to carry it into effect. As for the second eventuality, the magistrate's freedom to situate his foundation where he wished would not have been greater than the censor's or the aedile's freedom to locate a basilica or a portico, or to lay out a street. If a private person could ask a magistrate for a piece of public land to dedicate there a private shrine 113, I do not see why this very magistrate of the Roman people could not have been allowed to transform a piece of public land into res sancta by having it inaugurated to locate therein an aedes publica populi Romani. 3. Dedicatio The founding of a temple was achieved in dedicatio. Our empirical knowledge about the right to perform it comes, as is the case with votum and locatio, mainly from remarks scattered in Livy's narrative. Thus we learn that in the Middle Republic temples were dedicated by magistrates cum imperio and, from 304 onwards, alsobyaediles and censors; in"special cases duumviri aedi dedicandae were created 120. But in the case of dedicatio, we also have at our disposal texts explicitly referring to the general question of who had the right to perform the ceremony. These texts are: Livy's account of the controversy over Cn. Flavius' dedication of the temple of Concordia in 304, and Cicero's writing re1ating to the dedication of a part of his house to Libertas by Clodius and to the orator's fight to retrieve his possession. Liv. 9.46.6-7: [Cn. Flavius] aedem Concordiae in area Vulcani summa invidia nobilium dedicavit; coactusque consensu 119 Serv. auct. ad Aen. 8.363, Macr. Sat. 3.6.11 (the story of M. Octavius Herrenus, who built a private temple to Hercules Victor impetrato a magistratibus loco), CIL VI 31128. 120 Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619-622, Wissowa in RE 4.2 (1901), c. 2357, s.v. dedicatio.

219

populi Cornelius Barbatus pontifex maximus verba praeire, cum more maiorum negaret nisi consulem aut imperatorem posse templum dedicare. Itaque ex auctoritate senatus latum ad populum est, ne quis templum aramve iniussu senatus aut tribunorum plebei partis maioris dedicaret. Cic. de domo 127-128: video enim esse legem veterem tribuniciam, quae vetet iniussu plebis aedis terram aram consecrari... Sed quia consecrabantur aedes, non privatorum domicilia, sed quae sacrae nominantur, consecrabantur agri, non ita ut nostra praedia, si qui vellet, sed ut imperator agros de hostibus captos consecraret, statuebantur arae, quae adferrent ipsi [ei] loco [quo] essent consecratae, haec nisi plebs iussisset fieri vetuit... Lex Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari. Cic. de domo 130, 136: Q. Marcius censor signum Concordiae fecerat idque in publico conlocarat. Hoc signum C. Cassius censor cum in curiam transtulisset, conlegium vestrum [pontifìcium] consuluit numquid esse causae videretur, quin id signum curiamque Concordiae dedicaret... Habetis in commentariis vestris C. Cassium censorem de signo Concordiae dedicando ad pontifìcium collegium rettulisse eique M. Aemilium pontifìcem maximum pro collegio respondisse, nisi eum populus Romanus nominatim praefecisset atque eius iussu faceret, non videri earn posse recte dedicari. Cic. de domo 136-137: Cum Licinia, virgo Vestalis... aram et aediculam et pulvinar sub Saxo dedicasset, nonne earn rem ex auctoritate senatus ad hoc collegium Sex. Iulius praetor rettulit? Cum P. Scaevola pontifex maximus pro collegio respondit «quod in loco publico Licinia Cai fìlia iniussu populi dedicasset, sacrum non viderier»... videtisne praetori urbano negotium datum ut curaret ne id sacrum esset et ut, si quae essent incisae aut inscriptae litterae, tollerentur? Cic. ad Att. 4.2.3: [the decretum of the college of pontiffis regarding Clodius' dedication to Libertas] «si neque populi iussu neque plebis scitu is qui se dedicasse diceret nominatim ei rei praefectus esset neque populi iussu aut plebis scitu iussus id facere esset», videri posse sine religione earn partem areae mihi [Ciceroni] restituì. a) The law of 304 and the lex Papiria As previously mentioned, according to Mommsen and De Ruggiero, the laws mentioned by Livy and Cicero dealt with the 220

assignation of land on which the temple was built, ie. with the transfer of the land from public domain to res sacrae. According to Mommsen, the magistrate's original unrestricted freedom in this matter was limited «in historischer Zeit» by the principle of the people's authorization as the only legal way of making such transfers: the lex Papiria was in his opinion the expression of this principle 121 . The terminus ante quern of the lex Papiria would have been the year 304, when the law mentioned by Livy was passed, and which in Mommsen's view «kann nicht füglich anders verstanden werden, als dass die eine oder die andere Einwilligung auch ohne Volksschluss genügt» 122 . It would thus appear that after 304 the vote of the people was replaced by the authorization of the senate or the majority of tribunes of the plebs. Mommsen admits that we never hear of tribunes authorizing a dedication 123 , ie., in his view, the transfer of a piece of public land to the category of res sacrae, but he quotes several instances of the senate's intervention and concludes that the voice of the patres was decisive when it came to the introduction of a new cult into the City I24 . De Ruggiero retains Mommsen's idea of the people's vote authorizing the transition of a locus to res sacrae 125 , but does not specifically link it with the lex Papiria. In his opinion, the law may have been «una semplice conferma del diritto spettante al potere legislativo in genere, ovvero una disposizione nuova intorno probabilmente alla specie dei comizii chiamati ad esercitarlo» 126 . As for the purport of the law of 304, De Ruggiero puts forward alternative explanations. One is that the magistrate, before pre-

121

Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619 and esp. n. 1. Mommsen 1887-88, III p. 1050. 123 Ibid. 124 Mommsen 1887-88, III p. 1050 n. 3, see p. 1050-1051. On this point his demonstration is particularly confused. He quotes the temple of Magna Mater, a Sibyllan foundation dedicated by the praetor urbanus; the temple of Saturnus, a royal foundation rededicated at the beginning of the Republic (see above, p. 108 n. 30); the shrine of Aius Locutius, not a temple, traditionally dated to 390 and generally very suspect (PlatnerAshby, p. 3-4); the temple of Iuppiter Stator, an exceptional case on which see below, p. 245, 250-251; and two inscriptions (CIL IX 2628, VI 872), whose unequivocal sense he interprets away. See De Martino 1958-72, II p. 164 n. 22. 125 De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 144-147. 126 De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 147. 122

senting to the people the rogatio concerning alienation of a piece of public land into sacred property, had to obtain approval of the senate or the majority of the tribunes. The other eventuality is that, after the passing of. the law, the senate or the college of tribunes had to give consent for introducing a new cult into Rome 127 . As can easily be seen, De Ruggiero does not quite know what to do with these two laws, and he would rather do without them. In fact, Livy's law of 304 and Cicero's lex Papiria constitute undesirable disturbances in his perfectly logical and perfectly fantastic reconstruction, entirely based on his preconceived idea of dedicatio and consecratio as exact counterparts of, respectively, adsignatio and mancipatio 128 . But Mommsen does not come off much better, at least in this matter. First and foremost, in all the quoted passages it was the suitability of the dedicator that was at stake, not the assignation of a locus. This is especially transparent in Livy's account, amazingly misinterpreted by Mommsen. He disregards the fact that before 304 the right to dedicatio had been governed by mos maiorum alone. This not only proves that this date is the terminus post quern of the passing of the lex Papiria and not its terminus ante quern, but above all shows that, at least at the turn of the fourth century, the said right concerned exclusively the dedicator's capability to perform the ceremony 129 . Before 304, only magistrates cum imperio and duumviri aedi locandae with quasi-consular power dedicated temples; in that year a curule aedile set about doing this, but the pontifex maximus refused to participate in the ceremony (verba praeire) invoking the mos 13 °. fm_jnaiorum It seems that Cornelius Barbatus, cum more maiorum negaret nisi consulem aut imperatoTèmTposse templum dedicare, acted less as a disgruntled conservatist than as the conscientious pontifex 127 128

146.

129

De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 146-147. De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 139-202, passim, esp. p. 144-

See also De Marini Avonzo 1967, p. 29-32. Paoli 1946 identifies the lex Papiria with the elusive ius Papirianum (in his opinion, ius publice dedicandi = réglement du ritus sacroruml) and on this basis imagines that Cornelius Barbatus, while quoting the mos maiorum, in fact selectively invoked the lex Papiria; the people would have retorted by quoting another clause of this law (passim, esp. p. 189-192). For a criticism of this absurd view, based on a petitio principii and never leaving the circumference of the vicious circle, see Di Paola 1948. 130

222

maximus: in his eyes, the curule aedile Cn. Flavius must have been juridically incapable of dedicating a temple 131 . The paramount importance of the juridical status of the dedicator is illustrated by the comparison with the most solemn of all vota nuncupata, the general's personal devotio, which discloses striking resemblance to the ritual of dedicatio. In Livy's words, Decius consul M. Valerium magna voce inclamat: «deorum» inquit «ope, M. Valeri, opus est; agedum, pontifex publicus populi Romani praei verba, quibus me pro legionibus devoveam». Pontifex eum togam praetextam sumere iussit et velato capite, manu subter togam ad mentum exserta, super telum subiectum pedibus stantem sic dicere I 3 2 (here follows the formula of devotio). Except for postern tenere, we have in this passage an equivalent of the ritual of dedicatio. And rightly so; just as by his devotio the general became sacer, so the result of dedicatio was a res sacra - aedes publica populi Romani. 133 Now, devotio could be performed only by a magistrate cum imperio-, it is therefore only logical that originally only imperium-holders had the right to perform dedicatio. Yet just as the people could create duumviri aedi dedicandae with quasi-consular power 134 , so could they bestow the right to dedicate a temple, ie., the capability to perform the ceremony of dedicatio, on magistrates sine imperio. And this is evidently what they did in 304; the pontifex maximus, coactus consensu populi, recited the formula of consecratio 135 . There is no doubt that the purport of the law passed as a result of this controversy was to settle the matter of dispute: if so, the law of 304 dealt with the ability of a founder to perform dedicatio. As for the lex Papiria, the wording of the responsa of the

131

Thus Tondo 1971, p. 33. Liv. 8.9.4-5, see p. 196. See also the description of the devotio of Decius' son at Sentinum in Liv. 10.28.14: [Decius] haec locutus M. Livium pontifwem, quern descendens in aciem digredì vetuerat ab se, praeire iussit verba, quibus se legionibusque hostium pro exercitu populi Romani Quiritium devoveret. 133 This is especially emphasized by Wagenwoort 1947, p. 31-34, in whose opinion every devotio was in fact a consecratio. See Versnel 1976, passim, esp. p. 373 and sqq. 134 On the kind oipotestas of duumviri aedi dedicandae, see Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 622. 135 Of course, the concilium plebis which forced Cornelius Barbatus verba praeire was not the populus assembled at the comitia centuriata which created duumviri aedi dedicandae. See below. 132

223

^ S college of pontiffs in regard to C. Cassius' proposition to dedicate I the Quria to Concordia and to Licinia's dedication of a temple to j Bona Dea, as well as that college's decretum on Clodius' dedication of a part of Cicero's house to Libertas, clearly imply that this law, too, dealt only with the aspect of dedicatio concerning the would-be dedicator's capability to perform it.136 The senatus consultum of 123 is also higly illuminating: all that the praetor urbanus was advised to do was to erase everything that might have suggested Licinia's foundation being an aedes publica 137. It is a fact that in de domo sua 127-128 Cicero tries to create an impression that the lex Papiria specified the people's vote not only in regard to the person of dedicator but to the object of dedication as well. But it would be very unsound to let ourselves be guided by the rhetoric of the party most interested in presenting Clodius' dedication as invalid not through an oversight, as was the case, but due to its being a crime against all laws, divine and human. True, Cicero recovered his house as a result of the pontiffs' decretum evidently based on the lex Papiria; but, as Linderski notes, this was the question of civil law only. Once Clodius' dedication was ruled invalid, the question of restoring to Cicero his property could be raised sine religione by the senate, the guardian of the law 138 .

b) Relationship between the two laws and the dating of the lex Papiria At first sight, the message of the quoted passages by Livy and Cicero is clear: there were two laws, one passed in 304, specifying ne quis templum aramve iniussu senatus aut tribunorum plebei partis maioris dedicaret, and another, presented at some later date by the tribune of the plebs Q. Papirius, quae vetet iniussu plebis aedis terram aram consecrari. But not every scholar is willing to accept Livy's assertion that in 304 a law could be passed giving the senate the right to authorize dedicatio of temples. Willems endorsed Lange's view that the law of 304 was the lex Papiria 139, adding that Livy simply does not quote all the clauses 136 137 138 139

224

See Di Paola 1948, p. 634-640. See above, p. 20. Linderski 1986, p. 2161-2162. Lange 1876-79, II p. 634.

thereof 140 . The one that is missing is that quoted by Cicero, making iussus populi the indispensable condition of performing dedicatio. Willems' argument is based on the observation that «depuis cette epoque toute dédicace est précédée d'un vote du peuple qui désigne nominativement les citoyens charges de la dédicace» 141 . The examples he adduces are: the dedication in 216 of the temple of Concordia in Arce 142 , the dedication of the temples of Venus Erycina and Mens in the following year 143 , the dedication of the altar of Verminus de lege Plaetoria 144 , and the three precedents quoted by Cicero in de domo sua. His final conclusion is that the law of 304, or the lex Papiria, which regulated all these dedications, stipulated that in order to dedicate a shrine «il fallait non seulement èrre présente par le Senat ou la majorité des tribuns, mais encore agréé nominativement par le peuple» 145 . The most obvious weakness in Willems' argument is that in all the examples he adduces, the dedicators did not hold magistracies cum imperio. This was perceived by Wissowa who, though never mentioning the lex Papiria by name, concluded that the people's nomination was required only in such cases; higher magistrates could dedicate without authorization of the assembly 146 . In Wissowa's opinion, the law of 304, as transmitted by Livy, is apocryphal and could probably be an allusion to the old rule that it was the senate which had the final say when a new cult was to be introduced into the City 147 . The majority view is that the two laws were separate. Rotondi quotes Willems but opts for the alternative solution that the lex Papiria was a later legislation: «è forse più probabile trattarsi di una legge posteriore che integrò la precedente» 148 . Pais observes

140

Willems 1878-83, p. 306-309. Willems 1878-83, p. 307. 142 Liv. 23.21.7. 143 Liv. 23.30.13-14, 31.9, 32.20; see below. 144 CiL I2 804 = VI 3732 = VI 3\057=ILLRP 281; see also CIL I2 2711 =ILLRP 121 (unknown in Willems' time). See now KajantoNyberg-Steinby, p. 91-96. 145 Willems 1878-83, p. 308-309. 146 Wissowa in RE 4.1 (1900), c. 897-898, s.v. consecratio, Wissowa in RE 4.2 (1901), c. 2356-2357, s.v. dedicatio, Wissowa 1912, p. 402403. 147 Wissowa in RE 4.1 (1900), c. 898, Wissowa 1912, p. 406 n. 4. See above, p. 202 and n. 30. 148 Rotondi 1912, p. 235. 141

225

that the law of 304 presupposes the senate's initiative whereas Cicero's lex Papiria, put forward by a tribune of the plebs and giving the plebs the decisive voice in the matter of dedicatio, could hardly be anterior not only to the lex Ogulnia of 300 but also to the pontificate of Ti. Coruricanius in the middle of the third century 149. He finds the first application of this law in the case of books «found» in 181 and burned as subversive to the state religion 15 °; this makes him date the passing of the lex Papiria after 252 and before 181 151. Niccolini, in a polemic with Willems, says that there is no reason to doubt the purport of the law of 304 as reported by Livy 152. We would thus have two laws: one, passed in 304, still rather conservative in that it gave the senate the right to control dedications on par with the college of tribunes, and another, much more radical in favour of the people, which implies its later dating, alluded to by Cicero as the vetus lex Papiria tribunicia 153. As the terminus ante quern of the latter law Niccolini proposes 154, the year of C. Cassius Longinus' censorship. As for the terminus post quern, he is of the opinion that the law of 304 was in force in 216, when the temple of Venus Erycina was being dedicated, and most probably still in 179, when M. Aemilius Lepidus was dedicating as censor the temples of Diana and Iuno Regina in Circo Flaminio. The lex Papiria would therefore have been passed «nei decenni anteriori alla metà del II sec», most probably between 179 and 154 154. The epithet vetus in the mouth of Cicero is no obstacle to this dating since, in 57, the lex Papiria would most obviously have belonged to the category of vetustae leges 155. The dates proposed by Pais as time limits of the passing of the lex Papiria are so evidently irrelevant to the question of the right to dedicatio that his proposition has been disregarded by other scholars. But the argument by Niccolini, which seems to have won

149

Liv. per. 18. Liv. 40.29.2-14; Plin. NH 13.84-86. Pais. 1915-21, I p. 260-262. Niccolini 1934, p. 76. Niccolini 1934, p. 76, 403-404. Niccolini 1934, p. 403-404. Niccolini 1934, p. 404. This point has been overlooked by Di Paola 1948, p. 640-642, who dates the lex Papiria to the middle of the third century mainly because, in his opinion, a law called «old» by Cicero would have preceded the orator's times by centuries. 150 151 152 153 154 155

226

the widest acceptance 156, does not stand scrutiny either. The passage in Livy, on which he bases his view, runs as follows: Et alter ex censorious M. Aemilius petiit ab senatu ut sibi dedicationis causa templorum reginae Iunonis et Dianae, quae bello Ligustino annis octo ante vovisset, pecunia ad ludos decerneretur. Viginti milia aeris decreverentur 15?. Niccolini admits that his inference is acceptable «se si vuol credere che la concessione al censore dei fondi per i ludi da celebrarsi nell'occasione della dedicazione dei templi, presupponga la autorizzazione a lui concessa della dedicazione stessa» 158. Yet one look at Livy makes it obvious that there is no reason whatsoever to make such an assumption: all that the censor asked for, and got, was money for the games 159. As for the earlier date, the case adduced by Niccolini proves the contrary of what he wants to demonstrate: senatus decrevit ut Ti. Sempronius consul designatus, cum [primum] magistratum inisset, ad populum ferret ut Q. Fabium duumvirum esse iuberet aedis dedicandae causa 160. Even out of context this passage clearly indicates that it was the people, not the senate, who elected the duumviri and so decided who would dedicate the temple. Stambaugh uses this very passage as an argument that the lex Papiria was passed sometime during the third century, before 216 161. This may well be true, though I am not sure whether texts mentioning the procedure of creating duumviri aedibus locandis dedicandis have any bearing on the question of the dating of the lex Papiria and its relationship with the law of 304. The institution, first attested in 495, was as old as the Republic. Just as the magistrates in whose stead they located and dedicated temples, the duumviri must have always been elected by the people; when, in similar circumstances, our sources mention only the senate, this is just careless wording on their part 162. Livy's account of the procedure that led to the dedication of the temple of Venus Erycina cannot therefore be used as an argument for dating the passing of the lex Papiria. 156

He is cited with approval by Broughton 1951-52, II p. 471 and Linderski 1986, p. 2224. 157 Liv. 40.52.1. 158 Niccolini 1934, p. 403. 159 The temple may have been a manubial foundation but the games were not ludi votivi of a general as those mentioned above, p. 206 n. 52. 160 Liv. 23.30.14. 161 Stambaugh 1978, p. 558. 162 See De Martino 1958-72, II p. 164. 227

We are thus left with 304 as the terminus post quern and 154 as the terminus ante quern. In this situation, the only track that might still be worth exploring is Willems' identification of the two laws as one. Livy says: coactusque consensu populi Cornelius Barbatus pontifex maximus verba praeire. His wording is not very clear, but there can hardly be any doubt that it was a plebiscitum which forced the pontifex maximus to pronounce the formula of consecratio {verba praeire). In this context the next part of Livy's account: itaque ex auctoritate senatus latum ad populum est, ne quis templum aramve iniussu senatus aut tribunorum plebei partis maioris dedicaret, becomes plainly suspect. Why should the people have given back the victory they had just won and make the senate, even if on par with the college of tribunes of the plebs, the dispenser of the right to dedicatio? If we were to accept Livy's account as it is, the law of 304 would probably have been the only battle lost by the plebeians in the war of revendications waged between 367 and 287. Considering the logic of internal evolution of Rome in general, and the circumstances in which the law was passed in particular, this seems out of the question 163 . Livy emphasizes that the law of 304 ex auctoritate senatus latum ad populum est 164 . I think this is another argument against its purport as reported by Livy. Such a law would without fail have been vetoed by the tribunes. It has been argued that the clause about the majority of tribunes having the same right as the senate in regard to dedicatio was included in the law of 304 precisely to throw dust in the people's eyes and prevent the tribunes' veto 165 . But the intelligence of those who in 304 elected a freedman's son to a curule office, who in four years' time were to

163 According to Tondo 1971, p. 35, the law of 304 would have been a compromise beteween the mos maiomm and Cn. Flavius' precedent («è codesta una logica che sovrasta i tempi») : hence its peculiar purport. I do not think that Roman politics of the years 367-287 support his view. 164 It might be argued that Livy's words simply mean that the rogatio obtained patrum auctoritas, as stipulated by the lex Publilia. In my opinion, the meaning of this passage is that the law was passed at the senate's initiative. After the dedication of the temple of Concordia the patres, legum iudices, found themselves in a very awkward situation. An act had just been passed which, though not included in the mos maiomm, had been willed by the people. In this situation, the senate's initiating the legislation in order to regulate the matter for the future seems quite logical. 165 Paoli 1946, p. 192.

228

vote the lex Ogulnia and in seventeen - the lex Hortensia, does not deserve to be held in such contempt, even by a twentiethcentury legal historian. The principle on which were based all the revendications of the plebs in that period was the sovereignty of the plebeian assembly in the state. We find this principle in the consensus populi which broke Cornelius Barbatus' resistance, and again in the lex Papiria. The law of 304 would have stipulated nothing less. But there is another, more fundamental argument against Livy's version of the substance of the law of 304. As noted above, this law, passed in the wake of the controversy brought about by doubts as to the capability of the temple's founder to perform dedicatio, must have settled the matter of contention. But one does not see how, at the end of the fourth century, the senate or the college of tribunes could endow anybody with the capability to perform dedicatio. Only the people (or the plebs) could do it. They elected magistrates, ordinary and extraordinary, as eg. duumviri aedi dedicandae; they could also bestow the ability to dedicate a temple upon an aedile, or a censor. And this is what they did in 304. The law which followed in the wake of this controversy fits perfectly along the line of development which led from the lex Publilia of 339 to the lex Hortensia of 287. Whereas the magistrates cum imperio and duumviri aedi dedicandae were elected by the comitia centuriata, the bestowal of the right to dedicatio, implied in the law of 304 as reconstructed above, probably belonged to concilia plebis, similar to the plebiscitum which forced Cornelius Barbatus to consecrate the temple of Concordia. In other words, the law of 304 can be interpreted as the partial confirmation of the principle which was soon to triumph all along the line with the passing of the lex Hortensia 166. This would also explain the senate's attitude. Faced with a fait accompli, the patres could only see to its acquiring a legal stamp, ie. initiate the legislation regulating the right to dedicatio in future (hence ex auctoritate senatus latum ad populum) - but on the basis of the recent precedent 167. As for the reality behind Livy's

166 On the internal evolution in Rome from 339 to 287, see Ferenczy 1976, passim, with ample bibliography. 167 De Marini Avonza 1967, p. 33 rejects such a reconstruction, invoking the senate's hostility to Cn. Flavius' initiative. Yet this hostility somehow did not prevent the aedile from carrying his purpose through.

229

puzzling report on the purport of the law of 304, it can best be explained by assuming - by analogy with the lex Papiria (see below) - that the law regulated all the appointments of dedicators sine imperio, not only aediles' and censors' (tribunes' domain?) but also duumvirs' (the senate's role?) 168 . Thus the purport of the law of 304 would have practically been identical with that of the lex Papiria. Whether the two laws were one is impossible to say for certain. Two arguments seem to recommend Willems' hypothesis. One is economy: why should we assume the existence of a separate lex Papiria, indistinguishable in its content from the law of 304? The other is the wording of the decretum of the pontiffs on Cicero's house, no doubt repeating the clauses of the lex Papiria. The differentiation between a populi iussus and a plebis scitum might be understood as signifying that this law was passed prior to 287 169 . On the other hand, similar to the hardly perceptible discrimination between being nomination ei rei praefectus and id facere iussus 1 7 °, the aforementioned differentiation seems to have stemmed from the legislator's wish to eliminate all the conceivable loopholes and ambiguities from his rogatio: the lex Hortensia did not, after all, abolish plebis scita but made them as binding as the leges 171 . The other argument is not very strong either, because some laws (eg. sumptuary, de ambitu) were continually renewed. The flood of dedications in the third century may have entailed amendments to the law of 304 in the form of the lex Papiria. But if the foregoing argument that the purport of the law of 304 was practically identical with the clauses of the lex Papiria is correct, the question of whether the two laws were one loses most of its significance. What is important is that from 304 onwards,

168 The known applications of the lex Papiria rule out linking the law of 304 in Livy's report with Caius 2.5: sed sacrum quidem hoc solum existimatur, quod ex auctoritate populi Romani consecratum est, veluti lege de ea re lata, aut senatus consulto facta. The last words of Caius' sentence, one of the mainstays of the phantom of the indispensability of the senate's authorization in the matter of temple founding that haunts the modern scholarship, can only apply to the times when the senate took over the functions of the assemblies. See Mommsen 1887-88, III p. 1050 n. 3. 169 Thus Paoli 1945, p. 189-196 (he even imagines that this differentiation obliges us to date the passing of the lex Papiria before the passing of the lex Publilia). 170 See below, p. 232-233. 171 See Di Paola 1948, p. 640-641.

230

the principle of the plebs5 authorization was operating as far as temples' dedicatio was concerned. c) The scope of the law of 304 and of the lex Papiria There remains the question whether the law of 304 and/or the lex Papiria were universally binding or whether they regulated only special cases like that of Cn. Flavius, or, in other words, whether magistrates cum imperio, who had previously had more maiorum a complete freedom in the matter of dedicatio, were since 304 obliged to apply to the people's assembly for authorization of their dedications. Two views clash on this question, Willems' 172 and Wissow173 a's . Willems argues that after 304 every dedication had to be approved by the people. Since, however, all the cases he adduces to support his view concerned magistrates sine imperio, a tribune and a Vestal, Wissowa had no difficulty in arriving at the alternative conclusion basing on the same texts. The crux of the matter lies here. Since in the extant sources there is no passage indicating that magistrates cum imperio were obliged to ask for the populi iussus to perform dedicatio, all the arguments launched in the discussion of the foregoing question are bound to be inconclusive. Having uttered this caveat, I am going to state the reasons why I think that Wissowa's opinion is to be preferred. First, there is the question of whether the law of 304 extended the right to dedicatio on magistrates who had not possessed it earlier, or whether it also curtailed those who had it more maiorum of their original freedom in this respect. I think that the senate would not have given its support to a law limiting prerogatives of its leaders. Yielding to the inevitable was one thing, unnecessary depriving oneself of an important privilege that nobody questioned was another. Secondly, magistrates who possessed the right to vota nuncupata were capable of turning material objects into res sacrae 174 and hence did not need any special mandate in the matter of temples' dedicatio. 172 173 174

See above, p. 225 and n. 141, 145. See above, p. 225 and n. 146. Of course, in concert with the members of the collegium pontifi-

ciwn. 231

There still remains another possibility, that whereas the law of 304 gave lesser magistrates, aediles and censors, the right to perform dedicatio, the lex Papiria, a separate law, laid down the principle of the people's authorization as the requisite of every dedication. But even if it were so, the lex Papiria would still have had to serve some purpose, to express somebody's aspirations. I do not see whose interests it would have served under such an interpretation. Would it have been an expression of a levelling policy aimed at curtailing higher magistrates of their prerogatives? But the infinitely more fundamental privilege that was the general's freedom of disposing of his booty, including his right to manubiae, whose proportions were dictated only by custom (for a while) and himself, was left untouched 175. Would it have been caused by the plethora of third century temple foundations, with more than forty temples dedicated in less than eighty years? Mommsen himself thought along these lines when he found the decisive consideration underlying the principle of the people's authorization for dedicatio in the alienation of a piece of public land and burdening the aerarium with the cost of the temple's maintenance 176. But even someone to whom the Romans' religiosity appears a sham would hesitate to insinuate such a monstrosity as the argument above. As for Mommsen's idea, it was already sharply criticised by De Ruggiero, who otherwise shared many of his views 177. All this considered, I think that magistrates cum imperio were never obliged to seek the people's authorization to perform dedicatio, since this right was inherent in their potestas. The lex Papiria would therefore have defined the conditions in which lesser magistrates, aediles and censors, could perform dedicatio, and regulated the appointment of duumviri aedibus dedicandis, previously governed by mos alone 178. This duality might be reflected in the wording of the pontiffs' responsum to C. Cassius: nisi eum populus Romanus nominatim praefecisset atque eius iussu faceret, and of their decretum on Cicero's house: si neque populi iussu neque plebis scitu is qui se dedicasse diceret nominatim ei rei praefectus esset neque populi iussu aut plebis scitu id

175 176 177

See below, p. 310-318. Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619. De Ruggiero in Diz. epigr. I, p. 168. 178 On the lack of «constitutional laws» in the Early Republic, see Magdelain 1968, p. 5-11, Bleiken 1975, passim. 232

facere esset. The shade of difference between being «appointed by name thereto» and «ordered to do so» might point to the dissimilarity between being created official ad hoc, for the sole purpose of performing the dedicatio (hence id facere iussus) and being entrusted with it as an extra task not included in one's normal competences (hence nominatim ei rei praefectus). The former would allude to officials like the duumviri aedibus dedicandis, the latter to lesser magistrates. Thus, in theory, the purport of the law of 304 and of the lex Papiria appears very modest indeed. They only gave «extraordinary» right to perform dedicatio, already possessed more maiorum by the duumvirs, to the magistrates sine imperio 179 . But in practice, by the second quarter of the second century, the lex Papiria probably regulated all dedications of temples in the City. Two closely related factors would have been instrumental here. One was the petrification of the cursus honorum and especially the growing difficulty in obtaining more than one consulate. As a result a general vowing a temple, nearly always a consul, could hardly expect to hold in future a magistrature cum imperio that would enable him to dedicate his foundation without the people's authorization 180 . He could only hope for censorship, or ask to be created duumvir aedi dedicandae. The other factor was the degradation of aedilship into hardly more than the first indispensable step towards the consulate and its effect: the abandoning of the aedilician temple founding. The date of the last known vow by an aedile to build a temple is 196; the vow-maker dedicated his foundation two years later as praetor 181 . He was, however, the last of his species, and this meant that the one category of temple foundations that had every chance of being dedicated more

179 In the first century this law may have also governed special appointments, like that of Q. Lutatius Catulus cos. 78 to restore and rededicate the temple of iuppiter Optimus Maximus. See Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 624. 180 The last probable instance of an imperium -holder dedicating his temple foundation is that of Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus pr. 148 cos. 143 and the temple of Iuppiter Stator in Circo Flaminio. As for the argument by Morgan 1971 that Metellus, who had vowed the temple as praetor, began its construction only in the year of his consulate, see Ziolkowski 1988, n. 23 and p. 331. 181 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus aed.pl. 196, pr. 194, cos. 192, and the temple of Faunus. See Platner-Ashby, p. 206.

