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 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.):