Prior Events

Servius Tullius and the Shrine of Diana Aventina

Denarius serratus issued in Rome by A. Postumius Albinus (RRC 372/1, 81 BC)

Obverse: Bust of Diana (with bow and quiver over her shoulder), with a bucranium (skull of a sacrificed bull) above

Reverse: A·POST·A·F·S·N·A͡LBIN: Priest preparing a bull for sacrifice at the altar of Diana on the Aventine  (see below)

According to Livy, Servius Tullius (traditionally the second king of Rome in 578-35 BC):

1. “... endeavoured to increase his dominion by means of diplomacy while, at the same time, adding splendour to the City.   The temple of Diana at Ephesus, which was already famous at that time, had reputedly been built as a joint enterprise by the [Ionian League].  Servius lavishly praised this communal act of worship to the Latin leaders with whom he had assiduously cultivated ties of hospitality and friendship, ... [and thus] convinced [them] to join with the Roman people in building a temple to Diana at Rome.  This was an admission [on the part of the Latins] that caput rerum Romam esse (Rome was the leader of their affairs)”, (‘History of Rome’, 1: 45: 1-3). 
   

As Carin Green (referenced below, at p. 98) observed, this account, and the similar one by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (see below) suggest that the archaic:

1. “... cult to to Diana on the Aventine was [established] to advertise and to advance the expanding political expectations of Rome in Latium [in the Regal period].”
   

Diana’s Archaic Cult Site on the Aventine and the Putative Latin League 

Livy (above) suggested above that Servius’ decision to establish what he thought was a temple dedicated to Diana on the Aventine had been inspired by the example of by the cities of the Ionian league, which had established an ancient temple of Artemis (the Artemision) at Ephesus in the 8th century BC.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who drew more heavily than Livy on Greek precedents, envisaged that Servius had called a meeting of ‘the most important men of every Latin city’ , at which he had advised them:

1. “... to build a temple of refuge at Rome at their joint expense, to which [they] should repair every year, [in order to] offer up sacrifices (both individually and in common) and celebrate festivals at such times as they should appoint.  [Furthermore], if any differences should arise between them, they should resolve them over the sacrifices, submitting their complaints [against each other] to the other cities for decision.  By [stressing the advantages that the delegates] would reap from the appointment of a general council, he prevailed on [them] to give their consent.  [He subsequently] built the temple of Diana that [still] stands on the Aventine, [which he financed using] the money that [the Latins]  had contributed”, (‘Roman Antiquities’, 4: 26: 3-4).
   

Carin Green (referenced below, at p. 98 and note 26) argued:

1. “Servius chose Diana because he was seeking to appropriate ... that religious rite of hers through which the Latin people met, either to settle differences or to make alliances under her power: the Latins were [already] perfectly capable of developing political and religious alliances without a Greek to show them the way.  By appropriating the [cult of Diana] in this way, Servius clearly hoped to appropriate the Latins as well, and without a war.”
   

It seems to me that we should be cautious about assuming that ‘Servius’ (if he even existed) established the cult of Diana on the Aventine, and that he did so in order to achieve Roman hegemony over the Latins.  However:

1. ✴there is archeological and epigraphic evidence that strongly suggests that the Latins met periodically for political and religious purposes at a number of extra-urban sanctuaries, one of which was the sanctuary of Diana near Aricia (see below); and
   

2. ✴the tradition that Servius had established the cult site of Diana on the Aventine in an attempt to assert Roman hegemony over the Latins was clearly well-established at Rome, at least the late Republic.
   

3. 
   

4. He [also] drew up laws relating to the mutual rights of the cities and prescribed the manner in which everything else that concerned the festival and the general assembly should be performed and, in order to ensure that the passage] of time should  not obliterate these laws, he erected a bronze pillar upon which he engraved both the decrees of the council and the names of the cities which had taken part in it.  This pillar still existed in the temple of Diana down to my time, with the inscription in the characters that were  used in ancient  Greece.  This alone would serve as no slight proof that the founders of Rome were not barbarians; for if they had been, they would not have used Greek characters”, (‘Roman Antiquities’, 4: 26: 3-6).
   