233

maiorum, by magistrates cum imperio, became extinct too. By the time Cicero delivered his speech de domo sua, lawful dedications of temples dispensing with populi iussus must have belonged to the remote past. As is usual with legislation replacing custom, the very apperance of a law is in itself as significant as this law's particular substance. In Rome, the difference between the situation before and after 304 - a turning point as far as temple founding was concerned - is best illustrated by the fate of two most unusual dedications, those to luno Lucina and Bona Dea. The temple of luno Lucina, vowed and dedicated by women, ended up by acquiring the status of aedes publica populi Romani. The state could hardly leave alone the cult in which all Roman matronae participated, irrespective of the order to which they belonged, the more so as the goddess worshipped in that temple had under her care women in childbed and their progeny 182. We do not know how it came about, but in the middle of the third century the temple of luno Lucina was already a regular aedes of the Roman people. But there is no doubt that at the moment of its dedication, in 375, it was a sacrum privatum standing on public land in the lucus Lucinae 183. In 123 we find the same situation: a temple founded by a woman, what is more a Vestal, and located on the site long since belonging to the goddess to whom the temple was being dedicated. But in this case the state's reaction was entirely different: the dedication was ruled invalid as performed iniussu populi. Apart from peculiar political circumstances 184, so different a treatment must have resulted first and foremost from the fact that in 123, as opposed to the situation in 375, there already existed legislation regulating temples' dedicatio, which made carrying through border cases of the kind discussed here well nigh impossible 185.

182 183 184 185

See Gagé 1963, passim, Maddoli 1971, p. 157. See above, p. 67-69. 123 was the year of C. Gracchus' first tribunate. Incidentally, one wonders who in Rome would have bothered about P. Clodius' having forgotten to ask for the people's authorization to make his dedication, had Cicero remained in exile. But Clodius' dedication was not a temple and this was the period when the whole fabric of the Republic was going to pieces anyway. 234

II. HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS 1. «INDIVIDUAL» VERSUS «COMMUNAL» CHARACTER OF ROMAN TEMPLES

What is unique about Roman temples founded in the Republican times is that the majority of those abodes of gods worshipped by the community were founded by individuals, not by the community itself. As has been seen in the foregoing chapters, a single person could vow, locate and dedicate a public temple of the Roman people without consulting the people or the senate. The basis for this peculiar situation, one that we do not find in other city-states, was seemingly the final, unquestionable character of the magistrate's vow to build a temple. On the other hand, the magistrate's votum did not always have to be his personal pledge: many vows to build temples were initiated by other parties, with the magistrate performing his function exclusively ex officio. To this category belonged all the temples built at the order of the libri fatales. Similarly, the final character of the magistrate's vow was such in the negative sense only, in that nobody could question the vow's validity and its maker's ability to carry it through. But this did not necessarily make the vow positively binding for the community. What was indicative of the state's committment to the magistrate's vow was, of course, contributing to the temple's construction with state money. And inversely, a refusal to finance the temple's construction was to all intents and purposes the only way to voice opposition to the magistrate's vow I86. But the numerous temples built exmanubiis and exMudtaticia pecunia show that the actual constructionneèd not concern the aerarium at all. The fact is that a temple could be founded without the state's participation, ie. entirely beyond the state's control. Here lies, I think, the fundamental difference between individual and communal temple foundations. A vow to build a temple, if realized with state money, resulted in a «communal» foundation even if initiated by the vow making magistrate alone, as opposed to an «individual» founda-

As it happened in the case of Cn. Flavius' vow to Concordia. 235

tion, executed exclusively by the vow-maker and, if need be, his next-of-kin 187 . As noted above, there existed three categories of temples according to the position of their vow-makers. But it also seems worthwhile to propose another classification, based on the distinction between individual and communal foundations, in the sense outlined above. It is self-evident that the third category of vows in the former classification - temples ordered by priestly colleges were by their very nature communal foundations. Inversely, as will be seen below, all aedilician foundations were individual. The significance of the second classification appears chiefly in the case of generals' vota which constitute, however, the overwhelming majority of vows. The proposed distinction may be of interest not only in regard to particular foundations, but may also offer some insights into the development of the Roman society in the times of the Middle Republic. Any attempt to situate temple foundations in their historical framework cannot disregard the chronological aspect, since it is obvious that the magistrate's vow was an altogether different thing in the times when one temple was being founded per generation, and when two temples were being vowed in one year. In this respect, Mid-Republican Rome is very instructive, with seven temples vowed in the fourth century 188 and more than forty in the third. And since the Third Samnitic War was no doubt the turning point as far as temple foundations were concerned - at least five temples are securely known to have been vowed during that war (see below) - I shall discuss the years 396-299 and 298-219 separately.

2. THE YEARS 396-299

Individual temple foundations were an unknown quantity to the Romans at the beginning of the fourth century. The radical restoration of the temples of S. Omobono was almost com-

f87 /On the vow-makers' sons performing dedicatio, see Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 621. Similarly, M. Aemilius Lepidus dedicated in 179 the temple of Lares Permarini, vowed by L. Aemilius Regillus pr. 190 (Liv. 40.52.4), probably as much as the cousin of the deceased as in his capacity of censor. 188 Or eight, if the temple of Iuno Lucina is included.

236

pleted 189 ; but the initiative as well as the financing of the work had almost certainly been communal, as must have been the case with other rededications of temples built by the kings, those of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (507), Saturnus (497) and Semo Sancus (466) 190 . Older Romans will have remembered the founding of the temple of Apollo, built in 433-431 at Sibylla's order: another communal foundation par excellence. Nearly a hundred years had passed since the founding of three Early Republican temples, those of Castores (484), Mercurius (495) and Ceres (493-another Sibyllan foundation). In these circumstances, the evocatio of Iuno Regina from Veii must have been a shocking experience for the Romans of the day. But everything about this vow and its circumstances was exceptional: the magnitude of Camillus' achievement, the richness of his booty, the manner in which the patron goddess of Rome's closest neighbour and most bitter enemy was introduced into the City ^ . Even before setting out against Veii Camillus had demonstrated, with his vow to dedicate the temple of Mater Matuta, freshly rebuilt or still being restored, the importance he attached to temple founding 192 . As for the temple of Iuno Regina, it was the first Republican temple to be vowed, located and dedicated by one person: as individual a foundation as one could imagine in those days. But Camillus still needed the state's cooperation on one point at least: having held no office in 392, he must have dedicated the temple of Iuno Regina as duumvir, and this required appointment by the people. Of course, there had been the precedent of the temple of Castores, vowed by A. Postumius Albus and dedicated by his son as duumvir 193 . In spite of the small credibility of the traditional account of the Latin War in our sources 194 , the choice of dedicator makes obvious the intimate connection between the magistrate who pronounced the exoratio of Dioscuri and the temple constructed in fulfilment of his vow. But the great temple vowed 189

107.

If dated to the beginning of the fourth century, see above, p. 105-

l90

Jbid /^J/The hopelessly outdated study of evocatio, Basanoff 1947, has by now been largely superseded by Versnel 1976 and Le Gali 1976. 192 On the right of the magistrates of the moment to perform dedicatio of other people's foundations, see Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 619-620. 193 Liv. 2.42.5. 194 See Ogilvie 1965, p. 271-272, 285-286.

237

during the war that ended in a compromise settlement would have hardly been an individual foundation in the aforementioned sense. In this context there arises the question of financing the construction of the temple of Juno Regina. We learn from Livy that before laying down his dictatorship Camillus located the temple on the Aventine, ie. chose its site and had the augur inaugurate it. That the temple may have been built by the individual rather than by the state is suggested by its being dedicated four years after votum and locatio (396-392), whereas the communal foundations immediately preceding and following took two years from the vow to the dedication (Apollo 433-431, Mars 390-388); the temple of Iuno Moneta, expressly ordered to be built pro amplitudine populi Romani (compare Camillus' ubi te dignum amplitudine tua templum accipiat), was completed in one year (345-344). On the other hand, four years was still a very short time for a temple construction compared with the time needed to achieve manubial foundations of later generations (see below). Besides, our sources, while voluble about Camillus' booty 195, never qualify the temple of Iuno Regina as built ex manubiis. It would thus seem that even if Camillus began his temple with Veientine spoils, it was the state which financed later stages of its construction. Naturally, most of the money needed to build the temple may ultimately have come from the Veientine spoils, but passed through the aerarium and so without the stamp of being Camillus' booty. The temple of Mars in Clivo, vowed two years after the dedication of Camillus' foundation, was most probably ordered by the libri fatales at the time of the Gallic disaster 196 and was thus a communal foundation paid for by the state. Only in 345, half a century after the fall of Veii, did Rome witness another vow to found a temple made by a general - L. Furius Camillus' votum to Iuno Moneta. The individual character of this vow seems even more pronounced than in the case of Postumius' exoratio of Dioscuri and M. Camillus' evocatio of Iuno Regina. L. Camillus' votum was probably the first battle vow in the history of Rome. In Livy's slightly ambiguous account, dictator tarnen, quia et ultro bellum intulerant [Aurunci] et sine detractatione se certamini offerebant, deorum quoque opes adhibendas ratus inter ipsam dimicationem aedem Iunoni Monetae vovit; cuius damnatus voti cum victor revertisset, dictaturae se abdicavit Senatus duumviros ad earn 195 196

238

Shatzman 1972, p. 189-191. See above, p. 103.

aedem... faciendam creavi iussit 197. Toutain interprets this passage as follows: «Vainqueur, par consequant damnatus voti, suivant l'expression de Tite-Live, il rentre à Rome et abdique la dictature. C'est alors au Sénat qu'il incombe de prendre les résolutions nécessaires pour que Rome s'acquitte du voeu contracté en son nom» 198. As I understand it, he implies that Camillus, though victorious and so damnatus voti, failed to keep his part of the bargain by abdicating without doing anything to fulfil his vow; it was left to the senate to honour the agreement on the part of the Roman people. But Toutain fails to notice that by letting the senate execute his vow L. Camillus was following the normal Roman practice, the only exception to which had been his father's or uncle's proceeding with the temple of Iuno Regina. On the other hand, one should expect that the parent's handling of the vow he had made would have served as a precedent for the younger Camillus. And yet, in spite of the highly individual character of the vow, the foundation that resulted from it was entirely communal. Livy's wording strongly suggests that the senate not only initiated the creation of duumviri aedi locandae but also selected the site - the Arx, of all places - then issued the instruction that the temple should be built pro amplitudine populi Romani, and, last but not least, saw to its construction being achieved in one year 199: the absolute record of speed, never surpassed in the history of Rome. Equally significant is Livy's statement that the Ausonian threat turned out to be very exaggerated and so hardly warranted making the first battle vow in Rome's history. If so, was the votum to Iuno Moneta a spontaneous vow made on the battlefield? It seems that we might look for the reason of this vow in Rome's internal politics of the day. The temple was founded towards the end of the long domination by a patrician clique which, in alliance with a couple of plebeian quislings, ousted the first «democratic» group of the years 366-361, and all but reduced to naught the achievements of 367 20 °. But in the middle of the forties the conservatives must have been quickly losing their grip, no doubt because a new generation of popular leaders, patrician and plebeian, was coming of political age. The actual showdown, 197 198 199 200

Liv. 7.28.4-5. Toutain in Daremberg-Saglio, V p. 974, s.v. votum. See above, p. 71. On the «patrician reaction» of the years 360-340, see Münzer 1920, p. 21-38. See also Toynbee 1965, I p. 319-321, 345-347. 239

triggered by the question of the ager Campanus, which nearly ended in a bloody revolution, took place only three years after L. Camillus' votum201. In such a situation, the decision by the defenders of the status quo to found a temple to Juno the Warner 2 0 2 would fit perfectly. The sweeping change came in 325 with the vow of L. Papirius Cursor to Quirinus. The fact that the temple was dedicated thirty two years later by the vow-maker's son is the best proof that the aerarium did not participate in its construction. Another distinctive feature of this foundation is that the younger Papirius dedicated the temple as consul, not as duumvir aedi dedicandae. It is of course inconceivable that the completion of the construction of a temple thirty-two years after the vow, at the very moment of the vow-maker's son assuming the consulate, could have been a coincidence. The only legitimate inference is that the younger Papirius postponed the dedication until his first consulate or, in other words, until his first magistracy cum imperio. Conscious avoiding of extraordinary offices, resulting in many years delay, is even more evident in the case of two subsequent vows made by generals. C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus vowed a temple to Salus as consul in 311, located it as censor in 306 and dedicated as dictator in 302. The next in line, L. Postumius Megellus, vowed the temple of Victoria during his first consulate in 305 and dedicated it during the second in 294; he located it most probably as aedile in 303 or 301 203 . Together with the very leisurely pace of construction, this can only mean that the temples in question were not financed by the state, but by the vow-makers alone 204 . 201

Münzer 1920, p. 34-38, Heurgon 1942, p. 245-252. On various theories concerning the meaning of the surname Moneta, see Dury Moyaers-Renard, p. 165-167, to which should now be added Grandazzi 1986A, p. 138. 203 See above, p. 174-176. 204 Waiting for ordinary magistracies to perform consecutive stages of a temple's founding seems to have been a temporary phenomenon, which passed away once the notion of individual temple foundations took roots in Rome. The first founder of an individual temple to perform dedicatio as duumvir would have been Q. Fabius Gurges (see above, p. 167169). Even if the ceremony took place in 291, Gurges would still have needed the people's authorization, because promagistrates, whose imperium was strictly confined to their provinces, could not dedicate in their own right. See the case of T. Otacilius Crassus, who vowed the temple of Mens as praetor (Liv. 22.10.10) but dedicated it as duumvir (Liv. 202

240

And since, in the times under discussion, for magistrates cum imperio the only source of funds to finance the construction of temples were war spoils, the inference is that the temple of Quirinus was the first Roman temple built ex manubiis. Manubiae, or the part of the booty which the commander reserved for himself 205 , were no doubt as old as the Republic herself, similar to other aspects of Imperium that can be traced back to the royal prerogatives. The basis of manubiae was the general's right to dispose freely of his booty. Normally, most of the booty was handed over to the aerarium or divided between the soldiers, but the commander reserved a part of it for himself {manubiae) and for his friends (pars amicorum). Since 325 the notion of manubiae undergoes a radical change. A part, sometimes the whole, of the booty which the general assigned for the public was not handed over to the treasury but remained in the hands of the general who spent it in his own name (ex manyimsl. Sometimes these were games or
23.31.9), vested as he was with the propraetorian imperium (Liv. 23.32.20). The growing difficulty in obtaining more than one consulate and the virtual disappearance of the dictatorship no doubt hastened this process, leading to Q. Fulvius Flaccus, the consul, actually asking the senate to initiate the creation of duumviri to locate his manubial foundation to Fortuna Equestris (see above, p. 205-206) - an attitude which represents a radical reversal in comparison with the close of the fourth century. 205 On the general's authority over the booty and the question of manubiae, see Shatzman 1972. 241

forced to do this by the senate's refusal to finance the temple's construction? There is no definite answer to this question, though the stormy character of Cursor's dictatorship, and especially his conflict with the influential Fabii Ambusti 206, makes very seductive the hypothesis that it was the senate which refused to finance the dictator's vow, thus forcing him to fulfil it with his own means. Numerous subsequent consulates and dictatorships enabled him to build the temple on a very vast scale, though this would have been one of the reasons why it was dedicated only by his son, thirty-two years after the vow. The second round of the Second Samnitic War (316-304) resulted in two vows, to Salus (311) and Victoria (305). It is characteristic that the former temple was vowed by the chief architect of the Roman successful counteroffensive, after the victory at Tarracina effaced the disgrace of the Caudine Forks and Lautulae 207, while the latter marked the end of the war 208 . Brutus' vow to Salus was an important step in the development of individual foundations. First, as the first Roman temple vowed by a plebeian, it was by no means negligible a point on the list of plebeian revendications in religious matters, crowned with the passing of the lex Ogulnia only two years after the dedication of the temple. It may also be of significance that Brutus was the first consul to make a general's votum to build a temple. Previous vows of this category - to Castores, Iuno Regina, Iuno Moneta and Quirinus -had been made by dictators. This may be a coincidence, but may also reflect the opinion, long held by the Romans, that nuncupatio resulting in the construction of a new temple was a prerogative of magistrates with imperium most akin to the royal power. If so, then since the time of Brutus it was not the imperium maximum but the manubiae that were decisive as far as individual vows were concerned 209. The extension of individual vota category was achieved in 304 206 207

Liv. 8.30-36; see Val. Max. 2.7.8, 3.2.9; de vir.ill 31, 32. He was consul in 313 and 311, and dictator in 312 (Broughton 1951-52, I p. 158-161. 208 On who was the chief architect of the victory in 305, see above, p. 174-176. 209 The first praetorian vow we know of was made in 218 by L. Manlius (see above, p.205); thefirstknown individual praetorian foundation was the temple of Lares Permarini, vowed in 190, see above, p. 236 n. 187. 242

with the founding of the temple of Concordia. Although neither Livy nor Pliny mention opposition to Cn. Flavius' vow as such, this does not diminish the scope of the innovation which constituted the votum to build a temple made by a magistrate sine imperio. On the other hand, lack of opposition to Flavius' vow is extremely significant, considering that in this particular case we have concrete indications that the senate did its best to bring to naught his foundation - by refusing to finance it. The fact that apparently no one challenged Flavius' right to make his vow is the best proof that the magistrates' vota, even when made by officials sine imperio, did not require any confirmation. Still, more than one factor must have been at work for so unprecedented an act to occur. For example, if aediles could have presided at the ludi Romani surrounded by lictors 210 , why should they not have had the right to vow temples? But it seems that once again L. Papirius Cursor's precedent was really decisive. Although our sources are silent about this, there is little doubt that before 304 aediles' multae, like generals' booty before 325, went to the aerarium. But Cursor had shown how to spend money for the common good in the magistrate's own name. What manubiaejwere for a general, so were multae for an aedile, or more™711: the general could always p o c f e t ^ ä r ^ ö i l s T b T r i i s private ends, whereas the aedile had to turn the fines he had imposed for public usé23> As for the particular circumstances of Cn. Flavius' foundation, it seems that his vow to Concordia was a riposte to Megellus' votum to Victoria, made a couple of months before; a reminder that after victory abroad it was concord at home that Rome needed most. And in 304 precisely that concord was crumbling. As long as the war with the Samnites and their allies dragged on, the controversial policy of Cn. Flavius' patron Ap. Claudius Caecus 2 1 3 was not in danger of being reversed 214 . With the return of 210 Dion.Hal. 6.95.4, see Sabbatucci 1954, p. 269 and n. 1. Qf On the judicial powers of aediles, and especially their right to impose mutile, see Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 491-497, 512-514. ^J2 Mömmsen 1887-88, II p. 496. c!i) Diverging views on political measures taken by Ap. Claudius Caecus as censor are to be found in Staveley 1959, p. 413-419, Cassola 1962, p. 94-96 and Ferenczy 1976, passim, esp. p. 132-164. 214 The censors of 307, M. Valerius Corvus and C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus, djdjiojjtouch Claudiusjarrangements (Liv. 9.43.25-26), although Brutus as consul in 311, together with his colleague Q. Aemilius Barbula, is credited with having refused to recognize the lectio senatus of 312. This, however, could be a later invention, see Staveley 1959, p. 413.

243

peace came the censorship of Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus and the reform of the tribes which, among others, restricted the turba forensis, by the author of de viris illustrious simply called freedmen 215 ; .to the four urban tribes 2 1 6 . Hence the appeal to Concordia by a freedman's son and thus the defender of the status quo, as is usual with dedications of this kind 217 .

3 ) THE YEARS 298-219

The loss of Livy's second decade and the sheer number of temples founded in t h e s e j ^ e ^ r s _ p r ^ l u 4 e s , ^ one by one. They should rather be handled in groups according to the character of their vowing.

a) Generals' vows The period between the beginning of the Third Samnitic War and the outbreak of the Second Punic War was undoubtedly the golden age of generals' foundations in the history of the Republic. In spite of the loss of the second decade of Livy, which covered the years 292-219, more than a half of securely dated temples vowedby generals are known to have been founded in these years <$£) Considering that most of unattributed temples of that period would have been generals' foundations as well, and allowing for temples which did not leave tangible traces in our sources,

215

devir.ill 32.2, 34.1. See Staveley 1959, p. 413, Cassola 1962, p. 95-96, Ferenczy 1976, p. 184-185. 217 Livy's account of this most famous of measures taken by the censors of 304 is as follows: ex eo tempore in duas partes discessit civitas; aliud integer populus, fautor et cultor bonorum, aliud forensis factio tendebat. Donee Q. Fabius et P. Decius censores facti, et Fabius simul concordiae causa, simul ne humillimorum in manu comitia essent, omnem forensem turbam excretam in quattuor tribus coniecit urbanasque eas appellava (Liv. 9.46.13-14). As can be seen, in 304 the banners of Concordia were multicoloured, which by the way shows that by that time her notion was well established in Rome; soon a fable was to be invented that made the great M. Furius Camillus, and not a humble freedman's son, introduce the cult of Concordia into the City. See above, p. 22-23. 218 See Wissowa 1912, p. 594-597, Platner-Ashby, p. 587-591. 216

244

we may safely assume that between 298 and 219 about forty temples were vowed by magistrates cum imperio: on the average one general's vow every two years. It was the vowing of a temple to Bellona by Ap. Claudius Caecus in 296, described in detail in Livy's narrative 219, which set that trend. With his vow, and with Papirius' and Megellus' temples about to be dedicated, subsequent votum was only a matter of time. The decisive victory at Sentinum in the following year provided that opportunity: Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus made the most appropriate vow to luppiter Victor in the last phase of the battle, when Roman victory was already the foregone conclusion 220. Even if his vow was a thank-offering rather than a supplication, the result of the battle must have shown other generals how potent the vota to found temples were on the battlefield. M. Atilius Regulus, while making his vow at Luceria in 294, no doubt reasoned that if luppiter Victor had given the victory to Rullianus, luppiter Stator, if also offered a temple, would stop the flight of his soldiers. The god apparently did not respond 221, but the vow was nevertheless attended to by the senate (see below) ; apart from other considerations, ensuring the goodwill of Jupiter the Stayer was clearly too important to get discouraged by one rebuff. In 293 one of the consuls, Sp. Carvilius Maximus, made a vow to Fors Fortuna wheras the other, L. Papirius Cursor, instead of vowing a temple, is said to have promised in jest to luppiter Victor a cup of new wine 222 . There is no doubt that Livy misunderstood younger Papirius' gesture 223; he also forgot that before setting out against the Samnites the consul had dedicated the temple built by his father to Quirinus. But the information is significant as testifying to the growing popularity of battle vows in those years. During the three years following Appius' vow to Bellona and before the break of Livy's narrative (295-293) three consuls vowed new temples, one dedicated his own foundation and one his father's; the one consul who did neither died in battle while in office. It is a reasonable guess that the consuls of the three final years of the war (292-290) also vowed temples, the one certain

219 220

See above, p. 18. The battle: Liv. 10.28.1-29.16, Decius' devotio: 28.12-18, Rullianus' vow: 29.13. 221 See above, p. 88, 175. 222 Liv. 10.42.7. 223 Plin. NH 14.91, see Schilling 1954, p. 143. 245

exception being L. Postumius Megellus cos. Ill 291, both on account of his having already dedicated the temple of Victoria and his condemnation at the end of the consulate 224 . But Q. Fabius Maximus Gurges cos. 292, whose consular achievements were unspectacular and who as aedile had already vowed and located the temple of Venus Obsequens, dedicated it as a postvotum in thanksgiving for his pretended victory over the Samnites 2 2 5 . The consuls of 290, the final victors of the war, surely followed the example of Appius and Rullianus; the fact that one of them, M \ Curius Dentatus.j^xffressjy vowed to hnilH an .aqueduct with his^ spoils from Beneventana 22 ^ (it ^ejsm^^^^jwa^^lected^ejiSQr exclusively for that"^ürposeT can best be explained by supposing thatlieTiad dedicated a temple ex manubiis before 275. In view of an ovatio and two triumphs which he earned during his first consulate in 290 2 2 7 this supposition seems quite probable. We can thus assume that during the final three years of the Third Samnitic War Roman generals vowed at least two, and maybe three temples 228 , not to mention Gurges' postvotum to Venus Obsequens. But the pace at which new temples were being founded during the Third Samnitic War - ca. seven temples in seven years - could not be maintained for long. Unfortunately, the haphazard character of our sources for the period covered by Livy's second decade, together with so many unattributed temples certainly or probably founded in the years 292-219 (the great majority of which must have been generals' foundations), makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct their chronological distribution. One possibility is to single out the lean years and the years of plenty. After an avalanche of vows during the Third Samnitic War, things undoubtedly came to a standstill. The silence of our sources with regard to 289 and 288 probably reflects the contemporary situation: even the Romans must have needed some respite after nine years of continuous fighting on all fronts. 287 and 286

224

See above, p. 175. See above, p. 169. de virili 33.8-9; Frontin. de aqued. 1.6. 227 Inslt XIII 1, p. 545; see Torelli RRF, p. 57-59. 228 The third general to vow a temple would in this case have been D. Iunius Brutus Scaeva cos. 292, who fought against the Falisci, see Zon. 8.1.10-11 (I p. 107 Boiss.), or C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus cos. 291, whose consulate left no traces in the extant sources. 225 226

246

were the years of internal upheavals accompanying the passing of the leges Hortensia and Aquillia. The Roman aid to Thurioi in 285 being probably a projection into the past of C. Fabricius Luscinus' intervention of 282, the new period of fighting started only with the defeat of L. Caecilius Metellus cos. 284 at Arretium. We would thus have one unquestionable lean period, the years 289-284/3 229. It is not very likely that in those days any temple was vowed by Roman generals. Yet the years 296-290 and 289-284/3 stand apart, the first period because Livy's narrative covers more than a half of it, the second as the only period in Rome's history when we can be reasonably sure that there was no serious fighting for four consecutive years. Is it possible to proceed further along this line? There is little doubt that, from Papirius' vow to Quirinus down to Carvilius' vow to Fors Fortuna, all the generals vowed temples with the intention of founding them ex manubiis, though this is explicitly stated only in the last case: [Carvilius] aedem Fortis Fortunae de manubiis faciendam locavit 230. This raises the question whether in the third century there existed a necessary correlation between the quantity of booty and the building activity of a general. To put it bluntly: were the buildings listed as founded ex jnanuhm_jAy£a3&jDui\t out of the proceeds °Xj!le sale oT war rbooty? In the second century the answer is obviously negative, at j least since the first consulate of M. Aemilius Lepidus cos. (f8J, J /T£5, who vowed and built, ostensìBly exJìfflnubììs, two temples, including the great sanctuary of Iuno Regina in Circo Flami\ nio 23 *, though he was not even granieinnHumph for his short \ and essentially futile chase after the proverbially^ poor Ligurian j highlanders(3?'"' This in turn entails the following question: how, in the years not covered by Livy, can we know that a general had sufficient means to found a temple, assuming that in the third century foundations ex manubiis were such in fact, not only in name. Manubial dedications required, at least in theory, military success and booty, the latter being to a large extent the consequence of the former. But the source which supposedly lists potential, if not always actual fuundefTorteinplex ex manubiis, the Fasti Trium229 230 231 232

On these years, see Torelli RRF, p. 65-90. See above, p. 38. Liv. 39.2.8, 11, 40.52.1. Liv. 39.2.7-11. 247

phales, is very unreliable and incomplete: for example, it quotes theTicìItìoìisrt^ Atilius ReguTus cos. 294 233 who, in spite of his vow to Iuppiter Stator, won neither victory nor booty. Similarly, when after the lean period singled out above the train of Roman successes was opened with the resounding victory at Lake Vadimon, it was soon cut short by Pyrrhos' landing in Italy and so lasted only three years (283-281/0). The disaster at Herakleia started another period of defeats first, and indecisive fighting afterwards, which dragged on at least until Pyrrhos' departure. But in the Fasti Triumphales we find five triumphs celebrated in those years 234. H o w are we to understand it if the one general who really earned his triumph chose to build an aqueduct ex manubiis, and the only temple known to have been vowed between 280 and 275, that of Summanus, was a Sibyllan foundation. It does not seem that the kind of enemy the Romans faced in different periods made a great difference in the matter of temple founding. It is a fact that in the thirties, the inconclusive hunting for the elusive and, worse still, poor highlanders of Sardinia, Corsica a n d Liguria, could scarcely have brought much in terms of glory and booty. It might therefore not be accidental that, in those years, one of the two known founders of temples ex manubiis, Q . Fabius Maximus Verrucosus cos. I 233, carried on a family tradition of temple founding 235 whereas the other, C. Papirius Maso cos. 231, built his temple chiefly as a thank-offering for the deliverance from death of thirst 236; his other aim was probably to manifest his military achievements which, as can be gathered from his being the first Roman general to triumph in monte Albano 237, were clearly contested in Rome. But to this we can reply that these were precisely the unusual circumstances of Papirius' vow that saved it from oblivion, together with that vow's ear-catching outcome, the temple of Fons extra Portam Fontinalem. As for the temple of Honos, we know 23 iSee/^/LXIin,p. 234

544. C. Fabricius in 278, C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus and Q. Fabius Maximus Gurges in 276, M \ Curius Dentatus and L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus in 275. See Inslt XIII 1, p. 546. 235 Verrucosus' great-grandfather Rullianus built a temple to Iuppiter Victor, his grandfather Gurges to Venus Obsequens, his father died as consul. 236 See above, p. 38 and below, p. 254. 237 Val. Max. 3.6.5; Inslt XIII 1, p. 549. 248

about it thanks to the controversy over Marcellus' vow to Honos et Virtus^ 3 *9 were it not for that reason, all the glory of the Cunctator would not have saved the temple he had founded from sinking into obscurity. What is really significant is that both Verrucosus and Papirius did found temples; one does not see why other generals of that day who triumphed over the Ligurians, Sardinians and Corsicans 239 , could not have done the same. It we add that the quoted examples of Ap. Claudius Caecus and M. Aemilius Lepidus corroborate the otherwise obvious inference' thaM/o^ìnaKers could also be found among commanders who do not figure in the Fasti Triumphales, and that we have no idea of the cost of a temple's construction 240 , our ignorance about the pattern of generals' foundations after 284/3 becomes total. All we can say is that, most probably, more than thirty temples of this category were vowed between that date and 219. A different question is raised by a phenomenon not uncommon during the First Punic War, that of generals winning important victories and gaining great booty but losing it owing to enemy action or the natural elements. Such was the case of M. Aemilius Paullus and Ser. Fulvius^ Nobilior coss. 255, the victors of the Cape Hermaean T4T, Cn. Cornelius Scipio Asina cos. II 254, the conqueror of Panormos 242 , and C. Sempronius Blaesus cos. 253, the plunderer of Syrtis 2 4 3 . We know that^ Paullus s e t u p a collimila rostrata 244 , in obvious imitation of C_Duillius cos. 260, the first Roman general who earned a triumphus navalis 245 . It is therefore quite possible that he followed Duillius' example also in

238

See above, p. 58. P. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus cos. 236 {de Liguribus), T. Manlius Torquatus cos. 235, Sp. Carvilius Maximus cos. 234 and M\ Pomponius Matho cos. 233 {de Sardeis). See Inslt XIII 1, p. 549. 240 An attempt to estimate the cost of building a temple at the beginning of the second century by Frank 1933, p. 153, is a failure - the total at which he arrives is no doubt many times too low. 241 Pol. 1.37.1-6; Diod. 23.18.1; Zon. 8.14.3 (I p. 163 Boiss); Oros. 4.9.8; Eutr. 2.22.3. 242 Zon. 8.14.5 = Cass. Dio fr. 43.29 (I p. 163 Boiss.). 243 Pol. 1.39.6; Diod. 23.19.1; Zon. 8.14.6 (I p. 163 Boiss.); Oros. 4.9.11; Eutr. 2.23.1. •£y Liv. 42.20.1 mentions the destruction of this monument by lightning among the prodigies ofjT^> 245 Columnae rostrataeDUillii, see Serv. ad Georg. 3.29; Plin. NH 34.20; Quint. Inst. 1.7.12. 239

249

vowing a temple 246. But whereas the columna rostrata Paulli was surely an inexpensive monument - the most important item for its construction was a couple of prows of enemy warships - a temple would have required sums of quite a different order of magnitude. If we assume that Paullus and some of his above mentioned colleagues vowed temples, this would raise a not quite so theoretical question. The battle has been won, the gods have kept their part of the bargain, but the general who made the vow has no means to make good his obligation contracted pro populo Romano Quiritium. Who is then going to execute the vow? Even in the golden age of individual foundations the state or, to be more precise, the senate sometimes helped a general to fulfil the vow he had made. One such case is the temple vowed to Iuppiter Stator by M. Atilius Regulus, another - L. Manlius' vow to Concordia in 218. Of course, neither of these cases is wholly representative here, because Regulus lost his battle while Manlius vowed his temple after restoring discipline in his army 247 . He at least expected from the outset that the state would bear the cost of fulfilling his vow, since he neither had any manubiae to build the temple of Concordia himself, nor could he hope to get some during his praetorship. Such is also the implication of the debate in the senate as reported by Livy, where the patres do not discuss the appropriateness of executing L. Manlius' vow but only reproach themselves with being so slow in fulfilling the obligation to Concordia. Thus Manlius made his vow with an intention of founding a communal, not individual, temple. The senate accepted the votum as binding for the Roman people and attended to its execution. The unglorious circumstances of the vow, which plainly had not been made in order to exalt the vow-maker, must have been of decisive importance for the senate's decision. I think that one or both of the temples founded by A. Atilius Caiatinus may have belonged to this category, too, if vowed during his dictatorship in 249. As L. Manlius' vow to Concordia was occasioned by a military seditio, so Caiatinus' vota to Spes and/or Fides would have proclaimed an unyielding hope in Rome's ultimate victory and an assurance, aimed at Rome's allies, of the Republic's will to keep faith irrespective of all the disasters that had just befallen her and that might yet occur in the future. Such

Duillius founded the temple of Ianus, see above, p. 61. See above, p. 205. 250

vows, even if initiated by the dictator alone, would no doubt have been felt as communal rather than individual, the more so as, if really made in 249, they obviously would have had no chance of being fulfilled ex manubiis 248 . Naturally, we should expect such vows to be made only during the First and Second Punic Wars, when the Romans had good reason to worry about the ultimate outcome of the conflict. In other wars, Rome's crushing superiority over her enemies would have made vows of this kind quite unnecessary; generals would then have made their vows with the intention of founding individual temples, financed ex manubiis. As for Regulus' vow to Iuppiter Stator, it seems most probable that, since the deity had not answered his prayer, he decided that the votum became null and void. But why did the senate decide to execute his vow? It seems that Fabius Pictor's explanation of the patres' motives: ut aedem etiam fieri senatus iuheret, his eiusdem voti damnata re publica, in religionem venit 249 , is most convincing and should be accepted, though other reasons (gaining the goodwill of Jupiter the Stayer, saving the face of the unsuccessful colleague of universally detested Megellus 25 °) may have played some part in that decision as well. The most important implication of the report of Fabius - a late third-century senator - is that the patres did not automatically execute generals' vows which the vow-makers were unable to fulfil; an extra reason was required, like, in the case under discussion, the acknowledgement that Regulus' vow, though unanswered, reactivated the ancient and still unexecuted votum made by Romulus. Returning to the original question, I think that the loss of booty by a victorious general, especially if caused by natural elements, may have been one of those reasons that could persuade the senate to attend to the general's vow. So, if Paullus, Nobilior or Blaesus really vowed temples, the senate would probably have arranged for their construction with state money - if the vowmakers had asked for it. Yet the state's engagement in the solemn vows made by generals in the name of the Roman people was not necessarily reduced to the senate's decisions to pay for temples' construction. As is made clear by the wording of the debates on vows made by Regu-

248 249 250

See above, p. 29. See above, p. 88. See above, p. 175. 251

lus and L. Manlius, such cases entailed religio and thus concerned first and foremost the college of pontiffs. This is best illustrated in the case of M. Claudius Marcellus' vow to Honos et Virtus: the case of the general whose votum had been answered in the most spectacular manner, but who for some reason did not choose to fulfil it. Livy's account makes it clear that before the outbreak of the Second Punic War he did not even locate the temple vowed in 222. During the war the senate and the pontiffs let his vow remain unfulfilled for ten years 2 5 1 ; religious scruples were awakened only at the beginning of Marcellus' fifth consulate in 208, when he swore to meet Hannibal in a pitched battle 2 5 2 . Evidently the pontiffs reasoned that though individual vota answered by the deity - as Marcellus' vow made at Clastidium plainly was - in practice obliged the vow-maker alone, this time the risk was too great for the Republic to remain indifferent to Marcellus' negligence. The consul was setting forth not only to try his own luck against the invincible foe: the fate of Rome was at stake. In this situation it was the pontiffs' duty to force Marcellus to regulate his obligations to gods. When the consul, whose indifference to the state religion seems to have^been surpassed by only one of his contemporaries, C. Flaminius © , tried to discharge his vow too easily, they made him buflcTa separate cella to VirtusJ 54 . The vicissitudes of Marcellus' vow illustrate the other side of individual foundations. When the magistrate was unwilling to fulfil the vow which in theory was incumbent on the Republic as much as on himself, nothing short of Hannibal ante portas could compel him to keep his pledge. The final question which has to be asked, in full awareness that no satisfactory answer can be given, is why so many temples were vowed by Roman generals from the first years of the Third

251

See above, p. 58. Liv. 27.25.14; Plut. Marc. 28. 253 Cic. de div. 2.77. 254 Stambaugh 1978, p. 559, misses the one really important point in the whole affair, that of the pontiffs actually forcing the consul to fulfil his vow. It should be noted that we do not hear of the state's participation in the founding of this temple. The locatio and the actual construction were done by Marcellus as consul, the dedicatio by his son as duumvir (see above, p. 58). We do not know the provenance of the money with which Marcellus finally fulfilled his vow (he obviously did not keep his Gallic and Sicilian manubiae for that purpose), but, considering the circumstances, this point was of least importance. 252

252

Samnitic to the outbreak of the Second Punic War. An attempt to answer this question, however fragmentarily, should concentrate in the first place on the situational context of vows. In what circumstances did Roman generals vow temples in the years 298219? Although with the loss of Livy's narrative we are again treading a very uncertain ground, most of the vota whose circumstances are known were made in battle. Bellona, Iuppiter Victor, Iuppiter Stator and Pales are explicitly quoted as being offered temples on the battlefield. Livy's remark that at Aquilonia L. Papirius Cursor cos. 293 in ipso discrimine, quo tempia deis immortalibus voveri mos erat, voverat Iovi Victori, si legiones hostium fudisset, pocillum mulsi 255, also shows that battle was the most common and proper occasion for such vows. The majority of temples founded in 298-219 would therefore have been vowed on the battlefield, the most probable cases being those of Ianus, Ops Opifera, Feronia and Hercules Magnus Custos, vowed certainly or most probably by generals who won great battles. The second common circumstance was the capture, imminent or actual, of a city. The vows to Vortumnus and Iuno Curritis were probably made in the ceremony of evocatio, while the capture of Lipara apparently resulted in the founding of the temple of Volcanus. Q. Fabius Gurges' postvotum to Venus Obsequens was probably exceptional, as a foundation which changed character between its location and dedication, but vows made post eventu seem to have been quite common, too. The most obvious case seems to be C. Lutatius Catulus' vow to Iuturna. The battle of the Aegates Isles was won by the praetor Q. Valerius Falto, Catulus himself having at that time been recovering from a wound: a battle vow is therefore out of the question. The vow to a water deity emphasized the naval character of the war brought to a successful ending under Catulus' auspices, and thus should be interpreted as a thank-offering for the victory in general, not for any particular event 25b: a clear-cut case of postvotum. It is possible that the vow to Consus, made by L. Papirius Cursor during his consulate in 272, was a similar postvotum for the deditio of Tarentum. A very special category of vows were those addressed to the natural elements. P. Sempronius Sophus cos. 268 made a vow to 255 256

Liv. 10.42.7, see above, p. 245. See Richardson 1975, p. 50-52. 253

Tellus on the battlefield during an earthquake; L. Cornelius Scipio cos. 259 vowed a temple to Tèmpestates when his fleet was caught in a storm; the vow to Fons was made when water springs were found in Corsican wilderness to quench the thirst of C. Papirius Maso cos. 231 and his army. A slightly different aspect of the situational context of vows is that they could have been made as a supplication or a thanksgiving. Postvota were by definition offered in thanks; as for other categories, the differentiation between propitiatory and thankoffering vows cut across them. Rullianus' vow to Iuppiter Victor and Regulus' to Iuppiter Stator were both made in battle; but whereas the latter was a typical propitiatory votum, the former was made in thanks for the victory. Among vows to the natural elements the votum to Fons was a thank-offering while that to Tempestates - propitiatory. Sempronius' vow to Tellus may have been dictated by the characteristically Roman cautiousness concerning omens. Faced with an uncertain but potentially ominous sign, the consul thought it better to be on the safe side and appease the Earth 2 5 7 . Macrobius says that evocatio was being pro258 nounced when the Ì2&~ofJifi£lm and that its chief purpose'was precisely to protect the local gods from being «captured» as well 2 5 9 . This shows how a votum, ostensibly propitiatory, could in practice end up as a virtual thank-offering. It would seem that most of battle vows were made in similar circumstances, ie. when the Romans were already gaining the upper hand. Of course, at the beginning it would have been otherwise: Ap. Claudius made a vow to Bellona when the outcome of the battle hung in balance, Regulus' vow to Iuppiter Stator was made when the Romans were flying. Rullianus' vow, a thanksgiving proclamation of the Roman victory, was made deliberately as a sequence to Decius' devotio, the propitiatory vow which decided

257

«The gods are at best treated as essentially inimical powers in regard to which one has to be on one's guard» - Linderski 1986, p. 2202 n. 198. 258 Macr. 3.9.2: moremque Romanorum arcanum et multis ignotum fuisse ut, cum obsiderent urbem hostium eamque iam capi posse confiderent, certo carmine evocarent tutelares deos... 259 Of the two hypothetical motives listed by Macrobious as reasons for Roman generals' performing evocatio: quod aut aliter urbem capi posse non crederent, aut etiam si posset, nefas aestimarent deos habere captivos (Macr. 3.9.2), the former is flatly contradicted by the preceding part of the same sentence quoted in n. 258.

254

the issue of this most decisive of battles. But already Livy's comment on Papirius' gesture at Aquilonia suggests that battle vows were being made as thank-offerings rather than supplications. Marcellus clearly made the vow to Honos et Virtus after his duel with Virudomaros. In the second century Q. Fulvius Flaccus pr.' 182 vowed a temple to Fojtun^_^£ujsiriS-while sending his cavalry to deliver a coup de grace to the Celtiberians 260. It is difficult to judge the effect of Regulus' misfortune on the apparent prudence displayed by later Roman generals in the matter of battle vows, especially since after Sentinum Rome's superiority over her adversaries became so overwhelming that most of the vows had every chance of being answered by the deity. It may be significant that we do not hear about such vows made at Trebia or Cannae, or before these battles. In fact, we do not hear about battle vows made before actual engagement, with the possible exception of L. Camillus' votum to Iuno Moneta, whose unusual circumstances warranted Livy's comment261. In a striking yet understandable opposition to devotio, the vows to build temples were usually made in circumstances which practically secured their being answered. As became the militarily most successful people ever, the Romans trusted in their gods but above all kept their swords sharp. Thus, although the general conclusion is that for Roman generals of the third century almost every situation was good for vowing a temple, vows were usually made when there were reasonable prospects of success. This in turn implies that, at least after the climactic years of the Third Samnitic War, the concrete circumstances of vow making were not as decisive as other, less apparent motives. One such motive was self-advertisement, the element implied ex definitione in every individual foundation, especially manubial. The decisive years of the Third Samnitic War, which resulted in so many new temples, no doubt emphasized this element even more strongly. The most striking reflection of the competitive character of Roman politics in the mirror that temple founding constitutes is, of course, Gurges' dedication of his aedilician foundation as the postvotum for military victory: with the temples of Megellus and Claudius dedicated or about to be completed, Rullianus' son simply could not afford to be deprived of his own (pseudo) manubial dedication. In the time when an indeci260 261

Liv. 40.40.2-10 See above, p. 238-239. 255

sive victory over the weak Sallentini warranted a vow to build a temple 262, the question could well be reversed: why so many generals did not found them? A partial answer to this question can be given in two cases. As previously mentioned, Dentatus' vow of 275 to build an aqueduct can best be explained by supposing that he had already vowed a temple before, almost certainly in 290. The other case is more specific: Sp. Carvilius Maximus cos. 293, 272, by the time of his second consulate the founder of the temple of Fors Fortuna, chose to celebrate the final victory over Tarentum and her allies by setting up a colossal statue of Jupiter on the Capitol 263 . Obviously, these two cases are representative only of generals whose achievements were genuine (and profitable as well). Besides, Dentatus' decision to spend his manubiae on a construction of public utility was so exceptional that we have to wait for Pompeius and Caesar for similar examples. But the more conventional case of Carvilius may provide a better insight into the reasons underlying the profusion of vows in the years 298-219. Carvilius set up a statue because during his first consulate he had already vowed a temple: each time the point was to make a spectacular offering to the gods. It seems that in that period of fabulous achievements, absolutely unparalleled in the history of the West Mediterranean, founding temples became the principal form of expressing gratitude to the gods on the part of the leaders of the community. Roman conquests brought not only territorial gains but more immediately - booty. That the gods had to be given their share in the direct fruits of victory was obvious to everyone. But there was more to it than that. At the beginning of the third century, when booty started to flow into Rome on a scale incomparable with earlier times, there must have arisen the problem of what to do with it. " By the time Livy resumes his narrative in 218 the classic pattern was already well established: apaj^Jroni gQuer^^jmnubiae, booty was in part divided between soldiers and in part turned over

262 263

See above, p. 126. Plin. NH 34.43. The element of self-advertisement was there as well (apart from the usual dedicatory inscription): fecit et Sp. Carvilius Iovem, qui est in Capitolio, victis Samnitibus sacrata lege pugnantibus e pectoralibus eorum ocreisque et galeis. Amplitudo tanta est, ut conspiciatur a Latiari love. E reliquiis limae suam statuam fecit, quae est ante pedes simulacri eius. 256

to the aerarium *^. But legendary controversies over the disposal of the booty by generals, dated by Livy to the fifth century 2 6 5 obviously a projection into the past of much later events - indicate that there was a time when booty disposal was a burning political issue; it is also logical that it coincided with the start of the aforementioned flow of booty into Rome. Now, under 293 Livy records the people's resentment at L. Papirius Cursor's giving all his booty to the treasury 2 6 6 . This, however, is the only fully historical occurrence of such a controversy since Livy's narrative breaks immediately after recording it. Other events which shaped the legend of Early Republican disputes over booty disposal must have been described in first books of Livy's second decade 267 . In all these cases, legendary and real, the matter of controversy was the generals' having either distributed all the booty to the soldiers or turned it all to the aerarium. The people resented a general's turning over too great a part of his booty to the aerarium, to the detriment of the soldiers. Excessive generosity towards soldiers no doubt created bad feelings among other members of the political elite - especially those who never had an opportunity or luck to display their own open-handedness - as giving unfair

264

Shatzman 1972, passim. Ap. Claudius Sabinus cos. 495 opposed the triumph of his colleague P. Servilius Priscus, who had not turned over a penny to the aerarium (Dion. Hal. 6.30.2); Q. Fabius Vibulianus cos. 485 (Liv. 2.41.1-2), T. Romilius Rocus and C. Veturius Cicurinus coss. 455 (Dion. Hal. 10.4849; Liv. 3.31.4-6), and M. Valerius Potitus cos. 410 (Liv. 4.53.10), aroused the people's anger by handing over all the booty to the aerarium. See Shatzman 1972, p. 189. On Camillus, see above, n. 195. 266 Liv. 10.46.5-6. See Shatzman 1972, p. 203. This and similar cases, unrecorded because of the loss of Livy's second decade (but see the following note), must have served as archetypes for stories mentioned in n. 265. 267 Dion. Hal. 17-18.5.3 lists L. Postumius Megellus' presenting all the booty he had taken from the Samnites in 291 to the soldiers as one of the reasons of his condemnation. The story is suspect, since such a disposal of the booty, though no doubt still more angering the senate, would have pleased the people. But the message of Dionysios' source is clear only black sheep like Megellus disposed of their booty in such an objectionable way. It is worth noting that at the very end of the period covered by Livy's second decade we find the arch-demagogue of our tradition, C. Flaminius, accused of the same largesse towards his soldiers; see Zon. 8.20.7 (I p. 186 Boiss.): <£tax^ivioc;... xd TE XaqpuQa jtdvxa xoig CXQCXXUDxcag,freQajiei3(ovaircoiig, èxcxQicaxo. 265

257

advantage to the fortunate general 268 . In this situation offerings to gods made ex manubiis, especially temples, were probably the best way of disposing of one's booty: neither the people nor the senate would have objected to this kind of munificence. Similarity, the founding of a temple was not only a manifestation of piety towards the deity; if paid ex manubiis, it also exalted the founder in a most inoffensive manner. In the time when relatively simple habits still prevented the generals from appropriating too large a portion of the booty, founding temples was the best use they could make of their manubiae 269 .

b) Aedilician foundations Temples vowed by aediles were a very short-lived phenomenon, limited in practice to the third century. After Cn. Flavius' vow to Concordia we hear of four more aedilician foundations, the last of which, the temple of Faunus, falls beyond the chronological limits of this work 2 7 0 . We are left with the temples of Venus Obsequens (vowed in 295), Iuppiter Libertas (246) and Flora (240) ; one or two unattributed temples may have belonged to this category as well. As noted above, aedilician temples came into being as an imitation of individual foundations by magistrates cum imperio, and,

268 The collective ethos of the Roman senate in regard to war booty shows in Livy's wording of the reasons for the people's anger at L. Papirius Cursor in 293: si spreta gloria fuisset captivae pecuniae in aerarium inlatae, et militi donum dari ex praeda et Stipendium militare praestari potuisset (Liv. 10.46.6). Giving all the booty to the aerarium is referred to as a glorious deed. See also the debate in the senate on the disposal of the Veientine booty in Liv. 5.20.2-10, esp. (2): ne quam inde out militum iram ex malignitate praedae partitae aut invidiam apud patres ex prodiga largitione caperei [Camillus]. 269 Harris 1971, p. 1380-1381, reminds us that in the third century «acquiring great wealth by honourable means» (pecuniam magnam bono modo invenire - Plin. NH 8.140) held a prominent place in the ethos of the Roman aristocracy. But before the hellenization of the way of life, which enormously increased Roman nobles' spendings, and the revolution in land ownership in Italy as the consequence of the Second Punic War, «great wealth» was obviously a trifle compared to the standards of the next century. ^ 270 Seen. 181.

258

like the manubiae to generals, aediles' multae constituted the material basis for their construction. But we have also seen that at least some of generals' vows ended up as communal foundations as the result of contractual and propitiatory character of some of these vows, which sometimes led to a situation in which the vowmaker found himself unable to fulfil his obligation. The question is whether this could also happen with aedilician foundations. First of all, none of aedilician vows we know of was contractual. Pliny claims that Cn. Flavius vowed the temple of Concordia si populo reconciliasset ordines, but the concordia ordinum which came about with the censorship of Rullianus and his colleague was evidently poles apart from that imagined by the client of Ap. Claudius as well as a son of a freedman 271. Gurges' vow may have been indirectly influenced by the fact that in the year of his aedilship the consuls, one of whom was his father, were waging the decisive campaign against the united forces of anti-Roman coalition 272; but the direct cause and prerequisite of the vow to Venus Obsequens was the large number of adultery cases tried by the vow-maker. Livy does not specify the exact character of the multaticia pecunia out of which Gracchus built the temple ofJuppiter Libertas, but there is little doubt that his share of 25.000__a.sses päidii^7"Claudiä"T6r her words offending the maiestas of the Roman people figured prominently in the total cost of the construction, just as it was her prosecution which most probably occasioned the vow to build the temple 273. The same pattern can be detected in the founding of the temple of Flora: the offence, the prosecution by the aediles, the imposition of multae and their utilisation. If my reconstruction of the events that led to this vow is correct, then the Publicii brothers vowed the temple of Flora with the same end as that for which the ludi Florales were celebrated in the same year and with the same money: propter sterilitatem frugum, ut omnia bene deflorescerent 274. This would make it a propitiatory vow; but again, without fines extracted from encroachers on public land, there would have been neither the Clivus Publicius nor the vow to build the temple of Flora. As can be seen, aedilician temples were by their very nature

271 272 273 274

See above, p. 244 and n. 217. See above, p. 168-169. See above, p. 86. See above, p. 31-33. 259

individual foundations: without multae, no aedilician building initiative of a sacral kind. The question of whether the execution of an aedilician vow would have merited the state's help simply did not and could not arise. It might be said that the vowing of temples by aediles was to a large extent a method of impressing one's individual seal on fines which had to be used for public ends anyway. Here lies the main difference between aedilician and manubial foundations: the former, in spite of their individual character, were not gifts to the community to the same extent as the latter. The comparatively small number of aedilician temples together with Gurges' change of the vow to Venus Obsequens might suggest that aedilician foundations did not carry as much prestige as those vowed by the generals. But the temples of Iuppiter Libertas and Flora no doubt boosted the standing of their respective founders, same as would have done manubial dedications. Ti. Gracchus cos. 215, 213, clearly did not feel embarassed while setting up the painting depicting his victorious battle with the Carthaginians in his father's aedilician temple 275 . As for the Publica brothers, the abundance and diversity of our sources 276 best indicate the fame they earned by their activity, of which the temple of Flora together with the Clivus Publicius was the lasting monument. If we hear about only three aedilician foundations in the years 292-219, this is primarily because pecunia multaticia big enough to warrant a vow to build a temple came very seldom, at least compared with the opportunities that the magistrates cum imperio had. The decline of aedilician foundations is to be sought for in the evolution of aedilship - once an important magistracy in its own right - into a quasi indispensable step towards the consulate 277, and also in the wane of the aediles' power to impose fines 278. The result of the former was that the multae which in the third century would have been spent on temple founding, were later used to finance games organized by aediles. The latter deprived the aediles of an independent source of funds which were the real raison d'etre of aedilician temple foundations.

275 276 277 278

260

See above, p. 85. See above, p. 31-32. Cic. de off 2.57-58. Mommsen 1887-88, II p. 496-497, see above, n. 211.

c) Temples ordered by the priestly colleges Temples of this category stand apart for obvious reasons. They were all par excellence communal foundations; besides, the circumstances which led to the founding of temples ordered by the priestly colleges cannot be compared to situations in which generals and aediles made their vota. And yet, I think that we can discern in the foundations of this category a reflection of the profusion of other kinds of temple founding. At least four, more probably five temples were built in the years 298-219 at the order of the libri fatales and, perhaps, the collegium pontificium. Before that period, we hear of three such foundations, to Ceres (vowed in 497), Apollo (433) and Mars (390); afterwards, four temples were built on Sibylla's instructions, those of Venus Erycina, Mens (both vowed in 217), Magna Mater (204) and Venus Verticordia (113). The fact that so many tempies^of this category were founded in a relatively very short period of unprecedented successes indicates that the Romans of those days were particularly disposed to found temples: a clear influence of so many vows made by magistrates on their own initiative. It is also very probable that the founding of as many as three Sibylline temples during the Second Punic War was another reflection of that phenomenon. The decemviri, who from their birth had witnessed temple being founded after temple together with the irresistible growth, despite occasional set-backs, of the Imperium populi Romani, were evidently prone to interpret the obscure instructions of the libri fatales in the light of their personal experience. Hence their so frequent recourse to ordering construction of temples during that war, even in 204, when Scipio was setting sail for Africa and the ultimate victory was only a matter of time.

261

PART THREE: TOPOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF MID-REPUBLICAN TEMPLE FOUNDATIONS

The founder's liberty to select the site for his temple leaves open the question of whether his freedom was limited by tradition sanctified by usage, or even legislation, which would have assigned certain zones for cult places of specific deities or excluded them from certain areas. Textually, these eventualities are based on the well-known passage in Vitruvius on proper location of sanctuaries * : Aedibus vero sacris, quorum deorum maxime in tutela civitas videtur esse, et Iovi et Iunoni et Minervae, in excelsissimo loco, unde moenium maxima pars conspiciatur, areae distribuantur. Mercurio autem in foro aut etiam, ut Isidi et Serapi, in emporio; Apollini Patrique Libero secundum theatrum; Herculi, in quibus civitatibus non sunt gymnasia neque amphitheatra, ad circum; Marti extra urbem sed ad campum; itemque Veneri ad portum. Id autem etiam Etruscis haruspicibus disciplinarum scripturis ita est dedicatum, extra murum Veneris, Volcani, Martis fana ideo conlocari, uti non insuescat in urbe adulescentibus seu matribus familiarum veneria libido, Volcanique vi e moenibus religionibus et sacrifìciis evocata ab timore incendiorum aedifìcia videantur liberari. Martis vero divinitas cum sit extra moenia dedicata, non erit inter cives armigera dissensio, sed ab hostibus ea defensa belli periculo conservabit. Item Cereri extra urbem loco, quo nomine semper homines nisi per sacrifìcium necesse habeant adire; cum religione, casta sanctisque moribus is locus debet tueri. Ceterisque diis ad sacrifìciorum rationes aptae templis areae sunt distribuendae.

1

Vitr. 1.7.1.

265

As observed by Castagnoli 2, in this passage Vitruvius freely mixes his own deductions with objective information. But it should be emphasized that the only truly «objective» prescriptions, concerning temples of Venus, Volcanus and Mars, are based on the rules laid down by the disciplina Etnisca, hardly relevant in the Roman context and especially in the time of the Middle Republic. Karlowa's thesis, based partly on the quoted passage and partly on the analysis of the location of Roman temples, which claims that cult-places of deities having some links with warfare - Mars, Bellona, Honos, Virtus, Volcanus, Iuventas - were relegated extra pomerium 3, is incompatible with the evidence, even if for the argument's sake we leave out the ancient shrines of Mars in the Regia and Volcanus in the Volcanal 4. The temple of Honos et Virtus, founded after 101 by C. Marius, stood within the pomerium as implied by Festus' passage: summissiorem aliis aedem Honoris et Virtutis C. Marius fecit, ne, si forte officeret auspiciis publicis, augures earn demoliri cogerent5. The only imaginable obstacle which this temple may have created to the taking of auspices would have been its hindering the augurs officiating on the Arx from seeing some landmark marking the boundary between the templum and the tescum or, in other words, the line of pomerium 6. This shows that the aedes Mariana stood between the Arx to the west and the pomerium to the east, ie. within the latter's circumference. Another argument against Karlowa's thesis is the location of the temple of Victoria, whose connection with war is obvious, on the Palatine, within the pomerium. The other eventuality - the exclusion of certain deities from certain zones - was first formulated one hundred and fifty years ago by Ambrosch, who maintained that under the Republic cults of foreign origin were kept extra pomerium 7. His brief remark, developed and modified by successive generations of scholars 8, 2 3

Castagnoli 1984, p. 19. Karlowa 1896. 4 These shrines are invoked by Castagnoli 1984, p. 19. 5 Festus 466-468 L. 6 On the boundary between the templum and the tescum in the augural ritual, see Magdelain 1969, p. 258-263, Linderski 1986, p. 22602289. 7 Ambrosch 1839, p. 189-191. 8 See, among others, Jordan 1872A, p. 316-318, in DarembergSaglio, 4, 1 p. 544-545 s.v. pomerium, Wissowa 1912, p. 43-46, 62, Schilling 1949, Schilling 1960, Catalano 1978, p. 543-544, Castagnoli 1984, p. 18 and n. 78, 79. 266

has won almost universal acceptance 9 . According to this view, the principle of exclusion of foreign deities from the City proper was in the main observed until the end of the Republic; apparent exceptions concerned either gods who, though ultimately of nonRoman extraction, had been assimilated long before their inclusion into the official pantheon of the City (Hercules of the Ara Maxima, Castores in Foro), or deities with whom the Romans claimed kinship on account of their Trojan origin (Venus Erycina, the Magna Mater). An analysis of the topographical context of Mid-Republican temple foundations should thus begin with their classification according to their placement intra or extra pomerium. This basic classification depends to a large extent on the given author's views on the extension of the pomerium, which boils down to the question of the attribution of the Capitol. Without wishing to enter into the seemingly never ending debate on this question, I fully accept Schilling's defence of the inclusion of thè Capitol intra pomerium 10; I find unacceptable Magdelain's attempt to save the Capitol proper for the City but to shut the Arx out of it n , based partly on the obvious yet hardly conclusive distinction between the urbs and the arx, but chiefly on his mistaken notion of the Arx as tescum in the augural ritual 12. On this understanding, the classification of Mid-Republican temples according to their position within or outside the pomerium is as follows: intra pomerium: Tellus Carinis, Iuno Lucina Esquiliis, Flora, Fortuna Publica, Fortuna Publica citerior 13, Iuppiter Victor, Quirinus, Hora Quirini, Sol Indiges, Salus in Colle Quirinali, Victoria, Pales in Palatio, Iuppiter Stator ad Portam Mugoniam, Lares in summa Sacra Via, Penates, Vica Pota in Velia, Ops ad Forum, Concordia in area Volcani, Fides, Ops Opifera in Capitolio, Iuno Moneta in Arce. extra pomerium: Hercules, Honos extra Portam Collinam, Föns

9 For a criticism of «Ambrosch's principle», see Aust 1889, p. 47-49, Deubner in Chantepie de la Saussaye 1925, 2, p. 428, upheld by Radke in Kleine Pauly 4 (1972), c. 1016, s.v. pomerium, and Erkell 1985, p. 59. 10 Schilling 1949, p. 28-33. 11 Magdelain 1976, p. 94-99. 12 See Linderski 1986, p. 2272-2273. 13 On the position of the two temples of Fortuna Publica in relation to the pomerium, see below, p. 278-279.

267

extra Portam Fontinalem, Feronia, Iuno Curritis, Iuturna, Volcanus, Iuppiter Fulgur in Campo Martio, Neptunus, Hercules Magnus Custos, Bellona in Circo Flaminio, Ianus, Spes in Foro Holitorio, Portunus in Portu, Flora, Hercules Invictus, Summanus, Venus Obsequens ad Circum Maximum, Sol et Luna in Circo Maximo, Consus, Iuno Regina, Iuppiter Libertas, Luna, Minerva, Vortumnus in Aventino, Honos (et Virtus), Mars, Tempestates extra Portam Capenam, Aesculapius, Tiberinus in Insula, Fors Fortuna trans Tiberim.

I. Temples intra pomerium Out of twenty-one intrapomerial temples listed above, fourteen were unquestionably founded in the years 396-219 14; as for the remaining seven, Mid-Republican dating is nearly certain in five cases 15 and highly probable in the other two 16. Another eleven Republican temples are securely datable; five of them were vowed during the Second Punic War {Concordia in Arce, Mens and Venus Erycina in Capitolio, Magna Mater in Palatio, Fortuna Primigenia in Colle) and two immediately afterwards (Veiovis inter duos lucos and Victoria Virgo in Palatio, vowed in 196 and 195 respectively). Although technically Late Republican, these temples were founded by the people whose formative years were those of the close of the Middle Republic. Only four foundations had no Mid-Republican connections whatsoever: the temple of Castor es in Foro from the very beginning of the Republic (vowed in 496) and the late temples of Felicitas in Velabro (151), Hercules Victor in Foro Boario (147/6) and Honos et Virtus (101) i 7 . It seems that in the case of temples founded intra pomerium it might be worthwhile to further distinguish between those located in the urban regions and those that stood in the extraregional zone of the Capitol with the Arx, the Forum Romanum, the Vela-

14 Temples of Tellus, Iuno Lucina, Flora in Colle, Iuppiter Victor, Quirinus, Salus, Victoria, Pales, Iuppiter Stator, Penates, Concordia, Fides, Ops Opifera, Iuno Moneta. 15 Fortuna Publica, Fortuna Publica citerior, Lares, Vica Pota, Hora Quirini. 16 Sol Indiges, Ops ad Forum. 17 On all these temples, see the relevant entries in Platner-Ashby.