Dionysius’ account implies that the inscription on the bronze pillar was still in the temple when he arrived in Rome (in ca. 30 BC) but had been removed by his time of writing (ca. 7 BC).  Samuel Segere (referenced below, at pp. 65-6) argued that it might well have survived for a significant period, although:

1. “... problems would eventually have arisen from historians’ inability to read the ancient language, [or even to transcribe the allegedly ‘ancient Greek’ letters into the ‘modern’ Latin alphabet].  In order to explain the context of the text, late annalists consequently invented a tradition in which the Latin tribes were important allies of Rome [from the Regal period] and set apart [from others] through special mutual rights of worship.  This tradition  ... ultimately expressed itself politically through the attempted lex sociis et nomine Latino, which seems to have been introduced in the middle of 122 BC, during [the] second tribunate of [C. Gracchus. ... As] Appian explicitly reports:
   

2. [C. Gracchus] invited the Latins to share fully in all the rights of the Romans, (‘Civil Wars’, 1: 23: 2)].
   

3. ... Through their connecting tradition, the [so-called] lex Arae Dianae and the lex sociis et nomine Latino echo through time; the older law is an appeal to the new project of law and vice versa., ... [and] the temple of Diana ... became a symbol for Gracchus’ citizenship project, [albeit that it] never to become law.”
   

Miracle of the Sabine Heifer: a Portent of Rome’s Future Greatness

The sacrificial scene on the reverse of the denarius serratus (RRC 372/1) illustrated above refers to an anecdote that Livy reproduced after his account of :

1. “It is said that a heifer of wondrous size and beauty was born in Sabine territory, on the property of a certain head of a family.  ... This heifer was considered to be a prodigy, as indeed it was.  Cecinere vates  (inspired prophets foretold) that the state whose citizen should sacrifice the animal to Diana was destined to become fore imperium (the seat of empire).  On the first suitable day for sacrifice, the Sabine led the heifer to the temple of Diana in Rome and set it before the altar. The priest [of Diana’s temple, who  had heard of this prophecy, insisted that he should first purify himself in the Tiber, which he duly did.]  Meanwhile the Roman [priest] sacrificed the heifer to Diana, an act that was wonderfully gratifying to both the king and the citizens”, (‘History of Rome’, 1: 45: 4-7).
   

Alex Nice (referenced below, at p. 159) observed that this anecdote represents:

1. “... the first prophecy in Livy that explicitly foretells the destiny of the Roman state, and as such has special significance.  Livy describes these events with language appropriate to prophecy and divination. ... The phraseology of cecinere vates … ibi fore imperium foreshadows the diction of the subsequent prophecy relating to the future greatness of Rome.”
   

He returned to this point (at p. 161), observing that:

1. “The significance of the Sabine [heifer] episode becomes clearer ten chapters later: [according to Livy], while Tarquinius Superbus was rebuilding the Capitol there were two indications of the future which confirmed the prophecy already made in connection with the Sabine [heifer]. 
   

2. ✴The first occurs after the consultation of the birds, [which indicated that Terminus’ refusal to be moved from the site that was being cleared for the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus] portended the permanence of Rome.] 
   

3. ✴This predicator of the future was confirmed by the discovery of a human head during the construction of the temple foundations.”
   

The Livian passage in question related that:

1. “When this auspice of permanence had been received, there followed another prodigy foretelling the grandeur of their empire.   A human head, its features intact, was found (it is said) by the men who were digging for the foundations of the temple.  This appearance imperii caputque rerum fore portendebat (portended that here would be the seat of empire and the head of the world), and so cecinere vates (inspired prophets foretold), both those in the City and those summoned from Etruria”, (‘History of Rome’, 1: 55: 5-6).
   

Diana Aventina and the Coins of the Postumii Albini

In his account of the miracle of the Sabine heifer (in a passage that seems to belong after line 7), Livy noted that:

1. “... for several years, [the] horns [of the Sabine heifer, which were] affixed in the vestibule of the temple of Diana [on the Aventine], had been a memorial of [the] miracle [of its prodigious size and beauty]”, (‘History of Rome’, 1: 45: 6).
   