268

brum and the Forum Boarium 18. Although superseded in Republican times by the territorial organisation based on tribes 19, the original «Servian» division of the City into Four Regions was sacral as well as administrative in character, with its network of sacrarla Argeorum 20 , six to each regio, with the remaining three probably watching over the large extraregional zone 2 1 . Besides, the Four Regions define the settled area of Archaic Rome, that is the area where public versus private landed property was fixed long before the time of the Republic. In the extraregional zone, though densely populated by the end of the Republic, the situation was more fluid 22 . For a long time public land was more readily available here than in the urban regions, witness the location therein of nearly all Late Republican temples founded intra pomerium. The logic of locating temples must have been quite different in the two zones. The most striking aspect of the location of temples founded in the Four Regions under the Middle Republic is their very uneven distribution. Only one temple, that of Tellus, stood in the regio Suburana; in the regio Esquilina, too, there was only one temple of Iuno Lucina. On the other hand, in the regio Collina we find eight temples and in the regio Palatina six, to which should probably be added the unknown temple on the Velia, whose dies natalis was 25th May 23 . This irregularity is even more significant consi18 The extent of the extraregional zone intra pomerium results from Varro's passage on the etymology of Rome's toponyms in book 5 of Lingua Latina, esp. 5.41-54. 19 Contra Taylor 1952-54, who defends the view that urban regions and tribes were always identical. One wonders in which tribe she would include the Velabrum, explicitly placed by Varrò LL 5.43, vs. 45, outside the Four Regions. . 20 See eg. Magdelain 1976, p. 89. 21 This seems to be the only logical way of marrying twenty-seven sacrarla with four regions, each of which clearly had six stations (Varrò LL 5.45-54), though it must be admitted that, in Varro's words, reliqua urbis loca olim discreta, cum Argeorum sacrarla Septem et vlglntl In quattuor partls urbis sunt dlsposlta (LL 5.45). The inadmissible alternative is the reduction of the number of sacrarla to twenty-four (see, eg. Gjerstad 1962, p. 21, Gjerstad 1973, p. 39). 22 Especially in the Velabrum, which only gradually became suitable for habitation, see Coarelli 1983, p. 228-282. 23 Fasti Amiternini for 25th May, see Inslt XIII 2, p. 186-187, 461. The newest reading of this fragment in Palmer 1978-80, is obviously mistaken.

269

dering that the temple of Iuno Lucina carne into being as a sacrum privatum of Roman matrons and only later became an aedes publica 24 . If we leave it out of reckoning, we arrive at no temple in the regio Esquilina and only one in the regio Suburana, against six to eight in the Collina and the Palatina. Other Archaic and Republican temples conform to this pattern, with the temples of Semo Sancus and Fortuna Primigenia in Colle Quirinali and those of the Magna Mater and Victoria Virgo in Palatio. But in the First and the Second Region there were numerous sacred places as well; one need only recall the sacrarla Argeorum, six in each. So why this irregularity? The extremely uneven distribution of temples within the Four Regions indicates that choosing sites for temples was independent of the administrative organisation of the City attributed to Servius Tullius and of the corresponding network of the Argei, though Varro's de Lingua Latina 5.41-54 shows that in regard to the sacral division of the City-space the latter was still valid in the third century, when the extant text of the procession of the Argei was written down. It is true that three temples of the regio Collina (those of Semo Sancus, Salus and Quirinus) are known to have been located close to sacrarla Argeorum 25 and that a similar location is given in the case of one temple of the regio Palatina (that of Penates 26 ) and implied in regard to another (the temple of Victoria 2 7 ) . But all this may be pure coincidence. Irrespective of when the ritual of the Argei was established 28 , the sacrarla would have been set up in already existing sacred places. As pointed out

24

See above, p. 69. Varrò LL 5.52. 26 Varrò LL 5.54. 27 This results from Varrò LL 5.54: Cermalense quinticeps apud aedem Romuli, and from the beginning of the list of monuments of the Tenth Augustan Region, see above, p. 81. 28 Gjerstad's dating of the ritual of the Argei to the pre-urban epoch (Gjerstad 1962, p. 21-22 = Gjerstad 1973, p. 39-40) cannot be accepted, since the creation of the network of the sacrarla, as it existed in later times, presupposes the existence of the four urban regions. As for Wissowa's tentative dating of the ritual to the third century (Wissowa 1904, p. 223 =id. in RE 2.1 (1895), c. 698-700, s.v. Argei), the fact that the text quoted by Varrò was compiled in the third century is irrelevant to the question of dating the ritual itself. See Momigliano 1963, p. 99-100, Maddoli 1971, p. 164-165 and n. 45, Magdelain 1976, p. 87-88, Harmon 1978, p. 1448-1450. 25

270

by Harmon, it was the sanctity of a locus that attracted shrines, be they sacrarla Argeorum or aedes publicae, and not vice versa 29 . Much more significant is that, though the network of the Argei covered evenly the Four Regions, the sacrarla of the First and the Second (and, one might add, of the Viminal as well, see below) were constantly ignored by the founders of Republican temples. The same can be said about the relation between temples and sites on which Roman erudites situated the houses of the kings 30 . Whatever may have been the reality behind the tradition of individual regiae of individual kings scattered throughout the City 3 *, within the Four Regions the only temples said to have occupied the sites of kings' houses, Ancus Marcius' and Tullus Hostilius', were those of Lares and Penates in the regio Palatina 32 . Neither of the regiae which the tradition located on the Esquiline - those of Servius Tullius supra Cllvum Urblum 33 and of Tarquinius Superbus supra Cllvum Pulllum ad Fagutalem lucum 3 4 - became a temple. The only correlation that stands the scrutiny of logic and the sources, both written and archaeological, is the linking of MidRepublican temples with Archaic sacred precincts of the deities to whom the temples were dedicated. The obvious spuriousness of the tradition of Romulus' vow notwithstanding, we learn from Fabius Pictor that the temple of Iuppiter Stator was built in an old fanum of Jupiter 35 . The temples of Flora and Sol Indiges in Colle were most probably founded on the sites of Archaic arae ascribed

29

Harmon 1978, p. 1453-1454. The most complete list of regiae of individual kings is in Solin. 1.21-26. 31 The impetus for the tradition about regiae of individual kings scattered throughout the City might be sought in the existence in Rome of two structures bearing that name: the sacral complex of the Sacra Via, firmly attached to the legendary name of Numa Pompilius, and the actual abode of the kings on the Arx (see above, p. 72). The construction of the temple of Iuno Moneta on the latter's site would in turn have prompted Roman erudites to situate some of these «regiae» and alleged houses of Republican personages accused by the tradition of adfectatio regni in places which in historical times were occupied by temples. 32 See above, p. 97, 130. 33 Solin. 1.25. 34 Solin. 1.26. 35 Fabius fr. 19 in Peter2, see above, p. 88. 30

271

by Varrò to T. Tatius 36 . The temple of Tellus was founded in the place where telluric deities seem to have been worshipped earlier 37 . The references to temples built on sites of presumed regiae should likewise be interpreted as indicating the temples' location in ancient cult places. It may not be a coincidence that the two which stood in the urban regions were dedicated to the public worship of household deities, Lares publici and dii Penates publici: the essentially domestic character of these cults would have facilitated the attribution of their sites as former domus regiae 38 . Dionysios implies that the temple of Victoria stood on the site of a shrine dedicated to the goddess by Evander. Whatever value we may attach to this information, archaeological findings corroborate the existence, between the temples of Victoria and the Magna Mater, of an Archaic or Early Republican shrine of a female deity 39 . Other finding places of sixth and fifth-century architectual terracottas 4 0 are not necessarily indicative of temples' sites, witness, eg., the difficulty in attributing the Esquiline torso 4 1 . But the finds of the Largo di S. Susanna and the church of S. Maria della Vittoria corroborate the existence of the old precinct of Quirinus antedating the construction of the god's temple by several centuries 42 as much as the very name of the collis on which the temple stood (the latter argument applies, of course, also to the temple of Salus on the Collis Salutaris). We may thus

36

Varrò LL 5.74. Le Bonniec 1958, p. 52-54. 38 Coarelli 1983, p. 57, 70-71, 77-79, though his assertion that this correspondence supports the tradition on royal houses is not very convincing, see above. Equally difficult to uphold is his listing the complex of the Regia (house of Numa) and the temple of Vesta on the same footing as the regiae of Tullus and Ancus and the temples of Penates and Lares, since 1) we know nothing whatsoever about any private cult of Vesta, and 2) her temple did not supplant, according to the antiquarian tradition, Numa's domicile. 39 See above, p. 77-78. The persistent linking of the goddess worshipped in this ancient shrine with the location of the temple of the Magna Mater in that place is a mistake, since the shrine's site was included in the precinct of Victoria, whose temple was founded a full hundred years before that of Cybele. 40 Gjerstad 1960, passim, Gjerstad 1966, p. 376-401, Cristofani 1987, passim, esp. p. 177 ill. 31-33. 41 Cristofani 1987, p. 118 links it with a shrine in the lucus Libitinae. Perhaps. 42 See above, p. 142. 37

272

safely assume that the overwhelming majority of temples founded in the urban regions were situated in sacred precincts belonging to gods, or deities of broadly the same kind, to whom the temples were dedicated 43 . This, however, still leaves open the question of the curious topography of the temples located within the urban regions. Actually, there is available a hypothesis which would account for their distribution even though this itself raises a different set of questions. This is Mommsen's old notion of primitive Rome as a double community of «Bergrömer von Palatin» and «Hügelrömer vom Quirinal» 44 . But the issue is more complex. The majority of the temples of the regio Palatina clustered on and around the Velia in the north-east (those of Penates, Vica Pota, Lares and the unidentified temple from the Fasti Amiternini) and the Cermalus in the south-west (those of Victoria, Pales and later the Magna Mater and Victoria Virgo). It is worth noting that the temple of Tellus, the only aedes publica of the regio Suburana, formed an integral part of the Velia cluster, having stood in the same short street as the temple of Penates 45 . Topographically, there seems to be only one common denominator for all these temples situated between the Cermalus and the Carinae: they stood within the limits of the pre-urban Palatine settlement in its intermediate phase, archaeologically corresponding with the Lazio IIB/III period 46 . The lasting legacy of this stage of the growth of the Palatine oppidum are the names Esquiline (exquiliae) and Subura (sub urbe) 47 , which make sense precisely in regard to the settlement embracing the Velia and the Carinae, whose north-eastern gate was the tigillum sororium 48 . The fact that all the known «regular» temple foundations in the three «Latin» regions - Suburana, Esquilina and Palatina were located in the zone which only recently has been recognized 43

See Aust 1889, p. 50-52. This principle must have applied to sacra privata as well, as witnessed by the temple of luno Lucina, originally a private shrine, also located in the old place of worship. 44 The views on Rome as a double community, from Mommsen to Heurgon, are described (and criticised, not very convincingly) in Poucet 1972. 45 See above, p. 132-135, 156 and below, fig. 3 (p. 294). 46 Bedini-Cordano, p. 97, see also Bartoloni-Cataldi Dini, p. 125126, Ampolo-Bartoloni, p. 166-172. 47 On the etymology of Subura, see now Erkell 1985, p. 62-63. 48 Bedini-Cordano, p. 97, Coarelli 1983, p. 110-117.

273

as the area of the Palatine oppidum in the pre-urban period, can hardly be attributed to pure chance. As for the «Sabine» regio Collina, archaeologically it is an unknown quantity; only the Quirinal necropolis, separate from its huge Esquiline counterpart, may provide a substantial argument for Mommsen's double community. But it is significant that all the Colline temples were located on the Quirinal; none stood on the Viminal, in spite of that other collis' two sacrarla Argeorum 4 9 and at least one shrine of some importance, dedicated to Iuppiter Viminius 50 . Now, according to our written sources, the Sabines settled on the Quirinal (and on the Capitol, also dotted with temples) but not on the Viminal. Even if we do not accept the existence of the separate Colline oppidum - as, I think, we should, whether inhabited by the Sabines or not 51 - we find here the same pattern as in the «Latin» part of the City: temples were being located in the zone which our sources specify as the area of a primeval settlement. The sacred places of the Viminal did not attract the attention of Mid-Republican founders of temples, exactly as was the case with the Subura, the Caelius and the whole of the vast regio Esquilina. Whereas the general topography of temples situated in the urban regions seems to be a reflection of Rome's prehistory, their specific location usually depended on the position of cult places of the gods to whom vows had been made. This was not an absolute rule, though; we sometimes hear of a temple of one deity situated in the precinct belonging to another (see below). In any case, the founder always had to keep his foundation within the limits of a given plot of public land. And considering that in the urban regions Republican temples were for some reason being located in the areas settled the longest, these plots must have been rather small: as usual in similar circumstances, the pressure of the residents would have clipped sacred places which were too large, reducing them to the bare minimum. Such encroachments, for which we have direct evidence from the end of the Republic 52 ,

49 The first sacrarium of the Quirinal was almost certainly the one on the Collis Quirinalis proper, the third station of the Third Region (Varrò LL 5.52, see above, p. 35-36, 141). The first two stations of the region must perforce have stood on the Viminal, see Richter 1901, tab. 3. 50 See Iacopi 1980. 51 Pace Poucet 1967A, Poucet 1971, Poucet 1972, Ampolo 1988, p. 315. 52 Varrò LL 5.49, see above, p. 69.

274

would have been less perceptible on the fringes of these areas, where the population pressure would have been weaker. This might account for the fact that the two exceptionally large areae sacrae lay at the outskirts of the ancient oppida. The temple of Quirinus on the remote Collis Quirinalis proper, wherever we locate it, was founded in a primeval sacred grove, large enough to admit later the temples of Hora Quirini and (probably) Sol Indiges 53. The only other place within the urban regions known to have housed more than one temple also lay on the edge of one of the original settlements: the area sacra of Victoria, Victoria Virgo and the Magna Mater in the south-western corner of the Palatine 54. But the majority of sacred places in the zones of the pre-urban oppida were most probably small lots, squeezed between streets and private land, with room for no more than one temple structure. A temple founded in one of these areae sacrae would have been dedicated to the patron deity of the site rather than to an outsider. This provides the first limitation - if one may use the word in this context - of the magistrate's freedom to select a locus for his temple. Having once decided to locate it in the urban regions he had to conform to the regions' sacred topography. Some room for manoeuvre could still be found only if the temple was to be dedicated to a deity like Jupiter, whose shrines probably stood in every corner of the City of Four Regions. But even this freedom was denied to founders of temples to deities such as Dii Penates or Pales. In the urban regions Republican temples were located in zones inhabited from time immemorial, where suitable sites were few, small, and already occupied by arae or sacellae of deities that could hardly be evicted from their areae sacrae. This, in my opinion, was the real reason why the sacra peregrina found it so difficult to get a foothold intra pomerium in general and in the urban regions in particular. The supposed principle of keeping cults of foreign origin outside the pomerium simply does not hold, though one case which has ever constituted an apparently unsolvable stumbling-block for this view - the shrine of Minerva Capta 55 - has on closer examination turned out to be no problem

53 54 55

Ovid. Metam. 14.836-837, see above, p. 60, 149. See above, p. 173-174. See eg. Castagnoli 1984, p. 18-19 n. 78. 275

at all 5 6 . In spite of all attempts to interpret away the significance of the location of temples of Castores in Foro, Venus Erycina in Capitolio and the Magna Mater in Palatio - which mainly consist of arguing that these indubitable foreign cults were, after all, not so foreign 57 - the fact remains that the Dioscuri came from Greece via Latium, Venus Erycina from Mount Eryx in Sicily and the Magna Mater from Pessinus in Asia. And yet, sacra peregrina as they were, they had their temples intra pomerium. One exception may confirm the rule, three (or four 58 ) rule it out. To an unprejudiced eye this should be enough. But «Ambrosch's principle» is not only easily disproved by concrete cases but also, and most of all, fundamentally wrong in its premises. The boundary of a city, in Rome's case identical with the pomerium, had an obvious religious significance which has been minutely discussed by Catalano in his Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano. It is characteristic that in his work other aspects of the pomerial division of the City, dealing with burial practices, the augural law etc., are based on ancient texts starting with the law of Twelve Tables, whereas the presumed exclusion of deities of foreign origin from within the pomerium is supported exclusively by works of modern scholars who have deduced this principle from the position of Roman temples 59 . But the only exclusion (read: expulsion) of foreign deities outside the pomerium that we hear of affected the sacra privata of Egyptian origin, cults which were deemed subversive to the state 60 . As for

56

See above, p. 113-114. Two arguments have been developed to defend the phantom of the alleged confinement of foreign cults outside the pomerium. One asserts that sacra peregrina of Italian origin were not subject to this exclusion (Wissowa 1912, p. 268-270, Schilling 1960, Catalano 1978, p. 543-544, Castagnoli 1983), thus settling at one stroke the cases of Castores and Hercules of the Ara Maxima; the other tries to interpret away the position of the temples of Venus Erycina in Capitolio and the Magna Mater in Palatio by invoking the legend of the Trojan origin of the Latins (Besnier in Daremberg-Saglio, IV 1, p. 544-545, Schilling 1949). But our sources do not justify such a differentiation of cults of foreign origin (see Festus 268 L), which seems to have been invented exclusively to defend the earlier invention of Ambrosch, fossilized into a dogma. 58 The fourth exception would be Hercules of the Forum Boarium, see the preceding note. 59 Catalano 1978, p. 479-482, 543-544. 60 Cass. Dio 40.47.3-4, 53.2.4. 57

276

the holding of the ludi Tauri in the Circus Flaminius, [ne] intra muros evocentur d[i inferi] 61 , this explanation, if not deduced by Festus' source, may in fact have applied to temples of infernal deities. This, however, would have had nothing to do with the native or foreign provenance of these cults but rather with their character, in line with the prohibition on burial of dead within the City 62 . It is a fact that the temples of deities brought to Rome through evocatio, one surely (that of luno Regina) and two most probably (those of Vortumnus and luno Curritis) 63 , were located outside the pomerium. Yet the formula of evocatio of the Veientine Juno by M. Furius Camillus is unequivocal: the goddess was invited to come to the City of Rome as to her own, and to accept there a temple worthy of her greatness (ut nos victores in nostrani tuamque mox futuram urbem sequare, ubi te dignum amplitudine tua templum accipiat) 64 . The exclusion from the City proper, on religious grounds as implied by «Ambrosch's principle», of the goddess invited to Rome in this manner would simply make no sense. The position of the temple of luno Regina on the extrapomerial Aventine clearly indicates that is was immaterial whether the goddess should have her new abode within the pomerium or beyond; either way her temple would have been (and was) located in the City of Rome 65 . There may have been many reasons behind this temple's location on the Aventine (see below), but instead of invoking a principle mentioned by no ancient source, we might rather quote the following words of Camillus' evocatio as paraphrased by Livy: ubi te dignum amplitudine tua templum accipiat. Uni of Veii becoming the Roman luno Regina needed a great temple in a still greater precinct; but it would have been very difficult to find a suitable place within the pomerium, and especially in the two zones of the urban regions where the Romans located temples. Evoked or not, a foreign deity of the stature of luno Regina could 61

Festus 478 L. Catalano 1978, p. 482, Castagnoli 1984, p. 19. 63 See Van Doren 1954. 64 Liv. 5.21.3. 65 The fact that all the fully historical Archaic and Republican temples but one stood within one mile of the pomerium (see below, p. 286 n. 91 ) might suggest that this was the sacral limit of the City. But I would hesitate to call this an argument since the Romans' notion of city-space was clearly not as rigid as some modern scholars would have us believe. 62

277

in practice find a dignum amplitudine sua templum only outside the pomerium. One exception duly confirms the rule: the temple of the Magna Mater was built in the large and most sacred precinct comprising also the temple of Victoria, the aedes Romuli and a sacrarium Argei. But only with the extensive terracing of the late second century did the new temple acquire some breathing space 66 . It looks as if the alleged principle of keeping cults of foreign origin outside the pomerium has been upheld mainly because and for the sake of the location of the temples of Apollo and Aesculapius. But I fail to see why the location of these sacra peregrina should be considered more significant than that of the temples of Castores or the Magna Mater. «Ambrosch's principle» is not only repeatedly contradicted: its original and gravest sin is that it is an offence against Ockham's razor. No principle excluded foreign cults from the urban areas; it was the prosaic lack of space 67 . And this virtual exclusion affected native Roman cults of more recent vintage, ie. chiefly newly deified abstract ideas, as much as the sacra peregrina. The only new cults, native and foreign, which seem to have found their way to the urban regions in the Republican period were those of the Magna Mater, Fortuna Primigenia, Fortuna Publica and possibly the Marian Honos et Virtus. But we know next to nothing about the exact location of the Marian temple; it may have stood on the eastern slope of the Arx, outside the urban regions 68 . As for the three temples of Fortuna in Colle, we actually do not know for certain whether they stood within the pomerium at all. Our sources situate them on the Quirinal, just by the Porta Collina. One of these tres Fortunae is to be identified with the podium at the intersection of the Via Servio Tullio and the Via Flavia, whose large dimensions prove that this was not the temple nearest to the gate, quoted by Vitruvius as an example of a shrine in antis 69 . It is therefore quite possible that one, or two, or all the three temples

66

Pensabene 1985, passim, esp. p. 189-193. As already hinted by Aust 1889, p. 49. Of course, the temple in question may have been situated anywhere east of the Arx within the augurs' field of vision, eg. on the Caelian or the Esquiline. But at the turn of the second century old principles regarding the location of temples were no doubt already forgotten or discarded. 69 See above, p. 43-44. 67

68

278

actually stood in the no man's land between the Servian Wall and the pomerium. This would leave the foreign Magna Mater on her partly artificial site as the only really new cult established under the Republic within the urban regions. The extraregional areas within the pomerium present quite a different picture. On the Capitol and in the Forum Romanum, ear-marked from the beginning as political and religious centres of the City, there was enough space for at least ten Republican temples, four of them securely dated to the years 296-219, dedicated to Castores, Iuno Moneta, Veiovis, Venus Erycina, Concordia, Fides, Mens and Ops. In the second century another two temples were built in the adjoining, extraregional zone of the Velabrum (Felicitas) and the Forum Boarium (Hercules Victor). As can easily be seen, all kinds of deities were worshipped in those temples: Roman and foreign, Italian and Greek, abstract ideas old and freshly deified 70 . We find a similar diversity of cults outside the pomerium, on the Aventine and in the Campus Martius; this shows better than anything else that it was the availability of public land and not the position intra or extra pomerium that mattered in locating a new cult in a given area. The real mystery is why the Romans so obstinately avoided locating temples in the regiones Esquilina and Suburana, and on the Viminal. Why did they prefer to found the temple of Minerva on the Aventine rather than on the Caelian, in the precinct of Minerva Capta? Why, in the second century, was the temple of Diana built in Circo Flaminio 71 and not on the site of one of the numerous Diania, eg., in the Subura or on the Caelian 72 ? What made the Aventine, usurped by the plebeians in 456 73 and not included in the pomerium until the reign of Claudius 74 , more attractive to Roman temple founders than the Servian regions? Why this unmistakable neglect of more than a half of the original

70

Apart from Fides, whose cult on the Capitol probably preceded the founding of the temple (see above, p. 29), the only indubitable case of a Republican aedes publica of this group located in a preexisting cult place is that of Veiovis inter duos lucos (Colini 1942, p. 47-48). Castagnoli 1983, p. 9-10, conjuctures that the Dioscuri may have been worshipped by the lacus Iuturnae before the battle of Lake Regillus. 71 Liv. 39.2.8, 40.52.3. 72 Liv. 1.48.6; Cic. de har. resp. 32. See also Varrò LL 5.74, Plut. quaest. Rom. 3. 73 De Sanctis 1953-68, II p. 23-24 and n. 74. 74 Labrousse 1937, p. 175-176. 279

City affected the adjacent zone extra pomerium: why no public temple was built at the gates east of the Porta Capena and south of the Porta Collina? The facts are unquestionable, one only needs to look at the distribution of Republican temples 75, but the question is how to account for them. The uneven distribution of temples in Rome was observed a long time ago. Taylor explained it by evoking the inferiority of the tribus Suburana and Esquilina in regard to the other two urban tribes, as already perceived by Mommsen and strikingly corroborated by their exclusion from the lot for the centuria praerogativa in the Tabula Hebana 76. This elimination, which she would date to the reform of the assemblies after 241, would have reflected age-long inferiority of these two tribes (or regions) 77, «much less aristocratic than the Collina and the Palatina» 78. But, as previously mentioned, the distribution of temples within the urban regions actually cut across the regional boundaries; it also cut across the zones probably inhabited by upper classes. The assertion that «the Suburana and the Esquilina lacked ancient cults of great importance, such as are found in great abundance in the other two regions» 79, would in our context be a vicious circle, since the only way to assess the importance of an ancient place of worship (and there were probably as many of them in the First and the Second Region as in the Third and the Fourth) is the construction or not of a temple on its site. Taylor's observation cannot therefore explain the distribution of Roman temples, because what she describes was at best an effect, not a cause, of some elusive old principle. In this matter I can think of only one explanation: at least until the turn of the third century the sacred places of the ancient oppida of the Palatine-Velia and the Quirinal had a higher sacral status than those of the suburbs of the pre-urban period, long since absorbed into the City of Four Regions. In other words, the boundaries of these twin cradles of Rome, such as they had been before the synoecism, still had some sort of sacral reality in the time of the Middle Republic. I would even venture to suggest that, before the cultural revolution of the second century, the Romans

75 76 77 78 79

280

Seefig.1 (p. 284). Taylor 1952-54, see Taylor 1966, p. 92-93. See above, p. 269 n. 19. Taylor 1952-54, p. 232. ibid.

were still conscious of the existence of the ancient oppida in boundaries which only now are being retraced with the help of archaeology and bits of information that have come down to us, scattered through the remains of the antiquarian lore. I also think that we might proceed further along this line of reasoning. Some time in the Archaic period, most probably about the middle of the sixth century, Rome underwent an egalitarian, uniformistic revolution known as the Servian reforms 80. In regard to the spatial organization of the City, the new order was expressed in the creation of the Four Regions with their corresponding network of the Argei. The levelling tendency of this system seems obvious, starting with the regions' order of enumeration, with the lowly Suburana heading the list and the lofty Palatina closing it 81 . The ascendancy of the new districts under the Servian regime is probably reflected as well in the tradition of the Esquiline regiae of Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus. If so, then the aristocratic reaction that led to the fall of monarchy should have been directed also against some of the egalitarian aspects of the Servian organization of the City. On one level, this would have led to some sort of political discrimination of the Suburana and the Esquilina, which later expressed itself in the exclusion of these two tubus from the lot for the centuria praerogativa; on another, it would have given back the areas once occupied by the original oppida their sacral superiority. The distribution of intraregional temples, all founded or rededicated under the Republic, would thus bear witness to the revival of an old sacral principle which reasserted itself in the face of the Gleichschaltung expressed in the Servian organization of the City. All this is highly hypothetical, of course, but it should be emphasized once again that we are not dealing here just with a preference, on the part of temple founders, for one part of the City rather than for another. Apart from the Palatine-Velia and the Quirinal, in Republican Rome temples were being located in the extraregional and intrapomerial zone of the Forum Romanum, the Capitol, the Velabrum and the Forum Boarium, in the extrapomerial and intramural zone of the Aventine and ad Circum. Maximum, and in the extrapomerial and extramural band extending from the Porta Collina to the Tiber and thence to the Porta Capena (see below and fig. 1 [p. 284]). In other words, everywhere except 10 11

For an exhaustive bibliography, see Thomsen 1980. Taylor 1952-54, passim, esp. p. 234-237. 281

in the once suburban parts of the City of Four Regions and in the area outside the Servian Wall adjacent to them. This virtual ban on temple founding in what after all were City regions can hardly be attributed to chance. If chance it was not, then we should seek some key to it, however hypothetical such an explanation must remain. Considering that the position of temples situated within the pomerium, and especially those inside the urban regions, essentially followed pre-existing pattern of Archaic cult places, reasons behind particular choices can be guessed in only a few cases. Cn. Flavius selected the Volcanal as the site of his temple of Concordia no doubt to make Concord watch over the Comitium and the Curia. The penalty for this location in the small and cramped area Volcani 82 were small dimensions of his aedicula. Similar reasons may have dictated, forty years before Flavius' aedilship, the senate's decision to locate the temple of Iuno Moneta on the Arx. It was built over the remains of an Archaic structure, probably the ancient domicile of the kings, from which it inherited its general orientation, some forty five degrees off the cardinal points. The longitudinal axis of the temple ran NW - SE, ie. from the top of the citadel towards the Tarpeian rock and the Comitium at its foot - the most appropriate location for the temple of Juno the Warner, founded when the struggle of the orders was reaching its climax 83. As for the temple of Victoria, its physical and so symbolic domination over the aedes Romuli, the scalae Caci and the Lupercal must have been evident to the Romans of the day. Hence, the setting up by the Ogulnii brothers of the statue of Romulus and Remus suckling the she-wolf under the ficus Ruminalis 84 was most probably prompted by Megellus' foundation: by the year of their aedilship (296) the construction of the temple of Victoria on the top of the cliff at whose foot grew the ficus Ruminate must have been achieved. The only question is whether the ancient shrine replaced by Megellus' foundation had been dedicated to Victoria, as implied by Dionysios, or to some other female deity, as maintained by modern scholars 85. In the first instance, Megellus would not have had much choice while selecting the site for his temple; in the second, he would have purpose82 83 84 85

282

Coarelli 1983, p. 164. See above, p. 239-240. Liv. 10.23.12. See above, p. 272 n. 39.

fully made his foundation to Victoria tower over the traditional cradle of Rome. In one case our sources actually seem to specify the alleged motive for selecting a specific locus for a particular temple. According to Cicero, Fidem in Capitolio vicinam Iovis optumi maxumi, ut in Catonis oratione est, maiores nostri esse voluerunt 86. This is possible, though the symbolic significance of the location of the temple of Faith near the precinct of Jupiter the Best and the Greatest may just as well have been thought up by Cato for the benefit of his speech rather than by the temple's founder, A. Atilius Caiatinus. It might be argued that the latter, like L. Caecilius Metellus with his foundation to Ops Opifera, was chiefly attracted by the amount of free space in the vast and (then) rather empty area Capitolina 87. As noted above in a different context, in the case of new cults the availability of suitable land must have been the first consideration when selecting a locus for the temple.