Beatrice Poletti (referenced below, at p. 40) suggested that the bucranium (bovine skull) above the bust of Diana on the obverse of RRC 372/1 (illustrated above):

1. “... explicitly recalls the detail of the heifer’s horns fixed in Diana’s temple, and may signify that the Postumii claimed among their ancestors the priest who tricked the Sabine and ensured the fulfilment of the prodigy to Rome’s advantage.”
   

It certainly put beyond doubt that the scene of the reverse took place at the altar of Diana Aventina, because we know from Plutarch that the bovine horns displayed there were extremely distinctive:

1. “Why in the other temples of Artemis, [Roman Diana], do they usually nail up stags’ antlers, but in the Aventine [temple] bovine horns ? Perhapsas a reminder of an ancient occurrence?  For they say that, among the Sabines, a heifer was born to Antro Curatius, beautiful in appearance and surpassing all others in size.  When a certain soothsayer told [Antro] that it was fated that the city of the one who should sacrifice that heifer to Artemis on the Aventine would become the mightiest and would rule over all Italy, the man went to Rome in order to sacrifice the heifer [there].  But, as a household slave had secretly revealed the prophecy to king Servius, who told  the priest Cornelius, Cornelius [in turn] ordered Antro to bathe in the Tiber before the sacrifice ... Then, while [Antro] went away to bathe, Servius quickly sacrificed the heifer to the goddess and nailed up the horns in the shrine.  Both Juba [II of Mauritania] and Varro recorded this account, except that Varro:
   

2. ✴did not report the name of Antro, and he
   

3. ✴said that the Sabine was deceived not by Cornelius the priest but by the guardian of the temple”, (‘Roman Questions ‘, 4, based on the translation by Beatrice Poletti, referenced below, at p. 50).
   

It does, therefore, seem certain that A. Postumius Albinus was intent upon associating his family with the miracle of the Sabine heifer, which (as we have seen) was understood as a portent of Roman hegemony.

Beatrice Poletti (referenced below, at pp. 39-40) also pointed out that A. Postumius Albinus, the moneyer of 81 BC:

1. “... has been identified as a grandson of Sp. Postumius Albinus (cos. 110 BC) and, possibly, a son of the A. Postumius Albinus who, in [ca. 96 BC], had issued a denarius, [RRC 335/9], that featured:
   

2. ✴an almost identical bust of Diana [on its obverse]; and
   

3. ✴a scene of battle with three equestrians charging a falling warrior [on its reverse]. 
   

4. This [earlier] emission was in celebration of Rome’s victory [over the Latins] at Lake Regillus in 499 or 496 BC, ... [when] the Romans fought under the command of the dictator A. Postumius Albus Regillensis (allegedly, the moneyer’s ancestor) ... The representation of Diana on this earlier coin ... can safely be interpreted as an allusion to the sacrifice of the prodigious heifer [at her altar on the Aventine in the reign of Servius Tullius], which portended Rome’s hegemony over the Latin cities and thus anticipated the victorious outcome of [this] battle.” 
   

The evidence of RRC 335/9 and RRC 372/1, taken together, securely attests to the fact that the Diana’s cult site on the Aventine was closely associated in Roman hegemony over the Latins, at least by ca. 96 BC.

Romans’ Treaty with the Carthaginians (ca. 509 BC)

We can most easily assess the nature of Rome’s relations with its Latin neighbours in 509 BC by considering what is known about the terms of Rome’s earliest known treaty with the Carthaginians: as James Richardson (referenced below, at p. 25) observed, this treaty is:

1. “One of the few documents from early Rome the authenticity of which no-one now seriously doubts ...  Polybius says that this treaty, and two others that were struck subsequently with the Carthaginians, were recorded on bronze tablets and were preserved in the treasury of the aediles.”
   

Polybius (ca. 150 BC BC) dated this first treaty to:

1. “The first treaty between Rome and Carthage dates from the consulship of L. Junius Brutus and M. Horatius, the first consuls after the expulsion of the kings and the founders of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus: this is 28 years before Xerxes’ invasion of Greece [in 489 BC].  I give below as accurate a rendering as I can of this treaty, but the ancient Roman language differs so much from the modern that it can only be partially made out, and that after much application, by the most intelligent men”, (‘Histories’, 3: 22: 1-3).
   