II. Temples extra pomerium When in 396 M. Furius Camillus set about locating the temple of the Veientine Uni, outside the pomerium there existed Early Republican temples of Ceres and Mercurius ad Circum Maximum, of Apollo in Praia Flaminia, and the temple of Fors Fortuna on the first milestone of the Via Campana, attributed by our tradition to Servius Tullius; possibly, this list should be augmented by the enigmatic shrine of Fortuna Muliebris on the fourth milestone of the Via Latina 88. The location of all these temples conforms to the standard Italian pattern according to which extraurban sanctuaries were situated either in the immediate vicinity of the city or on the frontiers of the state, a considerable distance from citywalls 89. All but one known extrapomerial Mid-Republican temple foundations belonged to the former group. The only exception was the temple of Fors Fortuna ad milliarium sextum of the Via 86 87

Cic. de off.1.104 = Cato fr. 235 Malcovati2. It should also be remebered that the cult of Fides on the Capitol probably reached back to the Archaic period, see above, p. 29. 88 See the relevant entries in Platner-Ashby and, on the temple of Fortuna Muliebris, Quilici Gigli 1981, Champeaux 1982, p. 335-373. 89 Castagnoli 1984, p. 16-20, see now Edlund 1987, passim. 283

Fig. 1

284

Fig. 1 : Archaic and Republican temples of Rome. 1) luppiter Optimus Maximus in Capitolio; 2) Fides in Capitolio; 3) Ops Opifera in Capitolio; 4) Venus Erycina in Capitolio; 5) Mens in Capitolio; 6) Veiovis inter duos lucos; 7) Iuno Moneta in Arce; 8) Concordia in Arce; 9) Concordia in area Volcani; 10) Saturnus in Foro; 11) Castores in Foro; 12) Ops ad Forum; 13) Mater Matuta in Foro Boario; 14) Fortuna in Foro Boario; 15) Hercules Victor in Foro Boario; 16) Felicitas in Velabro; 17) Victoria in Palatio; 18) Victoria Virgo in Palatio; 19) Magna Mater in Palatio; 20) Pales in Palatio; 21) luppiter Stator ad Portam Mugoniam; 22) Lares in Sacra Via summa; 23) Vica Pota in Velia; 24) Penates in Velia; 25) the temple of 25th May (Fasti Amiternini) in Velia; 26) Tellus in Carinis; 27) Iuno Lucina Esquiliis; 28) Semo Sancus in Colle Quirinali; 29) luppiter Victor in Colle Quirinali; 30) Salus in Colle Quirinali; 31) Flora in Colle Quirinali; 32) Quirinus in Colle Quirinali; 33) Hora Quirini in Colle Quirinali; 34) Sol Indiges in Colle Quirinali; 35) 36) 37) tres Fortunae (Fortuna Publica, Fortuna Publica citerior, Fortuna Primigenia) in Colle Quirinali; 38) Honos extra Portam Collinam; 39) Hercules extra Portam Collinam; 40) Venus Erycina extra Portam Collinam; 41) Fons extra Portam Fontinalem; 42) Nymphae in Campo Martio; 43) Volcanus in Campo Martio; 44) Feronia in Campo Martio; 45) Fortuna Huiusce Diei in Campo Martio; 46) Iuturna in Campo Martio; 47) Lares Permarini in Campo Martio; 48) Iuno Curritis in Campo Martio; 49) luppiter Fulgur in Campo Martio; 50) Fortuna Equestris in Campo Martio; 51) Hercules Magnus Custos in Circo Flaminio; 52) Mars Invictus in Circo Flaminio; 53) Neptunus in Circo Flaminio; 54) Castor et Pollux in Circo Flaminio; 55) Hercules Musarum in Circo Flaminio; 56) Iuno Regina in Circo Flaminio; 57) luppiter Stator in Circo Flaminio; 58) Diana in Circo Flaminio; 59) Apollo in Circo Flaminio; 60) Bellona in Circo Flaminio; 61) Pietas in Foro Holitorio; 62) Ianus in Foro Holitorio; 63) Iuno Sospita in Foro Holitorio; 64) Spes in Foro Holitorio; 65) Aesculapius in Insula; 66) Veiovis in Insula; 67) Faunus in Insula; 68) Tiberinus in Insula; 69) Portunus in Portu; 70) Hercules Victor ad Portam Trigeminam; 71) Ceres ad Circum Maximum; 72) Flora ad Circum Maximum; 73) Hercules Invictus ad Circum Maximum; 74) Iuventas ad Circum Maximum; 75) Summanus ad Circum Maximum; 76) Sol et Luna in Circo Maximo; 77) Venus Obsequens ad Circum Maximum; 78) Mercurius ad Circum Maximum 79) Iuno Regina in Aventino; 80) luppiter Libertas in Aventino; 81) Vortumnus in Aventino; 82) Diana in Aventino; 83) Minerva in Aventino; 84) Luna in Aventino; 85) Consus in Aventino; 86) Honos et Virtus extra Portam Capenam; 87) Tempestates extra Portam Capenam; 88) Mars extra Portam Capenam; 89) Fors Fortuna ad I milliarium; 90) Fors Fortuna ad VI milliarium; 91) luppiter Invictus; 92) Iuno Moneta II; 93) Venus Verticordia; 94) Virtus; 95) Honos et Virtus Mariana. The temples shown on this map are divided in two groups: those which can be located with precision (squares) and those which cannot (circles). I consider located those temples to which some material vestiges are attributed in this work (in the case of the temples of Quirinus and Fors Fortuna ad VI milliarium, these vestiges are not remains of actual structures or firmly located fragments of the Pianta Marmorea, but a votive deposit and an architectual terracotta respectively). Needless to say, not all of these attributions are universally accepted. As regards the other group, some temples can be located within the radius of fifty metres or so (eg. those of Pietas and Hercules Victor in Foro Boario) whereas in some instances the position on the map is little more than an indication of their general location, the extreme case being the temple of luppiter Fulgur in Campo which may have stood almost anywhere between the Via Lata and the Tarentum. I have put aside as unlocated four temples for whose position we have no clues whatsoever and that of Honos et Virtus Mariana which stood somewhere inside the pomerium and within the field of vision of the augurs officiating on the Arx.

285

Campana; together with the semi-legendary shrine of Fortuna Muliebris these were apparently the only temples located on the confines of the ager Romanus antiquus 90 . All other temples, royal and Republican, were situated within one mile of the pomerium 91 . The distribution of extrapomerial temples shows that they adhered to the pattern established intra pomerium. They spread in an enormous arc from the Porta Collina towards the Tiber and thence to the Porta Capena. No temple stood south of the Porta Collina and east of the Porta Capena, outside the outer boundaries of the regiones Esquilina and Suburana - the neglect of these two urban regions by Republican temple founders passed the pomerial line and infected the adjacent areas. As for those more fortunate zones, the best visible relationship between temples located on both sides of the pomerial line can be discerned in the case of the cluster of aedes publicae located around the Porta Collina. The chain of temples of the Third Region, originally terminating with the temple of Quirinus, in the third century was extended eastwards to the Porta Collina (the tres Fortunae) and beyond (the temples of Honos, Hercules and, in the second century, Venus Erycina ad portam Collinam). These new foundations, like the majority of intrapomerial temples of the Third Region, lay on that spine of the Quirinal, the Alta Semita and its eastern extension; not a single aedes publica stood outside any of the Quirinal gates opening to the north: the Quirinalis, the Salutar is and the Sanqualis. The only temple founded in the northern approaches to the City was the of Fons outside the Porta Fontinalis on the saddle between the Quirinal and the Capitol, whose very name betrays the existence of a spring which flowed thence and which occasioned the location of the temple dedicated in thanksgiving for finding sources of water that had saved its founder, C. Papirius Maso, and his army from dying of thirst in Corsica 92 . The majority of Mid-Republican temples situated outside the pomerium formed an almost uninterrupted band from the temple of Feronia (Temple A of the Largo Argentina) to that of Mars in Clivo outside the Porta San Sebastiano. These temples are usually classified according to their ancient locations: in Campo Martio, in Circo Flaminio, in Foro Holitorio, in Insula, in Portu, ad Cir90

See Quilici Gigli 1978, Scheid 1987. The outlying temples of Mars in Clivo and the Servian Fors Fortuna actually stood one mile from the City. 92 See above, p. 38. 91

286

cum Maximum, in Aventino, and extra Portam Capenam. Yet these «classic» locations should not be mechanically transposed onto the topographical reality of the Middle Republic. This applies in the first place to the zone north-west of the City, in later times divided into three topographical units: the Forum Holitorium, the Circus Flaminius and the Campus Martius. Temples which our sources place in Circo Flaminio, and which were founded before the tracing out of the circus in 220, originally stood in Campo or ad Forum Holitorium (those of Neptunus and Bellona respectively) and should in consequence be counted among temples of these two zones. The first temple which we can locate in Circo Flaminio was C. Flaminius' foundation to Hercules Magnus Custos. As for the agglomeration of temples south-west of the Palatine, it is difficult to reconstruct the dividing line between the zone ad Circum Maximum on the lower part of the northern slope of the Aventine and the hill itself. Our sources carefully single out temples situated ad Circum Maximum, but we cannot say for certain how high up the slope the zone extended. But in spite of this, and in spite of the fact that physically the two zones were one, we should follow our sources and respect the differentiation between ad Circum Maximum and in Aventino, which clearly reflected the age-long separateness of the two areas, perpetuated in the Augustan division of the City. As a topographical unit, the Aventine was most probably identical with the area appropriated by the plebeians as the result of the pledging of the lex Icilia. The appellation ad Circum Maximum as opposed to in Aventino seems to have been given to the narrow band of land on the northern slope of the hill between the limits of the new settlement and the Circus Maximus, where the temples of Mercurius and Ceres had already been located before the passing of the lex sacrata. The chronological list of extrapomerial temples founded in 396-219 in the immediate neighbourhood of the original City, with their locations modified as proposed above, is as follows: 396 390 296 295 293 292-269/6 292-260

Iuno Regina in Aventino Mars extra Portam Capenam Bellona ad Forum Holitorium Venus Obsequens ad Circum Maximum Aesculapius in Insula Hercules Invictus ad Circum Maximum Portunus in Portu 287

276 272 264 263-262 260 259 258-249 257-228 252 246 242/1 241 240 233 231 225 223 292-219

Summanus ad Circum Maximum Consus in Aventino Vortumnus in Aventino Minerva in Aventino Ianus in Foro Holitorio Tempestates extra Portam Capenam Spes in Foro Holitorio Neptunus in Campo Martio Volcanus in Campo Martio Iuppiter Libertas in Aventino Iuturna in Campo Martio Iuno Curritis in Campo Martio Flora ad Circum Maximum Honos extra Portam Capenam Föns extra Portam Fontinalem Feronia in Campo Martio Hercules Magnus Custos in Circo Flaminio Hercules extra Portam Collinam Honos extra Portam Collinam Iuppiter Fulgur in Campo Martio Luna in Aventino Sol et Luna in Circo Maximo Tiberinus in Insula

Unlike those who decided to build their sanctuaries intra pomerium, the founders of these temples were by and large not impeded in their decisions by the position of ancient cult places. The location of only four extrapomerial temples seems to have been determined not by their founders' will but by some «objective» reasons. In the case of the temples of Honos extra Portam Collinam and Iuppiter Fulgur in Campo Martio this reason appears self-evident: they were built on the spots where the portents which caused their construction had occured. The location of C. Papirius Maso's temple was determined, as said above, by a spring particularly linked with the cult of Fons - witness the name of the gate: Porta Fontinalis - which presupposes the existence of an earlier shrine of that deity on that site. Finally, the position of the temple of Sol et Luna in Circo Maximo no doubt resulted from the Sun's and the Moon's role as patrons of chariot races. In some other cases, like Mars' extra Portam Capenam, we can suspect the existence of an earlier shrine later replaced by the aedes publica; the position of another handful of temples was probably 288

determined in a general way by the character of deities concerned - Ianus, Tiberinus, Portunus. On the other hand, linking the location of the temple of Venus Obsequens with the cult of Murcia 93 is not very convincing. The shrine of the latter deity stood in the Vallis Murcia itself, ie., in the Circus Maximus 94, and not on the slope; thus there is no question of the temple replacing an earlier shrine. Besides, it is just as possible that Q. Fabius Gurges' location of the temple ad Circum Maximum was the cause and not the effect of the identification of Murcia with Venus by the erudites of the Imperial age 95. The interval of one hundred years between the extrapomerial foundations of the fourth and the third century justifies a separate discussion of the temples of Iuno Regina and Mars. Camillus located his temple on the hill which was almost certainly already encompassed by the first Servian Wall96 and which in practice became a quasi urban region after 456. But from the religious point of view the Aventine remained until the turn of the fifth century completely outside the City, not only as not included in the network of the Argei but also because the only temple then existing on the hill - that of Diana - was officially a federal Latin sanctuary (thus the text of the lex Icilia had been deposited in what strictly speaking was not an aedes publica populi Romani)91. Camillus' decision to locate the Veientine goddess on the Aventine of all places can therefore be interpreted as one of the measures - perhaps the decisive one - through which the hill lost the character of a plebeian ghetto and became fully integrated into the City. In other words, the location of the temple of Iuno Regina would not have resulted from the necessity of keeping the cult outside the pomerium on account of its foreign origin, but on the contrary - to elevate, or to confirm the elevation of the hill on which it had been located to the rank of the integral part of Rome. Such an interpretation agrees with the formula of evocatio of the goddess as transmitted by Livy and should thus be preferred to its alternative. Camillus' other motive in selecting a locus on the

93 94 95 96

Torelli 1984, passim, esp. p. 231. Varrò LL 5.154. See De Sanctis 1953-68, IV 2, 1, p. 153. Quoniam 1947, see also Lugli 1933. For a criticism of their argument (not very convincing), see Gjerstad 1954, p. 60-64. 97 See above, p. 109 n. 32. 289

Aventine was probably, as previously mentioned, the availability of public land to locate a temple worthy of the Veientine Uni's greatness. The location of the temple of Mars, founded as a thanksgiving after the withdrawal of the Gauls, most probably at Sibylla's order, at a distance of one mile from the Porta Capena, appears strange and suggests the existence of an earlier shrine of the god in that place. The same would result from a remark in Dionysios that the first transvectio equitum, which set off from this temple, took place after the battle of Lake Regillus 98. Yet there is little doubt that this ceremony is to be dated to 304, and not 496 " . This does not rule out the existence of a shrine preceding the temple of Mars, but the real reason for this particular location of the temple might perhaps be sought in the desacralisation of loci sacri within the pomerium and its immediate vicinity by the victorious Gauls. It might even be suggested that the libri fatales actually stipulated for the new temple a locus not violated by the invaders: hence its location well to the south of the Porta Capena, whereas our tradition sets the scene of events, from the rout of Allia to Camillus' mythical victory, north and east of Rome except for, characteristically, the probably equally fictitious victorious skirmish of the Ardeatines allegedly led by Camillus with a band of plundering Gauls. Be that as it may, when in 296 Ap. Claudius Caecus started with his vow to Bellona the third century avalanche of temple foundations, more than two thirds of which were to be built outside the pomerium, temple-locating precedents had already been set in the Via Appia, on the Aventine, above the Circus Maximus and on the river front of the City. It was precisely in these zones that the building of temples was concentrated during the halfcentury following Appius' vow. Although for later generations the temple of Bellona marked the eastern limit of the Circus Flaminius, at the time of its construction it delimited, together with the neighbouring temple of Apollo, the Forum Holitorium from the north. Very soon, after 293, the temple of Aesculapius was located across the near arm of the Tiber, in the Insula, closely followed by those of Portunus (292-260), Ianus (260), and Spes (258-249)

98 99

Dion. Hal. 6.13.4. Liv. 9.46.15; Val. Max. 2.2.9; Plin. NH 15.4. See Weinstock in RE 6A.2 (1937), c. 2178-2180 s.v. transvectio. 290

between the Wall and the Tiber, and of Tiberinus in Insula. After the break caused by the Second Punic War this zone became once again a scene of vigorous temple building activity; witness the temples of Veiovis and Faunus in Insula, of Iuno Sospita and Pietas in Foro Holitorio, and of Hercules Victor ad Portam Trigeminam 10 °. But until the closing years of the First Punic War temple founding was mainly centred in the zone south-east of the westward-thrusting wedge of the pomerial City, in which our sources distinguish two locations: in Aventino and ad Circum Maximum. Just one year after Appius' vow to Bellona Gurges located ad Circum Maximum the temple of Venus Obsequens. His foundation was followed by those to Hercules Invictus (292-269/6), Summanus (276), Flora (240) and Sol et Luna in the very circus; it is also possible that the last temple known to have been constructed ad Circum Maximum, M. Livius Salinator's foundation to Iuventas, was first vowed in 219 101. On the Aventine the temple building activity was of a relatively very short duration but very intense. Out of five temples built there in the third century, the datable four were founded in the span of one generation (Consus in 272, Vortumnus in 264, Minerva in 263-262 and luppiter Libertas in 246). In that short period the extrapomerial Aventine became, in terms of the number and dignity of its temples, peer of the twin cradles of Rome, the Palatine and the Quirinal. It is also worth noting that the concentration of third-century temple foundations in the area of the Aventine and ad Circum Maximum created an agglomeration of aedes publicae - fifteen in all - that was equalled only towards the end of the Republic by the much larger zone of the Campus Martius and the Circus Flaminius north-west of the City. The latter zone for a long time did not attract the attention of Mid-Republican temple founders in spite of its enormous advantages. The first temple constructed in Campo Martio may have been that of Volcanus (252) or Neptunus (257-229), or maybe the undatable temple of luppiter Fulgur. Before the outbreak of the Second Punic War another three temples, those of Iuturna (242/1), Iuno Curritis (241) and Feronia (225), were founded in

100

See the relevant entries in Platner-Ashby and, on the last of the quoted temples, Ziolkowski 1988. 101 See above, p. 55, n. 12. 291

that area. The very end of the Middle Republic witnessed C. Flaminius' vow to Hercules Magnus Custos and his tracing out, as censor, of the Circus Flaminius: two interdependent acts whose utmost importance to the development of this part of Rome bore fruit only in the second century. Broadly speaking, it might be said that as far as temple founding was concerned, the Campus Martius took on where the Aventine had left. The reason why until the middle of the third century not a single temple was founded in that extensive plain reaching the foot of the Capitol and belonging in entirety to the publicum, might be sought in the herd instinct of Roman temple founders who clearly preferred to locate their temples in the neighbourhood of already existing aedes publicae. Other potential reasons might be adduced: ideological or religious scruples at founding a temple in the former land of the kings, the fear of impeding numerous political and military activities that took place in the Campus Martius. One could even hypothesize that it was the portent that led to the founding of the temple of Iuppiter Fulgur which set in motion the trend to locate public temples in that area. As for the northernmost zone around the Porta Collina, none of the temples located there can be dated except, perhaps, one of the temples of Fortuna Publica (241), whose position extra pomerium is, however, only a guess. One could only very tentatively suggest, as in the case of the Campus Martius, that the temple of Honos, built because of and on the site of the occurence of a miraculous sign, set the precedent later followed by individual founders of temples. The most perspicuous clues as to the motives which led individual founders to select particular sites seem to be discernible in the case of third century temples extra portam Capenam. As suggested above, the location of the temple of Tempestates by L. Cornelius Scipio was most probably determined by the position of the sepulcrum Scipionum, of which his father, the consul of 290, was the first occupant. The temple of Honos was built by Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus on the site where the transvectio equitum, established by his great-grandfather Rullianus, entered the City on its way from the temple of Mars to the Forum Romanum. The location of Mid- and Late Republican temples of the Forum Holitorium was certainly conditioned, as numerous scholars have 292

Fig. 2: Republican temples of the central Campus Martius.

A B C D E F G

-

Feronia (Temple A of the Largo Argentina) Fortuna Huiusce Diei (Temple B of the Largo Argentina) Iuturna (Temple C of the Largo Argentina) Lares Fermarmi (Temple D of the Largo Argentina) Iuno Curritis Volcanus (the temple of the Crypta Balbi) Nymphae (the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure)

Black - structures built before 218 B.C.

293

Fig. 3: The Velia and the Carinae.

AA BB CC DD EE I II III 1 2 3

294

-

Sacra Via Vicus Cuprius (èjuTOnog) óòóg èm KaQivag Vicus Compiti Acilii Clivus Orbius Basilica Maxentii Templum Veneris et Romae Colosseum Aedes deum Penatium Aedes Telluris Compitum Acilii

observed, by the area's function as the first stage of the triumphal procession, whence it entered the City through the Porta Carmentalis 102 . There is little doubt that the four temples which closed the piazza from the west - those of Ianus, Spes, Iuno Sospita and Pietas - and Appius' temple of Bellona which together with that of Apollo framed it from the north (to the south and east there were City-walls) were located there so that every future triumph would remind both the participants and onlookers of the deeds of these temples' founders, exactly as was the case with their generally slightly later counterparts in Circo Flaminio, where generals gave decorations and rewards to their subordinates just before the pompa triumphalis set forth 103 . Another often repeated assertion - that the temples ad Circum Maximum and in Aventino were plebeian in origin and character (whatever it means) 104 - does not seem to be substantiated by the evidence. Two of the temples around the Circus Maximus were Sibyllan foundation (Ceres and Summanus), one was built by a patrician (Venus Obsequens) and two by plebeians (Flora and Iuventas). So much for their origin; as for their character, only in the case of the temples of Ceres and maybe Flora are there some reasons for treating

102 Lyngby 1963, Coarelli 1968D, Versnel 1970, p. 132-163. As for the Porta Triumphalis, its identification with the Porta Carmentalis has paradoxically been made inevitable thanks to Versnel's brilliant analysis of the exact meaning of «porta triumphalis» (Versnel 1970, p. 151-152, see p. 132-133). Unfortunately, the Dutch scholar started from the singularily inopportune premise that this could not have been a gate in the Servian Wall «because in that case the Porta Triumphalis must be allotted a place which is excluded by literary sources» (Versnel 1970, p. 133). In reality, Gatti's discovery of the real position of the Circus Flaminius, made ten years earlier (Gatti 1960), revealed that the circus was separated from the Porta Carmentalis only by the piazza under discussion, thus vindicating the obvious meaning of Cic. in Pis. 55 and Fl.Ios. BI 7.5.4, that Versnel found so difficult to accept. See also Lyngby 1963. Coarelli 1968D locates the Porta Triumphalis at the front of the temples of S. Omobono, but see contra Champeaux 1982, p. 266 n. 92. Recently Coarelli has repeated his demonstration in a much more developed manner (Coarelli 1988, p. 363414), but the gist of his argument remains the same. 103 We hear about this for the first time in 187, on the occasion of the triumph of M. Fulvius Nobilior cos. 189 (Liv. 39.5.17). 104 See eg. Coarelli 1985A, p. 329-330, Torelli 1984, p. 54.

295

them as «plebeian» 105 . The origin of the remaining three temples ad Circum Maximum is unknown, but even if the founders of the temples of Hercules Invictus and Sol et Luna had in fact been plebeians, this would not have made the foundations «plebeian». Similarly, two of the four known founders of temples located on the «plebeian» Aventine were patricians: M. Furius Camillus and L. Papirius Cursor. One might perhaps scent out something specifically plebeian in Ti. Sempronius Gracchus' temple of Iuppiter Libertas, but of all the motives which may have guided the other plebeian temple founder, M. Fulvius Flaccus, the only one we have so far succeeded in discovering was his determined following Camillus the patrician's footsteps: just as the evocatio of Iuno Regina marked the beginning of the subjugation of Etruria, so the founding of the temple of Vortumnus proclaimed the conquest's achievement.

. III. Mid-Republican temples and the spatial development of the City !*,_.*** There remains one aspect of the topography of Rome's '** Mkfc'Republican temple foundations, ie. their role in the spatial development of the City or, considering that it is temple founding that makes up the greater part of our information on the physical growth of Rome in those years 106 , the spatial development of the Mid-Republican City as reflected in contemporary temple foundations.| This aspect was of little importance within the pomerium, where the urban pattern had been fixed for ages 107 . Traces of town-planning, such as have been revealed in the colonies

105

Still, it ought to be emphasized again and again that the temple of Ceres did not start as a sanctuary of the «plebeian Triad» as opposed to the Capitoline one (thus still Chirassi Colombo 1981), see Sordi 1983. 106 On the growth of the City during the Middle Republic, see Roma medio - repubblicana. 107 On the continuity of Rome's pattern of settlement throughout the Early and Middle Republic, and especially on the mythical character of the tradition on the Gallic destruction of the City, see Castagnoli 1974, Torelli-Coarelli. 296

founded by the Romans during the Middle Republic 108, should in the first place be sought in these parts of the City whicrvwere expanding in that period, ie., outside the pomerium. [Hence it is not surprising that the construction of only one temple intra pomerium can be linked with a major townplanning undertaking.] This singular case is L. Postumius Megellus' foundation to Victoria on the Palatine. The temple of Victoria was built with its back to the rest of the Palatine, facing the scalae Caci: as previously mentioned, the presumable aim of its founder was to make it tower over the aedes Romuli at the top and the ficus Ruminate at the foot of the cliff. But the main approach to the temple were not the breakneck scalae Caci but the Clivus Victoriae, gently climbing from the site of the Porta Romanula in the Velabrum at the foot of the north-western angle of the Palatine 109 to Megellus' foundation at the top of its southwestern angle, thus traversing the whole length of the Capitolfacing slope of the hill. The name of the Clivus Victoriae testifies to its being laid down after the location of the temple of Victoria. The scanty remains of the original street suggest that its construction was an integral element of a comprehensive regulation of the Cermalus and the whole western slope of the Palatine110. Mid-Republican blocks of Grotta Oscura and Fidenae tufa, whose vestiges have repeatedly been found in that area, long thought of as the remains of the Servian Wall ni, were the buttressing walls built within the framework of the new terracing of the Cermalus 112, which in turn should most probably be linked with the laying down of the Clivus Victoriae. It is possible that the construction of the street closely followed the temple's locatio; the activity, in 296, of the Ogulnii brothers in the Lupercal may have been a part of this undertaking as well. But had even a longer interval separated the founding of the temple of Victoria and the construction of the Clivus Victoriae, Megellus' initiative seems to

108 109

See Castagnoli 1981. Festus 318 L. See Coarelli 1983, passim, esp. p. 231-237 and p. 263 (ill. 75). 110 See now Pensabene 1985. 111 Säflund 1932, p. 3-17, 138-139. 112 Thus already Quoniam 1947, Castagnoli 1964, p. 180, and now Pensabene 1985, p. 192, 202-204. 297

have served as a catalyst for a comprehensive regulation of a considerable part of the Palatine 113 . . The relationship between laying down streets and building temples was much more pronounced outside the pomerium. The most striking case thereof was the construction of the Clivus Publicius and the temple of Flora ad Circum Maximum. To be sure, none of our sources explicitly states that the temple of Flora stood in that street, but the location of the Publica brothers' foundation in Clivo Publicio appears self-evident, especially since we know that both were situated on the north-western slope of the Aventine facing the Circus Maximus. This, however, seems to have been an exceptional case: a temple built in the street laid down by the temple's very founders. Usually the relation between streets and temples was of indirect character, as comes out in the case of third-century temples extra Portam Capenam. The temple of Tempestates was located close to the sepulcrum Scipionum, but since the first member of the family to be buried there was L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus cos. 290, the father of the temple's founder, there is little doubt that it was the paving of the Via Appia in 296, from the Porta Capena to the temple of Mars, by the Ogulnii brothers 114 , that determined the location of the tomb and so ultimately conditioned the position of the temple of Tempestates. The paving of this section of the Via Appia which was also the first, extraurban stage of the route of transvectio equitum, is almost certainly to be connected with the establishment of the ceremony in 304 by Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus. Thus the temple of Honos, located by Rullianus' great-grandson Verrucosus ad Portam Capenam, on the site where the procession of equites entered the City, ultimately owed its position to the construction of the regina viarum in 312.

113 The first buttressing wall of small blocks of cappellaccio (see above, p. 297 n. I l l ) , dated by Säflund 1932, p. 4, to the Early Republican period, seems to have been replaced by the great structure of Grotta Oscura and Fidenae blocks precisely in the framework of the laying down of the Clivus Victoriae. But, to quote Wiseman's prudent remark, «it is unwise to be too dogmatic before the completion of Patrizio Pensabene's important excavations around the temple of Magna Mater» (Wiseman 1987, p. 400). 1,4 Liv. 10.23.12.

298

The position of the temple of Portunus in Portu seems to provide a more intimate connection between a temple's location and the expansion of the Mid-Republican City. The temple was situated on an enbankment constructed some time at the turn of the fourth century, in a short street (the Vicus Lucceius) leading from the Porta Flumentana to the Pons Aemilius and beyond, along the Via Aurelia. It is difficult to establish the chronological sequence of these undertakings, which may have been quite independent from one another. Still, the only enterprise that we can date, the construction of the Via Aurelia in 241/240 U 5 , was no doubt achieved at more or less the same time as the building of the Pons Aemilius; it is highly probable that the quaestor Aemilius who built the bridge 116 did it under the supervision of C. Aurelius Cotta as censor, just as the building of the Pons Mulvius by the quaestor of this name is to be related to the construction of the Via Flaminia by C. Flaminius in the time of the latter's censorship (220). But a wooden bridge and a country road towards the Tyrrhenian coast no doubt existed before 241 117 : this date can therefore be treated only as the terminus ante quern of the construction of the Portus and the Vicus Lucceius. Admittedly, the name of the street, most probably commemorating some obscure third-century aedile, makes identification of its builder with the founder of the temple of Portunus very unlikely. Still, the location of the temple of this particular god in the centre of what was the first port of Rome worthy of the name in the street which led there from the City, could not be accidental. If the dating of the temple of Portunus to the years 292-260 is correct, it would have been built practically at the same time as the port itself 118 . The location of Mid-Republican temples of Hercules is also significant. The temple of Hercules Invictus owed its position 115 See various articles in QuadhtTopAnt 4 (1968), Radke 1981, p. 288 (unnecessarily overcautious). 1,6 ?\ut.Numa 9.6, see now Coarelli 1988, p. 139-147. 117 This is implied by the founding of colonies in Cosa and Pyrgi, respectively in and after 273. See also Gatti 1940; Colini 1986, p. 188. 118 Even Colini 1986, p. 188-197, though apparently pushing the earliest temple of Portunus to the Archaic period (p. 189-190), agrees that the first regulation of the zone of the Portus had the building of the section of the Servian Wall between the Aventine and the Capitol in the first half of the fourth century as the terminus post quern (p. 190-191).

299

behind the carceres of the Circus Maximus probably as much to Hercules' function as patron of sport facilities as to the vicinity of the Ara Maxima. In the case of C. Flaminius' building activity we are clearly dealing, perhaps for the first time in Rome, with a major piece of urban design - the racecourse and its guardian temple of Hercules Magnus Custos forming a functional whole - whose visible aspect came out in full in the second century with the creation of a series of temples and porticoes around the racing track 119 . As might have been expected, the role of temples in the spatial development of Mid-Republican Rome was most pronounced in the Campus Martius, ie. in the zone whose urbanization started only in that period and whose character of public property assigned for the exercise of civic and military duties by, at least in theory, the whole citizen body, in practice ruled out all kinds of building activity except temple founding 120 . (In what follows the position of the temple of Iuno Curritis immediately south of the Largo Argentina is treated as indubitable; on the other hand, I leave out the temples of Neptunus and Iuppiter Fulgur, for whose location we have no clues) I 2 1 . The position of the temples of Iuno Curritis, Iuturna and Feronia were clearly determined by that of the ovilia 122 . If, as seems only logical, the Saepta lulia were built on the site of their Republican predecessor, the City-facing front walls of the temples' precincts made an exact prolongation, in a straight line, of the outer enclosure of the ovilia 123 . Thus the combined efforts of the founders of these three temples fixed the western limits of the central Campus Martius, ie., of the Villa Publica, for the next three centuries or more, until the reign

119

See Coarelli 1985A, p. 271-272. The only major Republican structure of the Campus Martius that was not a shrine was the Villa Publica. 121 See fig. 2 (p. 293). 122 Castagnoli 1948, p. 148-151. 123 This series of front walls became, at the end of the second century, the eastern wall of the original Porticus Minucia, which is to be traced along the vestiges of two parallel walls found between the Via dell'Arco de'Ginnasi and the Via S. Nicola de'Cesarini (see Cozza 1968, p. 9-20, Gatti 1979, p. 302-305). 120

300

of Domitian 124. At the same time, this row of temples, swollen with the addition of second-century foundations to Lares Permarini and Fortuna Huiusce Diei (Temples D and B of the Largo Argentina), created an almost insurmountable check to the westward development of the City. Only one Republican temple, that of Fortuna Equestris vowed in 180, rose up in the west Campus Martius 125, beyond that barrier which was overcome only by Pompeius' building activity in the middle of the first century. But it seems that in the beginning another design of MidRepublican temple founders was to provide a monumental setting for the space due south of the ovilia, which must have served as a dispersion ground for crowds leaving the voting area and as a gathering place for those waiting for the results of elections: it is exactly in this spot that the beginning of the third book of Varro's Res rustica takes place 126. This can be deduced from the position of the earliest known temple of the Campus Martius - that of Volcanus - opposite the temple of Iuno Curritis. The two aedes faced each other across the avenue which led straight from the ovilia to the area of the later Circus Flaminius and thence towards the City 127. It is a fact that the decision of L. Aemilius Papus to locate the temple of Feronia beside that of Iuturna and not vis-à-vis accentuated the outer row of temples, and so the western limits of the Villa Publica, to the detriment of the inner row initiated by the temple of Volcanus. Only in the second century was a temple built beside that of Volcanus and opposite that of Iuturna (the temple of the Via delle Botteghe Oscure dedicated to the Nymphs), thus providing another element marking the eastern side of the avenue. But this grandiose design had no continuation. No temple was ever built north of the temple of Nymphae and opposite that of Feronia. One reason for it may have been the creation

124

That is until the enlargement of the Porticus Minucia and its division into the Porticus Minucia vetus and frumentaria. See now Manacorda 1987, p. 608. 125 According to Vitr. 3.3.2., this temple stood ad theatrum lapideum, which can only signify the neighbourhood of the Theatrum Pompeii. See Castagnoli 1948, p. 162, Coarelli 1981, p. 31. 126 Varrò RR 3.2.1-5; see Coarelli 1968A, p. 369. 127 See above, p. 65. 301

of the Circus Flaminius just before the outbreak of the Second Punic War, which turned the attention of Roman generals away from the central Campus Martius. When the building activity was resumed in the eighties of the second century, the majority of new foundations were located in Circo 128. The other reason was possibly the squeezing of the temple of Lares Permarini between the temple of Iuturna and the road which formed the horizontal, east-west axis of the original arrangement of the years 252-241 129. Elsewhere I have tried to explain the reason for this choice 13°; here it is enough to note that placing the temple of Lares Permarini only five metres from its northern neighbour irrevocably destroyed the symmetry of the original layout and paved the way for the future autonomisation of the western row of temples within the Porticus Minucia. But the main reason - apart from inscrutable whims of Roman temple founders - may have been different still. The temples of Volcanus and Nymphae, while opening onto the avenue leading to and from the ovilia, literally turned their backs on the City and, more immediately, on the Villa Publica and to a lesser extent on the Circus Flaminius. This unintended disrespect for the zone so intimately associated with the ceremony of triumph may have been the main reason why Cotta's example was followed by only one second century general. It seems, therefore, that apart from the Campus Martius, temple founding did not play a marked part in the spatial development of Mid-Republican Rome. Temples usually followed public constructions of other kinds. The laying down of the Clivus Victoriae after the construction of the temple of Victoria is in this respect an exception which confirms the rule. Of course, there was a very sound reason for this: every temple needed an approach. But, with the notable exception of the Publica brothers and C. Flaminius, Mid-Republican temple founders seem to have hardly ever thought of including those temples in wider urban designs of their making. Also in this case there exists a very simple explanation: generals' manubiae and aediles' multae were usually insufficient for more than

128 129 130

302

Wiseman 1974, Coarelli 1985A, p. 271-277. See above, p. 65. Ziolkowski 1986, p. 632-633.

one public construction, especially considering that during the Middle Republic the manubiae practically consisted of what was left over after the soldiers and the aerarium had taken their due. The other reason may have been the sheer weight of tradition: the custom of spending one's manubiae for public use took roots by way of temple foundations. Hence it may not be a coincidence that before the time of great warlords of the last days of the Republic, the only Roman general known to have assigned his war booty for a great undertaking destined for «lay» public use was M\ Curius Dentatus 131, an avowed democrat whose relations with the «Establishment», and implicitly with traditions embodied by it, were never perfect. The situation of aediles was different. They had no tradition to reckon with and no subordinates to be given rewards; last but not least, their multae hardly warranted their peers' pressure to turn them over to the aerarium. In consequence, during the Middle Republic an aedile could spend his whole gains in his own name whereas manubiae represented only a fraction of the booty a general had won. Hence, when a pair of aediles managed to strike with their fines a particularly numerous and wealthy group of flagrant offenders, as L. and M. Publicii did with the pecuarii after the end of the First Punic War, the multae they had imposed sufficed not only for the celebration of the first ludi Florae but also for the construction of what was to become the main artery through which the Aventine communicated with the rest of the City and the temple which watched over both the games they had instituted and the track they had laid down 132. Except for another non-conformist, C. Flaminius, we do not hear about censors trying to harmonize the building activity they pursued ex officio with the founding of temples they had vowed as imperium-holders. Here, again, certain qualifications seem indispensable. After the break of Livy's narrative in 293 we are very ill-informed about censors' activities of any kind; besides, until the end of the fourth century and sporadically during the third as well, censorship used to

131 132

See above, p. 246. See above, p. 33. 303

be held before consulate. But, on the other hand, the rise of the censorship to the highest office in state, held after the consulate, coincided with an enormous increase of censors' tasks, which included the field of public building 133. And yet, of all Mid-Republican censors who held their office after 312, only Flaminius seems to have included the temple he had vowed in a bigger design undertaken during his censorship 134. But in practice the only way to coordinate the two kinds of building activity in a single piece of urban design was to select sites for both at the same time. This, however, was difficult. The site of a temple was determined once and for all in the ceremony of locatio. And though in at least one instance we explicitly hear of a temple vowed by its founder as consul and located as censor 135, the locatio of a temple usually took place as soon as the occasion arose, if possible during the term of office of its founder in which the vow had been made. All the temples founded by aediles belonged to this category together with, in all probability, those manubial temples whose founders, after having made their vows, returned to Rome before the expiration of their office 136. And since, in theory, only one consularis out of five could expect to become censor, it is hard to believe that Roman generals ever thought of delaying the locatio of temples they had vowed with the purpose of (hopefully) doing it upon reaching the office of censor. Hence censors who had previously vowed temples would in all probability have located them long before entering censor's office. This effectively made it very difficult for them to harmonize their censorial building projects with temples they had vowed. The one who achieved this, C. Flaminius, had kept clear of the City until the last days of his

133 134

Suolahti 1963, p. 20-79. The only other Republican generals who seem to have harmonized their building activity as censors with their manubial foundations, were the censors of 143/2, P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus and L. Mummius. See Coarelli 1988, p. 84-86, 139-180, Ziolkowski 1988, p. 328329. 135 See above, p. 144. 136 We hear of this in the case of the temples of Iuno Regina (see above, p. 76) and Iuno Sospita (Liv. 34.53.3). 304

consulate 137 . It is also very unlikely that he made himself elected duumvir aedi Herculis locandae, not only because of his strained relations with the rest of the political élite but also because with his vow he had taken upon himself a Sibylla-ordered obligation incumbent on the state. Hence, as censor, he could freely select the site of his temple of Hercules Magnus Custos in harmony with the layout of his greatest undertaking, the Circus Flaminius. The weak impact of temple founding on the spatial development of Rome in the time of the Middle Republic is to be sought chiefly in the same inherent limitations which make one hesitate use the term «town planning» in the Roman context throughout the Republic. The first stumbling block was the utter discontinuity of decision making in the matters of urban development. The physical shape of the City was fashioned from year to year by several magistrates who acted in complete independence from one another: every year from seven to ten office-holders capable of vowing an aedes publica, every five years two censors with vast competences in the field of public building. The piecemeal development of the City which originated from this dispersal of authority among so many magistrates for whom, with the exception of censors, building activity in Rome was on the whole marginal, is best epitomized by the reconstruction of the Pons Aemilius in the second century: the piers were erected by one of the censors of 179/8, whereas the arches were added only by the censors of 143/2, one of whom happened to belong by birth to the gens Aemilia 138 . 137 The consuls of 223 triumphed, respectively, on 10th (C. Flaminius) and 12th March (C. Furius Philus), see Inslt XIII 1, p. 549. We do not know since when the consuls entered into office on the Ides of March, this date being first attested in regard to 217 (Liv. 22.1.4). In 232 the consular year still commenced after the Kalends of April, witness the triumph of M'. Pomponius Matho cos. 233 on 15th March as consul (Mommsen 1859, p. 101-102). Mommsen's suggestion that the change took place precisely in 222 (Mommsen 1859, p. 102-103 and n. 180) does not seem convincing. On the contrary, we should rather expect the consuls of 223, declared vitio creati by the senate (Liv. 21.63.7; Plut. Marc. 4.2-3), to delay their return to Rome until the last days of their imperium, which presupposes the consuls' entering office on the Ides of March already before 223/222. 138 M. Fulvius Nobilior in 179/8 and L. Mummius and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus in 143/2, see Liv. 40.51.4.

305

The other hindrance was Mid-Republican Rome's existing urban situation, inherited from earlier generations. As every organically growing city, Rome was predestined for piecemeal development. The sophisticated town-planning that we discover in Cosa and Alba Fucens was of no use in the metropolis whose development was one of a very gradual expansion from the vast primeval core 139 . At the same time, the above mentioned dispersal of decision-making in the field of public building and, generally, in space economy, entailed in that this development did not proceed according to some master-plan; on the contrary, it was constantly subject to sudden changes of direction, brought about by personal rivalries, family tradition, or simple fashion. The growing importance of public building ex senatus sententia since the middle of the second century onwards testifies to the chaotic conditions in the City whose development had far too long been committed to haphazard activities of a throng of yearly magistrates. Sticking to Mid-Republican examples: the location of Rome's first basilica just by the fish-market, with easily imaginable unsavoury consequences, hardly befitting the gravity of affairs dealt with in this place 140 ; the fact that two hundred years after the pledging of the lex Icilia there was still no decent communication between the Aventine and the rest of the City - bear witness to this surprising lack of consideration for the principles of urban design on the part of people who, as founders of colonies, amply demonstrated their skill as town-planners. The failure on the part of Mid-Republican founders of temples to integrate temples they founded within wider designs was but an aspect of the general failure of town-planning in the City under the Republic.

139

See esp. Castagnoli 1974, Castagnoli 1981. Plaut. Capt. 813-817: tum piscatores, qui praebent populo piscis foetidos, qui advehuntur quadrupedanti, crucianti cantherio, quorum odos subbasilicanos omnis abigit in forum, eis ego ora verberabo surpiculis piscariis, ut sciant, alieno naso quam exhibeant molestiam. See Duckworth 1955, Gaggiotti 1985, though the identification of the basilica in question (the future Basilica Fulvia-Paulli) with the Basilica Aemilia has now been exploded by Steinby 1987, Steinby 1988. 140

306

CONCLUSIONS

I. Recapitulation More than fifty temples were founded in Mid-Republican Rome between the years 396 and 219, compared with eight (or rather five, the remaining three having been royal foundations rededicated by the new regime) founded during the Early Republic and about thirty five in the years 218-50 l. These figures alone show that the Middle Republic was the golden age of temple founding in Rome. This becomes even more manifest considering that almost a half of Late Republican temples were vowed by men born before 218. Out of fifty odd Mid-Republican temples, at least five were founded at the recommendation of priestly colleges, decemvirs and perhaps pontiffs; four or more were built out of multae by the aediles; the remaining forty or so were vowed by the magistrates cum imperio and in overwhelming majority of cases financed by these magistrates' manubiae (ca. thirty-five). Manubial and aedilician temples constituted a new phenomenon that appeared during the Middle Republic: individual foundations, ie. temples vowed on the magistrate's own initiative and constructed without appealing to the senate for state money. Individual temple founding was to a large extent the consequence of the binding character of vota nuncupata - vows made by magis1

Six during the Second Punic War (see n. 2), twelve in the years 201-180 covered by Livy's remaining complete text (see n. 4), ca. fifteen from 179 to the outbreak of the Social War in 91 (see n. 5). The only aedes publica certainly founded in 90-50 was Pompeius' foundation to Venus Victrix; the status of the shrines of Hercules Sullanus and Minerva Pompeiana is uncertain, since they do not figure in the calendars and the two dynasts are known to have restored and rededicated the temples of Hercules Magnus Custos and Hercules Invictus respectively.

307

trates cum imperio for the good of the community. Duly pronounced vows by Imperium-holders for the sake of the Republic could not be challenged, the less so nullified, though this did not automatically entail the state's collaboration, ie. the state's money for their execution. Thus a magistrate's vow to build a temple to a deity, native or foreign, whether or not recognized by the state, did not require a confirmation by another party and could not be ruled invalid. The consecutive stages of founding a temple, locatio and dedication did not require authorization by other parties either, being but consequences of the original votum. Yet they had to be performed by persons juridically entitled, who could also summon an augur to inaugurate the locus chosen (locatio) and a pontiff to recite the formula of consecratio (dedicatio). This was the prerogative of higher magistrates; but since locatio sometimes, and dedicatio (performed when the temple's construction was achieved) nearly always, took place several years after the votum, vow-makers or their next-of-kin who wanted to officiate during these ceremonies were obliged either to let themselves be created duumviri aedibus locandis dedicandis or wait for another higher magistracy. The former eventuality was most common with communal foundations; the latter was preferred by individual temple founders as emphasizing the link between the vow-maker and the temple, with the result that in one extreme case thirty-two years elapsed between the vow and the dedication. The founding in 304 of the first aedilician temple, ie. a temple vowed (and, in this instance, located and dedicated) by the magistrate sine imperio, provoked a major conflict with the pontifex maximus, who on this very ground refused at first to perform the temple's consecratio. This in turn caused the passing of the law that gave the plebeian assembly the right to nominate persons capable of perfoming dedicatio (essentially lesser magistrates) ; the lex Papiria tribunicia invoked by Cicero in de domo sua was most probably a repetition of this law. It is characteristic that the vow itself, though made by the aedile, was not challenged. Another of magistrates' prerogatives in regard to temple founding was their freedom to choose a temple's site. Their only constraint in this respect was the availability of public land. Temples could be located within and beyond the pomerium irrespective of the deity involved, though in the four «Servian» regions, inhabited since time immemorial, the only suitable loci were scanty areae sacrae already dedicated to particular deities, which considerably reduced the founders' choice. Hence the ever grow308

ing number of temples located beyond the confines of the original settlement: on the Aventine slope of the Circus Maximus and on the hill itself, on the river front of the City (the Portus, the Insula and the Forum Holitorium), in the Campus Martius and outside the Porta Collina. It should, however, be added that the distribution of Mid-Republican temples reveals one astounding characteristic which continues into the consecutive period: within the four urban regions the temples were concentrated almost exclusively in the areas of the original oppida, namely in the regio Palatina and on the Quirinal. The pattern was reflected in the distribution of temples outside the pomerium, with not a single temple located south of the Porta Collina and east of the Porta Capena. The really decisive factor for the fundamental distinction between communal and individual temples was the method of financing their construction. We do not know who initiated or confirmed vows to build temples made prior to the appearance of individual temple founding, but some sort of consultation would have been indispensable, if only to obtain money for the temple's construction. We also know of vows certainly made on magistrates' own initiative, which resulted in temples financed by the state; such temples were obviously communal foundations as well. In the matter of selecting a locus for a communal temple the senate, which controlled the state treasury, also seems to have had a say, perhaps the final one. Yet in the case of temples financed ex manubiis or ex multaticia pecunia, the vow-maker could dispense with the state's aid altogether, which means dispensing with the state's supervision. Only these temples can therefore be defined as truly individual foundations. Some eighty per cent of Mid-Republican temples belonged to this category; it is also worth observing that only one of the temples built in the years 201-91 was a communal foundation (see below; the Second Punic War with its two individual and four communal temples 2 constitutes, not surprisingly, an exceptional period). We can therefore safely state that the practically unrestricted freedom of vowing temples and erecting them in places of their choice which the magistrates possessed throughout the Republic, combined with the generals' right to manubiae and the aediles' multae, was the necessary condition of the enormous temple founding activity in Mid-Republican Rome. 2

Temples of Concordia in Arce (vowed in 218), Venus Erycina in Capitolio (217), Mens (217), Iuventas (207, individual), the Magna Mater (204) and Fortuna Primigenia (204, individual). 309

A condition necessary, yet insufficient. For a long time this freedom remained latent. The slow pace of communal temple founding of the Early Republic was maintained in the fourth century, when one or rather two royal foundations were restored and three communal temples founded ab initio; one sacrum privatum, founded in that century by the matronae, also found its way among the aedes publicae. This modest score matches the first stage of the Roman conquest which followed the fight for survival of the preceding century: a laborious process with little progress and few gains other than land. But already the last quarter of the fourth century augurs the shape of things to come: following L. Papirius Cursor's première to Quirinus in 325 three other individual foundations were launched, including the first aedilician one. A veritable flood of individual temple foundations from 296 onwards corresponds chronologically with the phenomenal expansion of the Republic after the climactic years of the Third Samnitic War, which provided that other prerequisite: movable booty in quantities undreamt of before. Thirty odd manubial foundations plus three or more aedilician ones decisively affected the communal temple founding: at least four temples were vowed and constructed in 298-219 by orders of the priestly colleges alone, compared with one in the fourth century and two in the fifth. Together with the three temples vowed by orders of the libri fatales during the Second Punic War we arrive at an impressive figure of seven temples founded in the third century on the priests' recommendation (out of the total of eleven throughout the Republic 3) - a striking corroboration of the temple founding obsession of the Romans of the day.

II. Mid-Republican temple founding and the history of Rome The Middle Republic may have been the golden age of temple founding but the latter's prerequisites - magistrates' prerogatives and ample financial means - continued to be in force in the subsequent period as well. Dating the decline of temple founding as a phenomenon of Mid-Republican intensity seems to be a convenient starting point for an attempt to assess the significance of this phenomenon in its «lay» aspect. 3 The remaining four were the temples of Ceres (dedicated in 493), Apollo (431), Mars (388) and Venus Verticordia (after 113).

310

The change came during the first half of the second century. Between the end of the Second Punic War and the break of Livy's complete narrative (201-180) eleven temples were vowed by magistrates cum imperio and one by an aedile 4 - as good a performance as any in the third century. But in the extant text of Livy's covering the years 179-167 no vowing of a temple is recorded, though, eg., the founding of the temple of Nymphae seems to have been lost in one of the numerous lacunae of the pentad. Other sources are silent on temple founding, too, until the short-lived boom in the half-generation of the Third Punic War. Admittedly, the beginning of this silence corresponds rather disquietingly with the break of Livy's continuous text, but it would still be difficult to reckon more than fifteen temples founded in the years 179-91 5 . This would actually be quite respectable a figure, but a comparison with the years 298-219 and with the twelve temples vowed in 201-180 shows better than anything else that the heydey of temple founding was over with the passing of the generation which grew up during the Second Punic War and which can rightly be called the last generation of the Middle Republic. At least as significant as the sheer drop in absolute figures is the fact that after the temple of Faunus, vowed in 197, we hear of no more aedilician foundations and that the only second century temple ordered by the Sibylline Books - that of Venus Verticordia - was founded as a deliberate resurrection of an ancient practice, in most unusual circumstances which, apart from this vow, warranted another most gruesome borrowing from the past: burying 4 Temples of Veiovis in Insula (vowed in 200), Iuno Sospita (197), Veiovis inter duos lucos (196), Faunus (196, aedilician), Victoria Virgo (195), Pietas (191), Lares Permarini (190), Hercules Musarum (189), Iuno Regina (187), Diana (187), Venus Erycina (184), Fortuna Equestris (181/0). The last of these temples is actually mentioned at the very beginning of Livy's incomplete text which starts after Book 40.37.3 (40.40.10, 44.8-10, see 42.3.1-11). 5 Ten temples securely dated to these years were those of Felicitas (vowed in 151), Iuppiter Stator (148/7), Hercules Victor in Foro Boario (147/6), Hercules Victor ad Portam Trigeminam (146), Mars Invictus (138/7), Virtus (133), Concordia (121, probably a radical reconstruction of Cn. Flavius' aedicula), Venus Verticordia (113), Honos et Virtus (102/1), Fortuna Huiusce Diei (101). Four others that most probably can be attributed to this period were those of Nymphae, Castor et Pollux in Circo Flaminio, Iuppiter Invictus and the second temple of Iuno Moneta.

311

alive a pair of Greeks and a pair of Gauls in the Forum Boarium 6 . As for the known manubial foundations of the period, the circumstances that occasioned their vowing can be reduced - with the exception of the temple, of Felicitas - to two situations only. The five temples vowed in 148-133 by P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, L. Mummius, Q. Caecilius Metellus and D. Iunius Brutus were visible tokens of the many-sided struggle, ostensibly for military renown but with exceptionally strong political undertones, between the younger Africanus (Hercules Victor, Virtus) and his rivals, the Achaicus (Hercules Victor), the Macedonicus (Iuppiter Stator) and the Callaicus (Mars Invictus) 7 . The other duel with temples, this time for the glory of the victory over the Cimbri, led at the turn of the second century to C. Marius' foundation to Honos et Virtus and Q. Lutatius Catulus' to Fortuna Huiusce Diei; in this case the political and ideological context was even more pronounced. We thus have every right to conclude that during the second century temple founding passed from being an almost routine activity for the Roman élite to something like an exceptional event. It is symptomatic that two of the six generals mentioned above, Scipio Aemilianus and Mummius, are glorified by the tradition for having taken nothing for themselves out of the enormous booty they had won 8 ; the same is implied in the case of a third, Marius 9 . In other words, whatever manubiae they had set

6

See Fraschetti 1981, passim, esp. p. 69-70, 83-85. On the politics of that period, especially on Scipio Aemilianus as Popularis, see Astin 1967 passim; on the impact of this rivalry on temple founding, see Gros 1976A, Gros 1978. 8 Scipio Aemilianus: Pol. 18.35.9-12; Cic. de off. 2.76; Plut. de fort. I; Val.Max. 4.3.13. Mummius: Cic. de off. 2.76; Frontin. Strat. 4.3.15. Another abstainer glorified by the ancient tradition was L. Aemilius Paullus cos. 182, 168, see Pol. 18.35.4-5; Cic. de off. 2.76; Plut. Aem. 39.10. 9 Cass. Dio 18, fr. 94.1 (I p. 336 Boiss.) together with Plut. Marius 21.4-5 suggest that after Aquae Sextiae, when the soldiers renounced all their claims to enemy spoils on behalf of their commander, Marius nevertheless gave them all the booty by means of a fictitious sale. In view of Sallust's censure of optimate generals' greed (Sail. BI 41.7, 85) and his account of Marius' disposal of booty in Numidia (BI 87.1) we can be sure that granting all the booty to soldiers was this general's constant policy. In the campaign of 101, the democratic commander-in-chief no doubt acted in the usual way, in contrast with the comportment of his optimate second-in-command who appropriated enough manubiae to build himself 7

312

apart were used exclusively for public benefit. Extolling someone for his self-restraint makes sense only if the usual practice is entirely different. If renouncing one's legitimate share in the booty could be turned to political advantage, the manubiae appropriated by the second century generals will have made a very large proportion of war spoils, thus considerably affecting the sums allocated for other purposes; also, the Romans of the day must have been keenly aware of this. Our haphazard and scanty evidence plainly shows that during the second century the share of manubiae in the booty which generals had at their disposal ran higher and higher; at the same time these manubiae were now reserved almost exclusively for the generals' private use 10. The ostentatious, politically discounted restraint of Mummius and Scipio finds a terse counterpart in Sallust: praedas bellicas imperatores cum paucis diripiebant n . Generals' manubiae for public use, ie., in practice, individual temple founding 12, were after the treasury's share in the praeda the second victim of the rise of money as a political weapon and the changed way of life of the Roman élite which resulted in a dramatic increase in private spending 13. a magnificent house and a private portico (see Platner-Ashby, s.v. domus Catuli, porticus Catuli). 10 Our evidence commences with fragments of Cato's speeches, see ORF5 fr. 98, 168, 173, 203, 224-226. Then follow Appian's accusations levelled against L. Licinius Lucullus cos. 151 and Ser. Sulpicius Galba pr. 151 cos. 144 (Iber. 215, 230, 255), and Sallust's diatribes against the nobilitas of the last decades of the second century (see n. 9). Cato's speeches were broadly contemporary with the first recorded cases of generals appropriating large private manubiae (C. Lucretius Gallus pr. 171, see Liv. 43.4.6-7, and Cn. Octavius pr. 168 cos. 165, see Cic. de off. 1.138) and with L. Aemilius Paullus' abstaining from the Macedonian booty (see n. 8). This correspondence indicates that the problem of generals' private manubiae became an issue in that period. 11 Sail. BI 41.7. 12 The three known manubial constructions for public use of the period which were not temples were the porticoes: Octavia (founded by Cn. Octavius pr. 168), Metelli (founded by Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonica pr. 148) and Minucia (founded by M. Minucius Rufus cos. 110). See the relevant entries in Platner-Ashby. It might be worth observing that the latter two are known to have been monumental enclosures of temples. The function of the Porticus Octavia will in all probability have been similar even if we cannot say with which temple, or group of temples, it was associated. 13 With the revenues from the provinces and the instalments of contributions from the defeated enemies flowing into the treasury, the state's

313

The fortunes of temple founding in Late as well as Mid-Republican Rome were thus intimately cpnnected with that peculiar Roman characteristic, the great power of the higher magistrates and, more precisely, with their unrestricted freedom in disposing of war booty. Individual foundations by the Imperium -holders not only constitued the greatest and continually growing part of temples constructed in Rome, but also fostered temple founding by the aediles and the community. Similarly, the relative decline of manubial temple founding coincided with the disappearance of the other kinds of foundations. It might therefore be worthwhile to reflect on how the generals' right to dispose of the booty according to their wish - somewhat surprising for a Mediterranean citystate - asserted itself and held till the end of the Republic, and what role was played in this by temple founding. The problem is of great significance for the history of Rome: after all, it was the manubiae that enabled the dynasts of the last decades of the Republic to bid - successfully, in the long run - for monarchy. Magistrates cum imperio inherited the freedom to dispose of war booty, including the right to manubiae, from the kings. No law defined these rights which were obviously inseparable from the notion of imperium 14. Curtailing the almost royal prerogatives of the consuls continued by means of legislation, but the essential step in weakening the chief magistracy was a virtual disappear-

share of booty in ordinary campaigns surely lost importance (the East and, till a certain moment, Spain were special cases). The first striking case of the aerarium being neglected by the generals was the disposal of the Ligurian booty by L. Aemilius Paullus cos. I 182, and Q. Fulvius Flaccus cos. 179. Each gave his soldiers 300 asses per head (a very large sum, considering the times and the enemy, see Brunt 1971, tab. IX) whereas the only item which may have found its way to the treasury were twentyfive golden crowns displayed in Paullus' triumph (Liv. 40.34.8). Ser. Sulpicius Galba, upbraided for his greed and avarice (see n. 10), nevertheless gave some of the booty to his friends and soldiers; the aerarium apparently did not receive a penny. In 146 Scipio Aemilianus gave to the treasury the negligible quantity of 4 370 pounds of silver (Plin. NH 33.141), though his triumph was hailed as particularly magnificent (App. Lib. 642) and his generosity to soldiers became almost proverbial (App. Lib. 631 ; see «Plut». Apopht. Scip. Min. 1 : \iakicxa x(bv cxQaxriYWV Kkovxicavxa toajg cTQOtia>xag). In the first century the sums turned to the aerarium by Lucullus and even Pompeius, great as they were, were a small fraction of the soldiers' share, the pars amicorum and especially the generals' private manubiae. 14 On this aspect of imperium, see Mommsen 1887-88, I, p. 116136.

314

ance of the consulate after 445. Not only were the two all-powerful presidents of the Republic replaced by the college of three, then four, and finally six tribuni militum consulari potestate; these, though possessing both imperium and auspicia 15, could not celebrate a triumph 16 and are not known to have ever performed votum, locatio or dedicatio of a temple in their own right. It does not follow that they lacked the right to manubiae or that the vows they pronounced were not binding for the community, but there is no doubt that the potestas of consular tribunes lacked certain prerogatives that were not necessary for performing their main functions of waging war and providing succession of authority 17. Besides, the campaigns waged in the years 444-367 by consular tribunes (and consuls, too) brought too little in terms of movable booty, suspense and glory to cause a trial of the strength of their vota nuncupata, or of their freedom to dispose of booty as they willed 18. The one exceptional instance which brought up these aspects of imperium was the conquest of Veii. But vowing a tithe of all the booty to the Pythian Apollo and the evocatio of Iuno Regina were works of the extraordinary magistrate whose power was regal in everything but duration. So, though the quarrel over the Veientine booty led to serious disturbances (and, according to the tradition, to Camillus' exile), it did not bring about a legislation regulating the matter of controversy. Apart from the universally perceived extraordinary character of dictator-

15

Mommsen 1887-88, I p. 271 n. 1, II p. 188-189. Mommsen 1887-88, I p. 128, II p. 190, Versnel 1970, p. 186187, 350-351. 17 It is interesting to note that the consular tribunes' contested right to appoint a dictator was asserted in 426 by the decree of the college of augurs (see Linderski 1986, p. 2180-2181). Clearly, the dictatorship was too important for the efficient running of the state to fuss about the solidity of auspices of the magistrates who pronounced the dictio. 18 Accounts such as the sack of Anxur in 406 in Liv. 4.59.4-10, are misleading because in the fifth century Roman armies operating against the Volsci, the Aequi and the Sabines would in reality have been confederate forces of the Roman-Latin-Hernican alliance, commanded by confederate generals. Even if the latter happened to be Roman magistrates, the division of booty, ever a delicate matter among the allies (see eg. Aymard 1957), had to be conducted in terms of absolute equality. This explains the apparently strange comportment of the conqueror of Anxur - no matter whether N. Fabius Ambustus, as in Livy, or someone else - who postponed plundering until the arrival of the armies of his colleagues. 16

315

ship, and so of the dictator's actions, Camillus' dispositions with regard to movable booty were retained probably because of the magnitude of his achievement, which put the community under obligation to the gods he had summoned, and also because the main bone of contention - the assignment of the ager Veientinus lay entirely beyond the scope of the dictator's competence, his votwn notwithstanding. Be that as it may, it is highly significant that the next two individual vows to build temples were made by dictators as well; that to Iuno Moneta was also the first battle vow in Rome's history, whereas that to Quirinus resulted in the first individual temple foundation. But in the meantime the institutional evolution of the Republic made a sharp turn 19. With the struggle of the orders gathering momentum, restitution of the consulate became trje battle cry of the plebeians. Hence the victory of the plebeian revindications led to the reconstitution of the powerful chief magistracy. The next stage of the plebeians' fight institutionally centred on the role of concilia plebis in the state and had the senate and its auctoritas as the main antagonist. The consulate, thrown unrestrictedly open to the plebeian élite after the near revolution of 342 20 , was largely left untouched; though the consuls lost some prerogatives concerned with internal politics 21 , with regard to war their power remained unscathed. So, when in 311 C. Iunius Bubulcus Brutus while consul made a vow to Salus with the intention of building the temple as his individual foundation, with his own manubiae, no one was there to oppose him, whether on account of his use of war booty or the substance of his votum. It seems that the ultimate crisis came in the latter phase of the Third Samnitic War and during the subsequent mopping up of Italy, when the disposal of movable booty became a political issue for the first time since the conquest of Veii one hundred years earlier. This time, however, it was not an isolated event but an institutional crisis, which surely lasted for at least one generation,

19 The bibliography on the institutional evolution of the Republic in the fourth century can be found in Ferenczy 1976. 20 The political side of this near revolution is best treated in Heurgon 1942, p. 245-259; on the prosographic aspect of the seditio and its aftermath, see Münzer 1920, p. 32-37. 21 The most important loss was caused by the passing of the plebiscitum Ovinii, see Ferenczy 1976 passim.

316

obscured though it is by the loss of Livy's second decade 22 . Only in those years a legislation might have been passed which could have curtailed the magistrates' freedom to dispose of their booty, and thus also put their manuhiae under some control. The loss of Livy leaves it open whether any attemps were actually made in this direction, but there is little doubt that temple founding helped the imperatore^ to reassert this prerogative of theirs when it was caught between the Scylla of the people's expectations and the Charybdis of the senate's collective dislike of excessive popularity seeking on the part of its individual members. To sum up. Although the exclusion of the religious context from the study of temple founding might seem a hazardous venture - temples, after all, were founded mainly for religious reasons with the founders' prestige a close second - the conclusions, in this work, indicate in my view that more can be learned about the history of the Republic from temple foundations. Mid-Republican temple founding seems to have played the role of a safety valve which helped the Romans to absorb the great influx of booty in the first phase of their imperial expansion, without making them reassess the generals' prerogatives in the matter of booty disposal. When in the first decades of the second century a new quantitative jump in the size of war spoils brought the question of booty disposal once again to the fore, this time with the stress laid on the manuhiae 23 , the tradition of the generals' prerogatives was

22 In all the legendary disputes dated by Livy to the fifth century, the matter of contention was the generals' having either distributed all the booty among the soldiers or turned it all to the aerarium. They cannot therefore be linked with the attacks against generals' manuhiae launched in the second century by Cato (see below). When Livy's narrative is resumed in 218, the custom is already fully established. 23 We learn about this question mainly from Cato's speeches, in which generals' private manuhiae and the pars amicorum are equated with robbing the soldiers, see esp. fr. 173 ( = 203): numquam ego praedam neque quod de hostibus captum esset neque manubias inter pauculos amicos meos divisi, ut Ulis eriperem qui cepissent, and the fragment of his speech de praeda militihus dividenda (fr. 224): fures... privatorum furtorum in nervo atque in compedibus aetatem agunt, fures publici in auro atque in purpura (the title of the speech leaves little doubt that thieves in gold and purple are generals, contra Shatzamn 1972, p. 199, where aurum atque purpura simply stand for the symbol of wealth). The Leitmotif of these fragments - that booty properly belonged to the soldiers (see also fr. 98) - is echoed in the saying of Scipio Aemilianus quoted in n. 13.

317

too deeply rooted and the vested interests of the Roman élite in maintaining the custom too strong to give the would-be reformer M. Porcius Cato and his like the ghost of a chance 24 .

24

Astin 1978, p. 53 n. 7, is sceptical about Shatzman's argument that Cato attempted to pass legislation on the matter (Shatzman 1972, p. 199), but I do not see how else could we explain the title of Cato's speech de praeda militibus dividenda. Cato's intentions seem obvious, but of course it is an altogether different question whether his initiative found any response.

318

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMAT SEGUIN 1988 =

B. AMAT SEGUIN, Ariminum et Flaminius,

RSA 16 (1988), p. 79-109. AMBROSCH 1839 = J A AMBROSCH, Studien und Andeutungen im

Gebiet des altrömischen Bodens und Cultus, Breslau 1839. AMPOLO 1970 = C. AMPOLO, LArtemide di Marsiglia e la Diana dell'Aventino, PP 25 (1970), p. 200-210. AMPOLO 1988 = C. AMPOLO, in Plutarco, Le vite di Teseo e Romolo, Milano 1988. AMPOLO-BARTOLONI

=

C. AMPOLO, G. BARTOLONI, Periodo IV B

(640/50-580 a.C.) in La formazione delle città nel Lazio, DArch NS 2 (1980), p. 165-192. ASTIN 1967 = A.E. ASTIN, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford 1967. ASTIN 1978 = A.E. ASTIN, Cato the Censor, Oxford 1978. AUST 1889 = E. AUST, De aedibus sacris populi Romani inde a primis rei publicae temporibus usque ad Augusti Imperatoris aetatem Romae conditis, Diss. Marpurgi Cattorum 1889. AYMARD 1957 = A. AYMARD, Le partage des profits de la guerre dans les traités d'alliance antiques, RH 217 (1957), p. 233249. BABELON 1924-36 = J. BABELON, Catalogue de la collection de Luynes. Monnaies grecques, Paris 1924-36. BARDON 1955 = H. BARDON, La naissance d'un temple, REL 33

(1955), p. 166-182. BARTOLONI-CATALDI DINI = G. BARTOLONI, M. CATALDI DINI, Pe-

riodo IVA (750/20-640/50 a.C.) in La formazione delle città nel Lazio, DArch NS 2 (1980), p. 125-164. BASANOFF 1941 = V. BASANOFF, Junon falisque et ses cultes à Rome, RHR 124 (1941), p. 110-141. BASANOFF 1947 = V. BASANOFF, Evocatio. Etude d'un rituel militale romain, Paris 1947. 319

1926 = J. BAYET, Les origines de VHercule romain, BEFAR 132, Paris 1926. BECATTI 1943-45 = G. .BECATTI, Un rilievo con le oche capitoline e la basilica di Ostia, BC 71 (1943-45), p. 31-46. BEDINI-CORDANO = A. BEDINI, F. CORDANO, Periodo III 770730/20 a.C.) in La formazione delle città nel Lazio, DArch NS 2 (1980), p. 97-124. BELOCH 1926 - K.J. BELOCH, Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Runischen Kriege, Berlin - Leipzig 1926. BERTOLDI 1968 = M.E. BERTOLDI, Un monumento commemorativo sul Campidoglio, in Studi di topografìa romana, QuadlstTopAnt 5, Roma 1968, p. 39-54. BESNIER 1902 = M. BESNIER, L'ile tiberine dans VAntiquité, BEFAR 87, Paris 1902. BIGOT 1911 = P. BIGOT, Le temple de Iuppiter Ultor et la Vigna Barberini, BC 39 (1911), p. 80-85. BLAKE 1947 = M.E. BLAKE, Ancient Roman Constructions in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus, Washington D.C. 1947. BLEICKEN 1955 = J. BLEICKEN, Das Volkstribunat der klassischen Republik. Studien zu seiner Entwicklung zwischen 287 und 133 c.Chr., Zetemata 13, München 1955. BLEICKEN 1975 = J. BLEICKEN, Lex Publica. Gesetz und Recht in der römischen Republik, Berlin - New York 1975. BÖMER 1957-58 = F. BÖMER, P. Ovidius. Die Fasten, Heidelberg 1957-58. BOUCHÉ LECLERCQ 1879-88 = A. BOUCHÉ LECLERCQ, Histoire de la divination dans Vantiquité, Paris 1879-88. BOYANCÉ 1940 = P. BOYANCÉ, Aedes Catuli, MEFR 57 (1940), p. 64-71= Etudes sur la religion romaine, MEFR Suppl.ìì, Paris 1972, p. 187-193. BRAVO-GRIFFIN = B. BRAVO, M. GRIFFIN, Un frammento del libro XI di Tito Livio?, Athenaeum NS 66 (1988), p. 447-521. BROUGHTON 1951-52 = T.R.S. BROUGHTON, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, New York 1951-52. BRUNO 1907 = B. BRUNO, La terza guerra sannitica, Roma 1907. BRUNT 1971 = P.A. BRUNT, Italian Manpower. 225 B.C. A.D. 14, Oxford 1971. BUTTREY 1980 - T.V. BUTTREY, Cosa: the Coins, MAAR 34, Rome 1980, p. 7-155. 2 CARCOPINO 1965 = J. CARCOPINO, Jules Cesar , Paris 1965. BAYET

CARETTONI 1960 = G. CARETTONI, Excavations and Discoveries

320

in the Forum and the Palatine, JRS 50 (I960), p. 192-203. 1900 = J.B. CARTER, The Cognomina of the Goddess «Fortuna», TARA 31 (1900), p. 60-68. Case e palazzi = Case e palazzi d'Etruria, Milano 1985. CASSATELLA 1985 = A. CASSATELLA, // tratto orientale della Sacra Via in Roma. Archeologia nel Centro, LSA 6.1, Roma 1985, p. 99-105. CASSATELLA-VENDITELLI = A. CASSATELLA, L. VENDITELLI, Santuario di Diana suit'Aventino: il problema della localizzazione in Roma. Archeologia nel Centro, LSA 6.2, Roma 1985, p. 442-451. CASSOLA 1962 = F. CASSOLA, / gruppi politici romani del III secolo a.C, Trieste 1962. CARTER

CASTAGNOLI 1945 = F. CASTAGNOLI, // problema dell'«Ara di

Domizio Enobarbo», Arti Figurative 1 (1945), p. 181-196. CASTAGNOLI 1946 = F. CASTAGNOLI, // tempio dei Penati e la

Velia, RFIC 74 (1946), p. 157-165. 1948 = F. CASTAGNOLI, // Campo Marzio nell'antichità, MemAccLinc 8.1 (1948), p. 93-193. CASTAGNOLI 1951-52 = F. CASTAGNOLI, Note di topografìa romana, BC 74 (1951-52), p. 44-56. CASTAGNOLI 1964 = F. CASTAGNOLI, Note sulla topografia del Palatino e del Foro Romano, ArchClass 16 (1964), p. 173199. CASTAGNOLI 1974 = F. CASTAGNOLI, Topografìa urbanistica di Roma nel W secolo a.C, StRom 22 (1974), p. 425-443. CASTAGNOLI

CASTAGNOLI 1979 = F. CASTAGNOLI, SU alcuni problemi topogra-

fici del Palatino, RendAccLinc 8.34 (1979), p. 331-347. 1979A = F. CASTAGNOLI, // culto della Mater Matuta e della Fortuna nel Foro Boario, StRom 27 (1979), p. 145-152. CASTAGNOLI 1981 = F. CASTAGNOLI, Aspetti urbanistici di Roma e del Lazio in età arcaica in 150 fahre Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1829-1979, Mainz 1981, p. 133-142. CASTAGNOLI 1982 = F. CASTAGNOLI, Aedes deum Penatium in Velia, RFIC 110 (1982), p. 495-499. CASTAGNOLI 1983 = F. CASTAGNOLI, L'introduzione del culto dei Dioscuri nel Lazio, StRom, 31 (1983), p. 3-12. CASTAGNOLI 1983A = F. CASTAGNOLI, Raffigurazioni numismatiche del Sepolcro di Romolo figlio di Massenzio, RendAccLinc , 38 (1983), p. 275-286. CASTAGNOLI 1984 = F. CASTAGNOLI, II tempio romano: questioni di terminologia e tipologia, PBSR 52 (1984), p. 3-20. CASTAGNOLI

321

CASTAGNOLI 1988 = F. CASTAGNOLI, «Ibam forte Sacra Via» {Hör., Sat. I 9, 1) in Topografia romana. Ricerche e discussioni, QuadTopAnt 10 (1988), p. 99-114. CATALANO 1960 = P. CATALANO, Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale, Torino 1960. CATALANO 1978 = P. CATALANO, Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico -religioso romano. Mundus, templum, urbs, ager, Latium, Italia, ANRW 2.16.1, Berlin - New York 1978, p. 440-553. CAVALLARO 1976 = A. CAVALLARO, Duride, i «Fasti Capitolini» e la tradizione storiografica delle «devotiones» dei Decii, ASAA 38 (1976), p. 261-299. CELS SAINT HILAIRE 1977 =

J. CELS SAINT-HILAIRE, Le fonction-

nement des Floralia sous la République, DHA 3 (1977), p. 253-286. CHAMPEAUX 1982 = J. CHAMPEAUX, Fortuna. Recherches sur le

eulte de la Fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain des origines à la mort de Cesar, CollEFR 64, I: Fortuna dans la religion archaique, Rome 1982. CHAMPEAUX 1987 = }. CHAMPEAUX, Fortuna..., II: Les transfor-

mations de Fortuna sous la République, Rome 1987. CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE 1925 = P.D. CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUS-

SAYE, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte 4 , Tübingen 1925. CHIRASSI COLOMBO 1981 = I. CHIRASSI COLOMBO, Funzioni poli-

tiche e implicazioni culturali nell'ideologia religiosa di Ceres nell'impero romano, ANRW 2.17.1, Berlin - New York 1981, p. 403-428. COARELLI 1965-67 = F. COARELLI, // tempio di Bellona, BC 80 (1965-67), p. 37-72. COARELLI 1968 = F. COARELLI, L'«Ara di Domizio Enobarbo» e la cultura artistica in Roma nel II sec. a.C, DArch 2 (1968), p. 302-368. COARELLI 1968A = F. COARELLI, L'identificazione dell Area sacra deWArgentina, Palatino 12 (1968), p. 365-373. COARELLI 1968B = F. COARELLI, Navalia, Tarentum e la topografìa del Campo Marzio meridionale in Studi di topografia romana, QuadlstTopAnt 5 (1968), p. 27-37. COARELLI 1968C = F. COARELLI, La Porta Trionfale e la via dei Trionfi, DArch 2 (1968), p. 55-103. COARELLI 1968D = F. COARELLI, II tempio di Bellona identificato a Roma, Archeologia 7 (1968), p. 14-22.

322

CoARELLi 1969 = F. CoARELLi, Le Tyrannoctone du Capitol et la mort de Tiberius Gracchus, MEFR 81 (1969), p. 137-160. CoARELLi 1977 = F. CoARELLi, // Campo Marzio occidentale. Storia e topografìa, MEFRA 89 (1977), p. 807-846. COARELLI 1981 = F. COARELLI, L'area sacra di Largo Argentina. I: Topografìa e storia, Roma 1981, p. 9-80. COARELLI 1981A = F. COARELLI, Il foro in età arcaica: Regia, via Sacra, Comizio in Archeologia Laziale IV, QuadAEI 5 (1981), p. 241-248. COARELLI 1983 = F. COARELLI, Il Foro Romano. Periodo arcaico, Roma 1983. COARELLI 1985 = F. COARELLI, // Foro Romano. Periodo repubblicano e augusteo, Roma 1985. COARELLI 1985A = F. COARELLI, Guide archeologiche Laterza. Roma 3 , Roma - Bari 1985. COARELLI 1986 = F. COARELLI, J.-C. GRENIER, La tombe d'Ariti-

noüs à Rome, MEFRA 98 (1986), p. 217-253. COARELLI 1986A = F. COARELLI, L'Urbs e il suburbio in Società romana e Impero tardoantico. Roma: politica, economia, paesaggio urbano, II, Roma - Bari 1986, p. 1-58. COARELLI 1988 = F. COARELLI, // Foro Boario dalle origini alla fine della repubblica, Roma 1988. COHEN 1880-92 = H. COHEN, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain communément appellees medailles imperiales 2 , Paris - Londres 1880-92. COLINI 1933 = A.M. COLINI, Scoperte tra il Foro della Pace e Anfiteatro, BC (1933), p. 80-87. COLINI 1937 = A.M. COLINI, Forum Pads, BC 65 (1937), p. 740. COLINI 1942 = A.M. COLINI, Aedes Veiovis inter arcem et Capitolium, BC 70 (1942), p. 5-56. COLINI 1961-62 = A.M. COLINI, Compitum Adii, BC 78 (196162), p. 147-157. COLINI 1977 = A.M. COLINI, Sant'Omobono. Ambiente e storia dei tempi più antichi in Lazio arcaico e mondo greco, PP 32 (1977), p. 9-19. COLINI 1983 = A.M. COLINI, Considerazioni su la Velia da Ne-

rone in poi, ARID Suppl. 10 (1983), p. 129-145. COLINI 1986

=

G. PISANI SARTORIO, A.M. COLINI, C. BUZZETTI,

Portus Tiberinus in // Tevere e le altre vie d'acqua del Lazio antico, Archeologia Laziale VII 2, QuadAEI 12 (1986), p. 157-197. COLINI-BUZZETTI = A.M. COLINI, C. BUZZETTI, Aedes Portuni in

323

Portu Tiberino, BC 91 (1986), p. 7-30. 1962 = G. COLONNA, Sull'origine del culto di Diana Aventinense, PP 17 (1962), p. 57-60. COZZA 1968 = L. COZZA, Pianta marmorea severiana: nuove ricomposizioni di frammenti in Studi di topografìa romana, QuadlstTopAnt 5 (1968), p. 9-22. CRAWFORD 1974 = M.H. CRAWFORD, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge 1974. CRAWFORD 1985 = M.H. CRAWFORD, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, London 1985. CRESSEDI 1984 = G. CRESSEDI, // Foro Boario e il Velabro, BC 89 (1984), p. 249-296. CRISTOFANI 1987 = M. CRISTOFANI, I santuarii: tradizioni decorative in Etruria e Lazio arcaico, QuadAEI 15 (1987), p. 95120. CROZZOLI AITE 1981 = L. CROZZOLI AITE, / tre templi del Foro Olitorio, MPAA 13.1. (1981), p. 7-136. DARSY 1968 = F.M.D. DARSY, Recherches archéologiques à Sainte-Sabine sur VAventin, MAC S.II 9, Città del Vaticano 1968. DEGRASSI 1949 = A. DEGRASSI, Epigrafia Romana. I: Roma (1937-46), Doxa 2 (1949), p. 47-135. DEGRASSI 1951-52 = A. DEGRASSI, Le dediche di popoli e re asiatichi al popolo Romano e a Giove Capitolino, BC 74 (1951-52), p. 19-47. DEGRASSI 1965 = CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM LATINARUM. Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Reipublicaes. Imagines. Collegit, praefatus est, notis indicibusque instruxit Atilius Degrassi, Berlin 1965. DELATTE 1936 = L. DELATTE, Recherches sur quelques fètes mobiles du calendrier romain, AntCl 5 (1936), p. 381-404. DELBRÜCK 1903 = R. DELBRÜCK, Die Drei Tempel am Forum Holitorium, Roma 1903. DELBRÜCK 1907-12 = R. DELBRÜCK, Hellenistischen Bauten in Latium, Strassburg 1907-12. DE LUCIA 1978-79 = M.A. DE LUCIA, Una testafittilearcaica delVAracoeli, BC 86 (1978-79), p. 7-15. DE MARINI AVONZO 1967 = F. DE MARINI AVONZO, / limiti alla disponibilità della res litigiosa nel diritto romano, Milano 1967. DE MARTINO 1958-72 = F. DE MARTINO, Storia della costituzione Romana, Napoli 1958-72. DE ROSSI 1878 = M.S. DE ROSSI, Intorno ad un copioso depoCOLONNA

324

sito di stoviglie ed altri oggetti arcaici rinvenuto nel Viminale, BC 1878, p. 64-92. DE RUGGIERO 1913 = E. DE RUGGIERO, // Foro Romano, Roma - Arpino 1913. 2 DE SANCTIS 1953-68 = G. DE SANCTIS, Storia dei Romani , Firenze 1953-68. Di MANZANO 1984 = P. Di MANZANO, Note sulla monetazione dei ludi secolari delV88 d.C, BC 89 (1984), p. 297-304. Di PAOLA 1948 = S. Di PAOLA, Dalla «lex Rapirla» al «ius Papirianum» in Studi Solazzi, Napoli 1948, p. 631-651. DOMASZEWSKI 1909 = A. VON DOMASZEWSKI, Abhandlungen zur römischen Religion, Leipzig - Berlin 1909. DUCKWORTH 1955 = G.E. DUCKWORTH, Plautus and the Basilica Aemilia in Ut pictura poesis. Studia P.I. Enk, Leiden 1955, p. 58-65. Du JARDIN 1934 = L. Du JARDIN, SU l'ubicazione di alcuni monumenti di Roma in Atti III Congr. Naz. Studi Romani I, Bologna 1934, p. 69-81. DUMÉZIL 1954 = G. DUMÉZIL, Rituels indo-européens à Rome, Paris 1954. DUMÉZIL 1966 = G. DUMÉZIL, La religion romaine archaìque, Paris 1966. DURY MOYAERS-RENARD = G. DURY MOYAERS, M. RENARD, Tra-

vaux relatifs au eulte de Junon à Rome, ANRW 2.17.2, Berlin - New York 1981, p. 142-202. EDLUND 1987 = I.E.M. EDLUND, The Gods and the Place. Location and Function of Sanctuaries in the Countryside of Etruria and Magna Graecia (700-400 B.C.), AIRRS 4° 43, Stockholm 1987. ERKELL 1985 = H. ERKELL, Varroniana IL Studi topografici in Varrò, De Lingua Latina 5 §§ 45-50, OpRom 15 (1985), p. 55-65. ERNOUT-MEILLET=A. ERNOUT, A. MEILLET, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Latine, histoire des mots 4, Paris 1959-60. EVANS 1939 = E.C. EVANS, The Cults of the Sabine Territory, PMAAR 11, New York 1939. FEARS 1981 = J.R. FEARS, The cult of Jupiter and Imperial Ideology, ANRW, 2.17.1, Berlin - New York 1981, p. 3-141. FEARS 1981A = J.R. FEARS, The cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology, ANRW 2.17.2, Berlin - New York 1981, p. 827-948. FERENCZY 1976 = E. FERENCZY, From the Patrician State to the Patricio-Plebeian State, Budapest 1976. 325

FRANK 1924 = T. FRANK, Roman Buildings of the Republic. An Attempt to date Them from Their Materials, PMAAR 3, Rome 1924. FRANK 1933 = T. FRANK, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. I: The Republic, Baltimore 1933. FRASCHETTI 1981 = A. FRASCHETTI, Le sepolture rituali del Foro Boario in Le délit religieux dans la cité antique, CollEFR 48, Rome 1981, p. 51-115. FRAZER 1929 = J.G.O. FRAZER, Rubili Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum libri sex. The Fasti of Ovid, London 1929. FRAZER 1966 = A. FRAZER, The iconography of the emperor Ma-

xentius' buildings in via Appia, ABull 48 (1966), p. 385-392. FRUTAZ 1962 = A.P. FRUTAZ, Le piante di Roma, Roma 1962. GAGÉ 1936 = L. GAGÉ, Actiaca, MEFR 53 (1936), p. 37-100. GAGÉ 1963 = J. GAGÉ, Matronalia. Essai sur les devotions et les organisations cultuelles des femmes dans Vancienne Rome, Coli. Latomus 60, Bruxelles 1963. GAGGIOTTI 1985 = M. GAGGIOTTI, Atrium Regium - basilica (Aemilia): una insospettata continuità storica e una chiave ideologica per la soluzione del problema dell'origine della basilica, ARID 14 (1985), p. 53-80. GASPARRI 1979 = C. GASPARRI, Aedes Concordiae Augustae, Roma 1979. GATTI 1888 = G. GATTI, Di un sacello compitale dell'antichissima regione Esquilina, BC 1888, p. 221-239. GATTI 1904 = G. GATTI, Una nuova base di donano offerto alla Fors Fortuna, BC 32 (1904), p. 317-324. GATTI 1940 = G. GATTI, // viadotto della Via Aurelia nel Trastevere, BC 68 (1940), p. 129-141. GATTI 1960 = G. GATTI, Dove erano situati il teatro di Balbo e il Circo Flaminio?, Capitolium 25 (1960), 7, p. 3-12. GATTI 1979 = G. GATTI, // teatro e la Crypta di Balbo in Roma, MEFRA 91 (1979), p. 237-313. GIANNELLI 1978 = G. GIANNELLI, La leggenda dei Mirabilia e

l'antica topografia dell'Arce Capitolina, StRom 26 (1978), p. 60-71. GIANNELLI 1980-81 = G. GIANNELLI, // tempio di Giunone Moneta e la casa di Marco Manlio Capitolino, BC 87 (1980-81), p. 7-36. GIESECKE

1923 = W.

GIESECKE,

Sicilia

Numismatica.

Die

Grundlagen des Griechischen Münzwesens auf Sizilien, Leipzig 1923. GILBERT 1883-90 = O. GILBERT, Geschichte und Topographie

326

der Stadt Rom in Alterthum, Leipzig 1883-90. GILBERT 1886 = O. GILBERT, Der Tempel der Magna Mater in Rom, Philologus 45 (1886), p. 449-468. GIOVENALE 1927 = G.B. GIOVENALE, La basilica di S. Maria in

Cosmedin, Roma 1927. GIRARD 1981 = J.L. GIRARD, Minerve dans la religion romaine au temps du principat, ANRW 2.17.1, Berlin - New York 1981, p. 204-232. GIULIANI 1968 = C.F. GIULIANI, Ricerche per la ricomposizione

di un monumento commemorativo sul Campidogolio in Studi di topografìa romana, QuadlstTopAnt 5, Roma 1968, p. 5562. GIULIANI 1970 = C.F. GIULIANI, Tibur. Pars prima in Forma Italiae I 7, Roma 1970. GJERSTAD 1953 = E. GJERSTAD, Early Rome. I: Stratigraphical Researches in the Forum Romanum and along the Sacra Via, AIRRS 4° 17:1, Lund 1953. GJERSTAD

1954 = E. GJERSTAD,

The Fortifications

of Early

Rome, OpRom 1 (1954), p. 50-65. GJERSTAD 1956 = E. GJERSTAD, Early Rome. II: The Tombs, AIRRS 4° 17:2, Lund 1956. GJERSTAD 1960 = E. GJERSTAD, Early Rome. Ill: Fortifications, Domestic Architecture, Sanctuaries, Stratigraphic Excavations, AIRRS 4° 17:3, Lund 1960. GJERSTAD 1962 = E. GJERSTAD, Legends and Facts in Early Roman History, Lund 1962. GJERSTAD 1962A = E. GJERSTAD, The temple of Saturnus in Rome. Its date of dedication and the early history, in Hommages à A. Grenier, Coll. Latomus 58, Bruxelles 1962, p. 757-762. GJERSTAD 1966 = E. GJERSTAD, Early Rome. IV 1: Synthesis of Archaeological Evidence, AIRRS 4° 17:4, Lund 1966. GJERSTAD 1973 = E. GJERSTAD, Early Rome. V: Written Sources, AIRRS 4° 17:5, Lund 1973. GJERSTAD 1973A = E. GJERSTAD, Early Rome. VI: Historical Survey, AIRRS 4° 17:6, Lund 1973. GNECCHI 1912 = F. GNECCHI, / medaglioni romani, Milano 1912. GRANDAZZI

1986 = A. GRANDAZZI, La localisation de VAlbe,

MEFRA 98 (1986), p. 47-90. GRANDAZZI 1986A = A. GRANDAZZI, Le roi et l'augur: auguracula de Rome in La divination etrusco-italique, Caesarodunum 3 (1986), p. 122-150.

327

GREENIDGE-CLAY

= A.H.J. GREENIDGE, A.M. CLAY, Sources for

Roman History. 133-70 B.C.2, Oxford 1960. GRIMAL 1945 = P. GRIMAL, Le dieu lanus et les origines de Rome, Lettres d'humanité 4 (1945), p. 15-121. GRIMAL 1952 = P. GRIMAL, Les intentions de Properce et la composition du livre IV des «Elegies», I, Latomus 11 (1952), p. 183-197. GROS 1976 = P. GROS, Aurea tempia. Recherches sur Varchitecture religieuse de Rome à Vepoque d'Auguste, BEFAR 231, Rome 1976. GROS 1976A = P. GROS, Les premieres generations d'architectes hellénistiques à Rome in Melanges Heurgon, CollEFR 27, Rome 1976, p. 387-409. GROS 1978 = P. GROS, Architecture et società à Rome et en Italie centro-meridionale awe deux derniers siècles de la République, Coli. Latomus 156, Bruxelles 1978. GROS-ADAM = P. GROS, J.P. ADAM, Tempie ionique du Forum

Boarium. Sondage Sud-Est, BC 91 (1986), p. 31-34. GUARDUCCI

1936 = M.

GUARDUCCI,

Hora

Quirini,

BC

64

(1936), p. 31-36. GUARDUCCI 1949-50 = M. GUARDUCCI, // santuario di Bellona e il circo Flaminio in un epigramma greco del Basso Impero, BC 73 (1949-50), p. 55-76. GUARDUCCI 1961-62 = M. GUARDUCCI, II tempio della dea Concordia in un bassorilievo dei Musei Vaticani, RPAA 34 (196162), p. 93-110. GUARDUCCI

1971 = M. GUARDUCCI, Enea

e Vesta, RM

78

(1971), p. 73-118. GUARDUCCI 1971A = M. GUARDUCCI, L'Isola Tiberina e la sua

tradizione ospitaliera, RendAccLinc 8.26 (1971), p. 267-281. HACKENS 1961 = T. HACKENS, Capitolium vetus, BIBR 33 (1961), p. 69-88. HANSON 1959 = J.A. HANSON, Roman Theater-Temples, Princeton 1959. HARMON 1978 = D.P. HARMON, The Public Festivals of Rome, ANRW2.\b2, Berlin - New York 1978, p. 1440-1468. HARRIS 1971 = W.V. HARRIS, On War and Greed in Second

Century B.C., AHR 76 (1971), p. 1371-1385. HARRIS 1979 = W.V. HARRIS, War and Imperialism in Repu-

blican Rome, Oxford 1979. HEAD 1911 = B.V. HEAD, Historia nummorum, a manual of Greek numismatics 2 , Oxford 1911. HENZEN 1868 = G. HENZEN, Scavi nel bosco sacro dei fratelli

328

Arvali. Relazione, Roma 1868. HENZEN 1869 = G. HENZEN, Scavi nel bosco sacro dei fratelli Arvali, Bulllst 1869, p. 81-125. HENZEN 1877 = G. HENZEN, ZU den Fälschungen des Pirro Li-

gorio in Commentationes philologae in honorem Theodori Mommseni, Berlin 1877. HEURGON 1942 = J. HEURGON, Recherches sur Vhistoire et la civilisation de Capoue préromaine des origines à la deuxième guerre punique, BEFAR 154, Paris 1942. HUERGON 1951 = J. HUERGON, Au dossier des deux Pales, Latomus 10 (1951), p. 277-278. HILL 1960 = P.V. HILL, Aspects of Jupiter on Coins of the Rome MintA.D.65-318, NC 20 (1960), p. 113-128. HILL 1965 = P.V. HILL, Some Architectural Types of Trajan, Num.Chr. s.7.5 (1965), p. 155-160. HIRSCHFELD 1913 = O. HIRSCHFELD, Kleine Schriften, Berlin 1913. HOFFMANN 1934 = W. HOFFMANN, Rom und die griechische Welt im 4. farhundert, Philologus SuppL, 27,1, Leipzig 1934. r HOLLAND 1961 = LA HOLLAND, ) anus and the Bridge, PMAAR 21, Rome 1961. HORSFALL 1980-81 = N. HORSFALL, From History to Legend. M. Manlius and the Geese, CJ 76 (1980-81), p. 298-311. HÜLSEN 1984 = CH. HÜLSEN, Zur Topographie des Quirinals, RhM 49 (1894), p. 379-423. HÜLSEN 1895 = CH. HÜLSEN, Unterschungen zur Topographie des Palatins, RM 10 (1895), p. 3-37. HÜLSEN 1896 = CH. HÜLSEN, // Foro Boario e le sue adiacenze nell'antichità, DPAA 2.6 (1896), p. 231-275. HÜLSEN 1902 = CH. HÜLSEN, Neue Inschriften vom Forum Romanum, Klio 2 (1902), p. 227-283. HÜLSEN 1906 = CH. HÜLSEN, Der dorische Tempel bei S. Nicola

in Carcere, RM 21 (1906), p. 169-192. 1927 = CH. HÜLSEN, Le chiese di Roma nel medio evo, Firenze 1927.

HÜLSEN

HÜLSEN-JORDAN = CH. HÜLSEN in H. JORDAN, Topographie der

Stadt Rom in Alterthum, I 3, Berlin 1907. 1986 = J. HUMPHREY, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing, London 1986. IACOPI 1980 = I. IACOPI, La statua dell'Egioco (aiyioxog) Giove Vimino, BA 65 (1980), p. 15-24. IOPPOLO 1963-64 = G. IOPPOLO, Due monumenti repubblicani, BC 59 (1963-64), p. 68-90. HUMPHREY

329

JONES 1962 = G.D.B. JONES, Capena and the Ager Capenas, PBSR 30 (1962), p. 116-207. JORDAN 1870 = H. JORDAN, Zur römischen Topographie, Hermes 4 (1870), p. 229-265. JORDAN 1872 = H. JORDAN, De sacris quibusdam in hemerologio fratrum Arvalium commemoratis, Ephemeris Epigraphica I, Roma - Berlin 1872, p. 229-240. JORDAN 1872A = H. JORDAN, Das Templum Deae Syrae in Rom, Hermes 6 (1872), p. 314-322. JORDAN 1877 = H. JORDAN, De Sacris Opis aedibusque Opis et Saturni. 2, Ephemeris Epigraphica III, Roma - Berlin 1877, p. 57-73. JORDAN 1879 = H. JORDAN, Über die Ausdrücke «aedes templum fanum delubrum», Hermes 14 (1879), p. 567-583. JORDAN 1871-85 = H. JORDAN, Die Topographie der Stadt Rom inAlterthum, I 1-2, II, Berlin 1871-1885. KAJANTO-NYBERG-STEINBY =

I. KAJANTO, V. NYBERG, M. STEINBY,

L'area sacra di Largo Argentina II: Le iscrizioni, Roma 1981, p. 81-295. KARLOWA 1896 = O. KARLOWA, Intra pomerium et extra pomerium in Festgabe Prinz Friedrich von Baden, Heidelberg 1896, p. 47-100. KIEPERT-HÜLSEN = H.

KIEPERT,

C H . HÜLSEN, Formae

Urbis

Romae Antiquae 2, Berlin 1912. KÖSTERMANN

1960 = E. KÖSTERMANN, Codex Leidensis

BPL.

16B, Philologus 104 (1960), p. 92-115. KÖSTERMANN 1963-68 = E. KÖSTERMANN, Cornelius Tacitus. Annalen, Heidelberg 1963-68. KRAUTHEIMER 1976

=

R. KRAUTHEIMER, S. CORBETT, S. Sabina

in Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, IV, Città del Vaticano 1976. LABROUSSE 1937 = M. LABROUSSE, Le pomerium de la Rome

imperiale. Notes de topographie romaine, MEFR 54 (1937), p. 165-199. LANCIANI 1871 = R. LANCIANI, Sulle mura e porte di Servio, Annlnst 43 (1871), p. 40-85. LANCIANI

1889 = R. LANCIANI, Ara

dell'incendio

Neroniano

scoperta presso la chiesa di S. Andrea del Quirinale, BC 1889, p. 331-339, 379-391. LANCIANI 1891 = R. LANCIANI, Quatre dessins inédits de la collection Destailleur relatifs aux mines de Rome, MEFR 11 (1891), p. 159-178.

330

1892 = R. LANCIANI, Gli edifici della prefettura urbana fra la Tellure e le terme di Tito e di Traiano, BC 1892, p. 1937. LANCIANI 1897 = R. LANCIANI, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome. A Companion Book for Students and Travellers, London 1897. LANCIANI FUR = R. LANCIANI, Forma Urbis Romae, Milano 1910. LANGE 1876-79 = L. LANGE, Römische Alterthümer, Berlin 1876-79. LATTE 1960 = K. LATTE, Römische Religionsgeschichte, München 1960. LE BONNIEC 1958 = H. LE BONNIEC, Le eulte de Cérès à Rome. Des origines à la fin de la République, Paris 1958. LE GALL 1953 = f. LE GALL, Recherches sur le eulte du Tibre, Paris 1953. LE GALL 1976 = J. LE GALL, Evocatio in Melanges Heurgon, CollEFR 27, Paris 1976, p. 519-524. LINDERSKI 1986 = J. LINDERSKI, The Augural Law, ANRW 2.16.3, Berlin - New York 1986, p. 2146-2312. LINTOTT 1978 = A.W. LINTOTT, The Capitoline Dedications to Jupiter and the Roman People, ZPE 30 (1978), p. 137-144. LUGLI 1933 = G. LUGLI, Le mura di Servio Tullio e le cosidette mura serviane, Historia 1 (1933), p. 3-45. LUGLI 1941 = G. LUGLI, Aedes Caesarum in Palatio e templum novum divi Augusti, BC 69 (1941), p. 29-58. LUGLI 1946 = G. LUGLI, Roma antica. Il centro monumentale, Roma 1946. LUGLI 1957 = G. LUGLI, La tecnica edilizia romana, Roma 1957. LUGLI 1953-69 = G. LUGLI (ed.), Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes, Roma 1953-69. LUGLI 1970 = G. LUGLI, Itinerario di Roma antica, Milano 1970. LUSCHI 1984 = L. LUSCHI, L'iconografia dell'edificio rotondo nella monetazione massenziana e il «tempio del divo Romolo», BC 89 (1984), p. 41-54. LYNGBY 1954 = H. LYNGBY, Beiträge zur Topographie des Forum-Romanum-Gebietes in Rom, AIRRS 8° 7, Lund 1954. LYNGBY 1963 = H. LYNGBY, Das Problem der Porta Triumphalis im Lichte der neusten archäologischen Entdeckungen, Eranos 61 (1963), p. 161-175. MADDOLI 1971 = G. MADDOLI, 77 rito degli Argei e le origini del LANCIANI

331

culto di Hera a Roma, PP 26 (1971), p. 153-166. 1968 = A. MAGDELAIN, Recherches sur V«Imperium». La loi curiate et les auspicies d'investiture, Paris 1968. MAGDELAIN 1976 = A. MAGDELAIN, Le pomerium archaìque et le mundus, REL 54 (1976), p. 71-109. MAGDELAIN

MAGDELAIN 1978 = A. MAGDELAIN, La loi à Rome. Histoire d'un

concept, Paris 1978. 1982 = D. MANACORDA, Archeologia urbana a Roma: il progetto della Crypta Balbi, Firenze 1982. MANACORDA 1987 = D. MANACORDA, Scavi alla Crypta Balbi: problemi di topografìa antica in L'Urbs..., CollEFR 98, Rome 1987, p. 597-610. MANCA DI MORES 1982-83 = G. MANCA DI MORES, Terrecotte architettoniche e problemi topografici: contributi all'identificazione del Tempio di Quirino sul colle Quirinale, AnnFacLetFilUnivPer 20 (1982-83), p. 323-360. MANACORDA

MANDOVSKY-MITCHELL = E. MANDOVSKY, CH. MITCHELL, Pirro

Ligorio 's Roman Antiquities. The Drawings in MS XIII B. 7 in the National Library in Naples, London 1963. MARCHETTI LONGHI 1925 = G. MARCHETTI LONGHI, // tempio ionico di Ponte Rotto. Tempio di Fortuna o di Portuno?, RM 40 (1925), p. 319-350. MARCHETTI LONGHI 1936

= G. MARCHETTI LONGHI, Gli scavi del

Largo Argentina, II, BC 64 (1936), p. 84-139. MARCHETTI LONGHI 1956-58 = G. MARCHETTI LONGHI, Gli scavi del Largo Argentina, IV, BC 76 (1956-58), p. 45-118. MARCHETTI LONGHI 1970-71 = G. MARCHETTI LONGHI, Gli scavi dell'area sacra del Largo Argentina. Evoluzione e trasformazione della area e dei templi dall'età imperiale all'inizio del Medio Evo, BC 82 (1970-71), p. 7-62. MARQUARDT 1881-85 = K.J. MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung2, Leipzig 1881-85. 2 MAZZARINO 1966 = S. MAZZARINO, Il pensiero storico classico , Bari 1966. MELLOR 1978 = R. MELLOR, The Dedications on the Capitoline Hill, Chiron 8 (1978), p. 319-330. MERCANDO 1963-64 = L. MERCANDO, Saggi di scavo sulla platea dei Templi Gemelli, BC 59 (1963-64), p. 35-67. MERLIN 1906 = A. MERLIN, L'Aventin dans VAntiquité, BEFAR 97, Paris 1906. MINOPRIO 1932 = A. MINOPRIO, A Restoration of the Basilica of

Constantine, PBSR 12 (1932), p. 1-25. MOMIGLIANO 1942 = A. MOMIGLIANO, Camillus and Concord,

332

CQ 36 (1942), p. 111-120 = Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici, Roma 1960, p. 89-104. MOMIGLIANO 1962 = A. MOMIGLIANO, Sul «dies natalis» del santuario federale di Diana sull'Aventino, RendAccLinc 8.17 (1962), p. 387-392 = Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Roma 1966, p. 641-648. MOMIGLIANO 1963 = A. MOMIGLIANO, An Interim Report on the

Origins of Rome, JRS 53 (1963), p. 95-121 = Terzo contributo..., Roma 1966, p. 545-598. MOMIGLIANO 1966 = A. MOMIGLIANO, Thybris pater in Terzo contributo..., Roma 1966, p. 609-639. MOMMSEN 1859 = T H . MOMMSEN, Die Römische Chronologie bis

auf Caesar2, Berlin 1859. MOMMSEN 1883 = T H . MOMMSEN, Res gestae divi Augusti2, Berlin 1883. MOMMSEN 1887 = TH. MOMMSEN, Mithradates Philopator Philadelphos, Zeitschr. Numism. 15 (1887), p. 207-219. MOMMSEN 1887-88 = T H . MOMMSEN, Römisches Staatsrecht3, Leipzig 1887-88. MOREL 1965 = J.P. MOREL, Céramique à vernis noir du Forum Romain et du Palatin, MEFR Suppl. 3, Paris 1965. MORGAN 1971 = M.G. MORGAN, The Portico of Metellus: a Re-

consideration, Hermes 99 (1971), p. 480-505. MORGAN 1973 = M.G. MORGAN, «Metellus pontifex» and Ops

Opifera: a Note on Pliny «Naturalis Historia» 11.174, Phoenix 27 (1973), p. 35-41. MORGAN 1977 = M.G. MORGAN, Calendars and Chronology in

the First Punic War, Chiron 1 (1977), p. 89-117. MÜNZER 1920 = F. MÜNZEN, Römische Adelspartein und Adelsfamilien, Stuttgart 1920 (repr. 1963). NASH 1968 = E. NASH, Pictoral Dictionary of Ancient Rome2, New York 1968. NERAUDEAU 1979 = J.P. NERAUDEAU, La jeunesse dans la literature et les institutions de la Rome républicaine, Paris 1979. NICCOLINI 1934 = G. NICCOLINI, I fasti dei tribuni della plebe, Milano 1934. NICOLET 1976 = C. NICOLET, Le tempie des Nymphes et les di-

stributions frumentaires à Rome à l'epoque républicaine d'après des découvertes récentes, CRAI 1976, p. 29-51. NOLHAC 1887 = P. DE NOLHAC, Notes sur Pirro Ligorio in Melanges Renier, Paris 1887, p. 319-328. NORDH 1949 = A. NORDH, Libellus de regionibus urbis Romae, AIRRS 8° 3, Lund 1949.

333

OGILVIE 1965 = R.M. OGILVIE, A Commentary on Livy. Books I - V, Oxford 1965. PACKARD 1968 = D.W. PACKARD, A Concordance to Livy, Cambridge Mass. 1968. PAIS 1913-21 = E. PAIS, Storia critica di Roma durante i primi cinque secoli, Roma 1913-21. PAIS 1915-21 = E. PAIS, Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pubblico di Roma, Roma 1915-21. PAIS 1920 = E. PAIS, Fasti Triumphales, Roma 1920. PALMER 1965 = R.E.A. PALMER, The Censors of 312 B.C. and

the State Religion, Historia 14 (1965), p. 293-324. PALMER 1970 = R.E.A. PALMER, The Archaic Community of the Romans, Cambridge 1970. PALMER 1973 = R.E.A. PALMER, A Roman Street named Good, Journ. Indo-Europ. Stud. 1 (1973), p. 368-378. PALMER 1974 = R.E.A. PALMER, Roman Religion and Roman Empire. Five Essays, Philadelphia 1974. PALMER 1976-77 = R.E.A. PALMER, The «Vici Luccei» in the Forum Boarium and some Luccei in Rome, BC 85 (1976-77), p. 135-160. PALMER 1978-80 = R.E.A. PALMER, C. Verres' Legacy of Charm and Love to the City of Rome: a New Document, RPAA 51-52 (1978-80), p. 111-136. PAOLI 1946 = f. PAOLI, Le «ius Papirianum» et la loi Papiria, RD 24 (1946), p. 168-205. PARIBENI 1959-60 = E. PARIBENI, Ceramica d'importazione dall'Area Sacra di S. Omobono, BC 11 (1959-60), p. 109-124. PARIBENI 1968-69 = E. PARIBENI, Ceramica d'importazione nell'area sacra di S. Omobono. 2° rapporto, BC 81 (1968-69), p. 7-15. PENSABENE

1979 = P. PENSABENE, «Auguratorium»

e

tempio

della Magna Mater in Archeologia Laziale II, QuadAEI 3 (1979), p. 67-74. PENSABENE 1980 = P. PENSABENE, La zona sud-occidentale

del

Palatino in Archeologia Laziale III, QuadAEI 4 (1980), p. 65-81. PENSABENE 1981 = P. PENSABENE, Nuove acquisizioni nella zona sud-occidentale del Palatino in Archeologia Laziale IV, QuadAEI 5 (1981), p. 101-118. PENSABENE 1985 = P. PENSABENE, Area Sud-Occidentale del Pa-

latino in Roma. Archeologia nel Centro, LS A 6.1, Roma 1985, p. 179-212.

334

PENSABENE-RIZZO-ROGHI-TALAMO

=

P. PENSABENE, M A

Rizzo,

M. ROGHI, E. TALAMO, Terrecotte votive dal Tevere, Roma 1980. Pianta Marmorea

= G. CARETTONI, A.M. COLINI, L. COZZA, G.

GATTI, La pianta marmorea di Roma antica. Forma urbis Romae, Roma 1960. PIETRANGELI 1940 = C. PIETRANGELO / / mitreo del Palazzo dei

Musei di Roma, BC 68 (1940), p. 143-173. PIETRANGELI 1976 = C. PIETRANGELO / / nodo di San Bernardo,

Roma 1976. PISANI SARTORIO 1977 =

G. PISANI SARTORIO,

Sant'Omobono.

Esame preliminare dei materiali archeologici. Parte III in Lazio arcaico e mondo greco, I, PP 32 (1977), p. 55-61. PISANI SARTORIO

1983 =

G. PISANI SARTORIO, Una

«domus»

sotto il giardino del Pio Istituto Rivaldi sulla Velia, ARID Suppl. 10 (1983), p. 147-168. PISANI SARTORIO-VIRGILI =

G. PISANI SARTORIO, P. VIRGILI, Area

Sacra di S. Omobono in Archeologia Laziale II, QuadAEI 3 (1979), p. 41-47. PLATNER-ASHBY =

S.B. PLATNER, T H . ASHBY, A

Topographical

Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Oxford 1929. POUCET 1967 = J. POUCET, L'importance du terme «Collis» pour Vétude du développement urbain de la Rome archaique, AntCl 36 (1967), p. 101-115. POUCET 1967A = J. POUCET, Recherches sur la legende sabine des origines de Rome, Louvain - Kinshasa 1967. POUCET 1971 = J. POUCET, Les Sabins aux origines de Rome: legende ou histoire?, EtCl 39 (1971), p. 129-151, 293-310. POUCET 1972 = J. POUCET, Les Sabins aux origines de Rome. Orientations et problèmes, ANRW 1.1, Berlin - New York 1972, p. 48-135. POUCET 1980 = J. POUCET, La Rome archaique. Quelques nouveautés archéologiques: S. Omobono, le Comitium, la Regia, AntCl 49 (1980), p. 286-315. POUTHIER 1981 = P. POUTHIER, Ops et la conception de l'abon-

dance dans la religion romaine jusqu'à la mori BEFAR 242, Rome 1981. QUILICI GIGLI 1978 =

dAuguste,

S. QUILICI GIGLI, Considerazioni sui con-

fini del territorio di Roma primitiva, MEFRA 90 (1978), p. 567-575. QUILICI GIGLI 1981 =

S. QUILICI GIGLI, Annotazioni

topogra-

fiche sul tempio della Fortuna Muliebris, MEFRA 93 (1981), p. 547-563.

335

QuiLici GIGLI 1983 = S. QUILICI GIGLI, Estremo Campo Marzio.

Alcune osservazioni sulla topografìa, ARID Suppl. 10 (1983), p. 47-57. QUONIAM 1947 = P. QUONIAM, A propos du mur dit de Servius

Tullius, MEFR 59 (1947), p. 41-64. RADKE 1963 = G. RADKE, Beobachtungen zum römischen Ka-

lendar, RhM 106 (1963), p. 313-335. RADKE 1979 = G. RADKE, Die Götter Altitaliens2, Münster 1979. RADKE 1981 = G. RADKE, Die «dei Penates» und Vesta in Rom, ANRW 2.17A; Berlin - New York 1981, p. 343-373. RADKE 1981A = G. RADKE, Viae publicae Romanae, Bologna 1981. RAKOB-HEILMEYER = F. RAKOB, W.D. HEILMEYER, Der

Rund-

tempel am Tiber in Rom, Mainz 1973. REBERT-MARCEAU

= H.F. REBERT, H. MARCEAU, The temple of

Concord in the Roman Forum, PMAAR 5 (1925), p. 53-77. REINA 1911 = V. REINA, Media pars urbis, Firenze 1911. RICHARDSON 1975 = f.R.S. RICHARDSON, The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second Century B.C., JRS 65 (1975), p. 50-63. RICHARDSON 1978 = L. RICHARDSON, Honos et Virtus and the

Sacra Via, AJA 82 (1978), p. 240-246. RICHTER 1885 = O. RICHTER, Die Tempel der Magna Mater und des Iuppiter Stator in Rom, Hermes 20 (1885), p. 407-429. RICHTER 1901 = O. RICHTER, Topographie der Stadt Rom2, München 1901. Rizzo 1932 = G.E. Rizzo, La base di Augusto, BC 60 (1932), p. 7-109. RODDAZ 1984 = J.M. RODDAZ, Marcus Agrippa, BEFAR 253, Rome 1984. RODRIGUEZ ALMEIDA 1975-76 = E. RODRIGUEZ ALMEIDA, Aggior-

namento topografico dei colli Oppio, Cispio e Viminale secondo la Forma Urbis Marmorea, RPAA 48 (1975-76), p. 263-278. RODRIGUEZ ALMEIDA 1980-81 = E. RODRIGUEZ ALMEIDA, Di Vir-

gilio e Marziale, a proposito del nome «Alta Semita», BC 87 (1980-81), p. 75-82. RODRIGUEZ ALMEIDA

1981 = E.

RODRIGUEZ ALMEIDA,

Forma

urbis marmorea. Aggiornamento generale 1980, Roma 1981. RÖMER 1976 = F.RÖMER (ed.), P. Cornelii Taciti Annalum Libri XV-XVI, Wiener Studien 6, Wien 1976. Roma medio-repubblicana — Roma medio-repubblicana. Aspetti

336

culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e IH a.C, Roma 1973. ROMANELLI 1917 = P. ROMANELLI, // Culto di Giove sul Palatino, BC 45 (1917), p. 79-92. ROSCHER 1884-1921 = W.H. RÖSCHER, Ausfrühliches Lexicon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie, Leipzig 18841921. ROTONDI 1912 = G. ROTONDI, Leges publicae populi Romani, Milano 1912. RUGGIERO 1987 = I. RUGGIERO, // tempio di Portuno nel Foro Boario, BStArt 80 n.s. 30 (1987), p. 16-22. SABBATUCCI 1954 = D. SABBATUCCI, L'edilità romana: magistratura e sacerdozio, MemAcclinc 8.6.3 (1954), p. 255-333. SÄFLUND 1932 = G. SÄFLUND, Le mura di Roma repubblicana, AIRRS 8° 1, Lund 1932. SANTANGELO 1941 = M. SANTANGELO, // Quirinale nell'antichità

classica, MPAA 5.2. (1941), p. 77-217. SAVAGE 1940 = S.M. SAVAGE, The Cults of Ancient Trastevere, MAAR 17 (1940), p. 26-56. ScAMUZZi 1963 = V. SCAMUZZI, Aedes Tempestatum, RivStCl 11 (1963), p. 98-100. SCHEID 1987 = J. SCHEID, Les sanctuaires de conflns dans la Rome antique. Réalité et permanence d'une representation ideale de Vespace romain in L'Urbs..., CollEFR 98, Rome 1987, p. 583-595. SCHEID-BROISE = J. SCHEID, H. BROISE, Rome - le bois sacre de

Dea Dia in Archeologia Laziale I, QuadAEI 2 (1978), p. 7577. SCHILLING 1949 = R. SCHILLING, Le tempie de Vénus Capitoline et la tradition pomériale, RPh 23 (1949), p. 27-35. SCHILLING 1954 = R. SCHILLING, La religion romaine de Vénus depuis les origines jusqu'au temps d'Auguste, BEFAR 178, Paris 1954 (2nd ed. 1982). SCHILLING 1958 = R. SCHILLING, Les origines de la Vénus ro-

maine, Latomus 17 (1958), p. 3-26. SCHILLING 1960 = R. SCHILLING, Les «Castores» romains à la

lumière des traditions indo-européennes in Hommage à Georges Dumézil, Coli. Latomus 45, Bruxelles 1960, p. 177192. SCHILLING 1969 = R. SCHILLING, The Roman Religion in C.J.

BLEEKER, G. WIDENGREN, Historia religionum, Leiden 1969, I: Religions of the Past, p. 442-494. ScHiPPA 1980-82 = F. ScHiPPA, Una dedica alla Vittoria dalla

337

casa di Augusto al Palatino, RPAA 53-54 (1980-82), p. 283295. SCHNEIDER 1968 = A. SCHNEIDER, Le premier livre «ad Nationes» de Tertullien, Rome 1968. SCHÜRMANN 1985 = W. SCHÜRMANN, Typologie und Bedeutung der Stadtrömischen Minerva-Kultbilder, RdA Suppl 2, Roma 1985. SEIDEL 1908 = J. SEIDEL, Fasti aedilicii von der Einrichtung der plebejischen ädilität bis zum Tode Caesars, Diss. Breslau 1908. SHATZMAN 1972 = I. SHATZMAN, The Roman General's Authority over Booty, Historia 21 (1972), p. 177-205. SHERWIN WHITE 1973 = A.N. SHERWIN WHITE, The Roman Citi-

zenship2, Oxford 1973. SOMMELLA 1968 = P. SOMMELLA, Area Sacra di S. Omobono. Contributo per una datazione della platea dei Templi Gemelli in Studi di topografia romana, QuadlstTopAnt 5 (1968), p. 63-70. SORDI 1960 = M. SORDI, / rapporti romano-ceriti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio, Roma 1960. SORDI 1983 = M. SORDI, // santuario di Cerere, Libero e Libera e il tribunato della plebe in Santuarii e politica nel mondo antico, CISA 9, Milano 1983, p. 127-139. SQUARCIAPINO 1942 = M. SQUARCIAPINO, L'acrolito di S. Omobono, BC 70 (1942), p. 83-93. STAMBAUGH 1978 = J.E. STAMBAUGH, The Functions of Roman Temples, ANRW 2.16.1, Berlin - New York 1978, p. 554608. STARA TEDDE 1905 = G. STARA TEDDE, / boschi sacri dell'antica

Roma, BC 33 (1905), p. 189-232. 1959 = E.S. STAVELEY, The Political Aims of Appius Claudius Caecus, Historia 8 (1959), p. 410-433. STEINBY 1987 = E. M. STEINBY, // lato orientale del Foro Romano, Proposte di lettura, Arctos 21 (1987), p. 139-184. STEINBY 1988 = E.M. STEINBY, // lato orientale del Foro in Archeologia Laziale IX, QuadAEl 16 (1988), p. 32-36. STAVELEY

STRONG-WARD PERKINS = D.E.

STRONG, J.B. WARD-PERKINS,

The Round Temple in the Forum Boarium, PBSR 28 (1960), p. 7-30. STYLOW 1972 = A.U. STYLO w, Libertas und Liberalitas. Unter-

schungen zur innenpolitischen Propaganda der Römer, Diss. München 1972. SUOLAHTI 1963 = J. SUOLAHTI, The Roman Censors. A Study on

338

Social Structure, Helsinki 1963. TALAMO 1980 = E. TALAMO, Raffigurazioni numismatiche

in //

«tempio di Romolo» al Foro Romano, QuadlstStArch 26 (1980), p. 23-34. TAMASSIA 1961-62 = A.M. TAMASSIA, Iscrizioni del Compitum Adii, BC 78 (1961-62), p. 158-163. TAYLOR 1923 = L.R. TAYLOR, Local Cults in Etruria, PMAAR 2, Rome 1923. TAYLOR 1939 = L.R. TAYLOR, Cicero's Aedilship, AfPh 60 (1939), p. 194-202. TAYLOR 1952-54 = L.R. TAYLOR, The Four Urban Tribes and the Four Regions of Ancient Rome, RPAA 27 (1952-54), p. 225238. TAYLOR 1966 = L.R. TAYLOR, Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar, Ann Arbor 1966. THIEL 1954 = J. M. THIEL, A History of Roman Sea- Power before the Second Punic War, Amsterdam 1954. THOMSEN 1980 = R. THOMSEN, King Servius Tullius. A Historical Synthesis, Copenhagen 1980. TONDO 1971 = S. TONDO, Introduzione alle leges regiae, SDHI 37 (1971), p. 1-72. TORELLI RRF = Rerum Romanorum Fontes an anno CCXCII ad annum CCLXV a.Chr.n. collegit atque notis illustravit Marina R. Torelli, Pisa 1978. TORELLI 1968 = M. TORELLI, // donano di M. Fulvio Fiacco nell'area di S. Omobono in Studi di topografìa romana, QuadlstTopAnt 5 (1968), p. 71-76. TORELLI 1984 = M. TORELLI, Lavinio e Roma. Riti iniziatici e matrimonio tra archeologia e storia, Roma 1984. TORELLI-COARELLI 1 9 7 8 =

M . TORELLI, F. COARELLI, / / SaCCO

gallico a Roma in / Galli e l'Italia, Roma 1978, p. 226-230. TOYNBEE 1965 = A. TOYNBEE, Hannibal's Legacy, Oxford 1965. TURCAN 1958 = M. TURCAN, «Aedes Solis» au Grand Cirque, REL 36 (1958), p. 225-262. TURLAN

1955 = f.

TURLAN, L'obligation

«ex-voto»,

RD

33

(1955), p. 504-536. VAGENVOORT 1947 = H. VAGENVOORT, Roman Dynamism,

ford VALETON syne VALETON syne

Ox-

1947. 1892 = I.M.J VALETON, De templis romanis, Mnemo20 (1892), p. 338-390. 1895 = I.M.J. VALETON, De templis romanis, Mnemo23 (1895), p. 15-79. 339

VAN DOREN 1954 = M. VAN DOREN, Peregrina sacra. Offizielle Kultübertragungen im Alten Rom, Historia 4 (1954), p. 488497. VAN DOREN 1958 = M. VAN DOREN, Les Sacrarla. Une catégorie

méconnue d'édifices sacrés chez les Romains, AntCl 27 (1958), p. 31-75. VENDITELLI 1987 = L. VENDITELLI, Aventino: la localizzazione

del tempio di Diana. Saggi di scavo nell'area tra Via S. Alberto e Largo Arrigo VII in Archeologia Laziale Vili, QuadAEI 14 (1987), p. 33-38. VERSNEL 1970 = H.S. VERSNEL, Triumphus. An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph, Leiden 1970. VERSNEL 1976 = H.S. VERSNEL, TWO Types of Roman «devotio», Mnemosyne s. IV 29 (1976), p. 365-410. WALBANK 1957-79 = F.W. WALBANK, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford 1957-79. WEINSTOCK 1957 = S. WEINSTOCK, Victor and Invictus, HThR 50 (1957), p. 211-247. WEINSTOCK 1960 = S. WEINSTOCK, TWO Archaic

Inscriptions

from Latium, JRS 50 (1960), p. 112-118. WEINSTOCK 1971 = S. WEINSTOCK, Divus Iulius, Oxford 1971. WILLEMS 1878-83 = P. WILLEMS, Le Senat de la République Romaine et ses attributions, Louvain 1878-83. WIRSZUBSKI 1950 = CH. WIRSZUBSKI, Liberias as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate, Cambridge 1950. WISEMAN 1974 = T.P. WISEMAN, The Circus Flaminius, PBSR 42 (1974), p. 1-22. WISEMAN 1976 = T.P. WISEMAN, TWO Questions on the Circus

Flaminius, PBSR 44 (1976), p. 44-47. WISEMAN 1979 = T.P. WISEMAN, Topography and Rhetoric: the

Trial ofManlius,

Historia 28 (1979), p. 32-50.

WISEMAN 1981 = T.P. WISEMAN, The Temple of Victory on the

Palatine, AntJ 61 (1981), p. 35-52. WISEMAN 1987 = T.P. WISEMAN, The Public Image of Aristocratic and Imperial Houses in L'Urbs..., CollEFR 98, Rome 1987, p. 393-413. WISSOWA 1891 = G. WISSOWA, Der Tempel des Quirinus in

Rom, Hermes 26 (1891), p. 137-144 = Wissowa 1904, p. 144-152. WISSOWA 1904 = G. WISSOWA, Gesammelte Abhandlungen

zur

römischen Religions- und Stadtgeschichte, München 1904.

340

Wis SOWA 1912 = G. WissowA, Religion und Kultus der Römer2, München 1912. WISSOWA 1923 = G. WissowA, Neue Bruchstücke des römischen Festkalenders, Hermes 58 (1923), p. 369-392. ZAGAMI 1959 = L. ZAGAMI, Le monete di Lipara, Messina 1959. ZEVI 1976 = F. ZEVI, L'identificazione del Tempio di Marte «in Circo» e altre osservazioni in Melanges Heurgon, CollEFR 27, Paris 1976, p. 1047-1064. ZEVI 1981 = F. ZEVI, Note sulla leggenda di Enea in Italia in Gli Etruschi e Roma. Studi M. Pallotino, Roma 1981, p. 145158. ZIMMERMANN 1986

=

J.L. ZIMMERMANN, La fin

de Falerii Ve-

teres: un témoignage archéologique, GMusJ 14 (1986), p. 3742 ZIOLKOWSKI 1986 = A. ZIOLKOWSKI, Les temples A et C du Largo

Argentina: quelques considerations, MEFRA 98 (1986), p. 618-629. ZIOLKOWSKI 1988 = A. ZIOLKOWSKI, Mummius' Temple of Hercules Victor and the Round Temple on the Tiber, Phoenix 42 (1988), p. 309-333. ZIOLKOWSKI 1989 = A. ZIOLKOWSKI, The «Sacra Via» and the

Temple of Iuppiter Stator, OpRom 17 (1989), p. 225-239.

341

Finito di stampare in Roma nel mese di settembre 1992 per conto de «L'ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER dalla Litostampa Ottavia Via dei Pedagogisti, 19 - Roma