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 256) observed that, although the historicity of Brutus is doubtful, the terms of the treaty, as Polybius transmitted them (see below), accord well with our understanding of the political situation in the late 6th century BC.  The terms of the treaty that concern us here are those that acknowledge Roman hegemony over much of Latium: 

1. “The Carthaginians shall do no wrong to the peoples of Ardea, Antium, Laurentium, Circeii, Terracina, or any other city of the Latins who are subject to Rome.  Touching the Latins who are not subjects [to Rome]:
   

2. ✴[the Carthaginians] shall keep their hands off [the cities that are subject to Rome]; and
   

3. ✴ if they take any [of them, they] shall deliver it up to the Romans undamaged.
   

4. They shall build no fort in the Latin territory; and if they enter the land in arms, they shall not pass a night therein”, (‘Histories’, 3: 22: 11-13).
   

Foedus Gabinum

[Defeat of Lars Porsenna at Aricia in 504 BC)]

Cato Latin League

According to the grammarian Priscian (4th century AD), Book 2 of the now-lost ‘Origines’ of Cato the Elder (2nd century BC) recorded that:

1. “Egerius Baebius of Tusculum, the Latin dictator, dedicated the sacred grove of Diana in the wood at Aricia: these peoples took part jointly: Tusculum, Aricia, Lanuvium, Lavinium, Cora, Tibur, Pometia, Ardeatis Rutulus (Rutulan Ardea)”, (‘Institutiones Grammaticae’, GL 2:129, translated by Timothy Cornell, in Timothy Cornell (editor), referenced below, Vol. II, at p. 179).
   

Cornell (as above, in Vol. III, at pp. 82-5) pointed out that this fragment has come down to us in a number of versions, none of which is reliable (although he judged the one translated here to be the most reliable available).  Even the original would have been problematic, since Cato almost certainly copied the text directly from an archaic dedicatory inscription at the ‘sacred grove of Diana’ at Lake Nemi, near Aricia.  It is possible that the fragment is incomplete, and that other cities involved  in the dedication are missing, this is unlikely, in which case, the Romans had not been a party to the dedication.  On this basis (as he argued at p. 84):

1. ✴the list above is probably names the members of the Latin coalition (sometimes dubbed the ‘Latin League’) that fought against Rome at Lake Regulus in 499 or 496 BC and signed a bilateral treaty (the so-called the foedus Cassianum) with Rome after they were defeated there; and
   

2. ✴it pre-dates 495 BC, by which time Pometia and Cora had fallen to the Volsci.
   

First Latin War (499 - 493 BC)

Battle at Lake Regillus (499 or 496 BC)

According to Livy, in the consulship of T. Aebutius Helva and C. Veturius Geminus Cicurinus (499 BC):

1. “... it was no longer possible to postpone the Latin war, which had now been smouldering for several years.  A. Postumius [Albus, later Regillensis], as dictator, and T. Aebutius as master of the horse, set out with large forces of infantry and cavalry.  They met the enemy's advancing column at Lake Regillus, in the territory of Tusculum”, (‘History of Rome’, 2: 19: 1-3).
   

At a critical moment in the battle, Postumius:

1. “... is said to have vowed a temple to Castor [link needed], and to have promised rewards to the soldiers who should be first and second to enter the camp of the enemy; and so great was the Romans’ ardour that ... they routed their opponents and took their camp. Such was the battle at Lake Regillus. The dictator and his master of the horse returned to the City and [presumably only the dictator] triumphed”, (‘History of Rome’, 2: 20: 12-13).
   

In a rather exasperated passage, Livy then recorded that:

1. “According to some authorities ... , the battle at Lake Regillus was not fought until [496 BC]: [these sources] say that A. Postumius resigned the consulship because his colleague was of doubtful loyalty and that he was then made dictator [in 496 BC].   One is involved in so many uncertainties regarding dates [resulting from] the varying order of the magistrates in different lists that it is impossible to make out which consuls followed which, or what was done in each particular year, when not only events but even authorities are so shrouded in antiquity”, (‘History of Rome’, 2: 21: 3-4).
   

The now-fragmentary entry in the Augustan fasti Triumphales recorded that a triumph was awarded to A. Postumius [...] Regillensis at an illegible date between 502 and 494 BC.

Foedus Cassianum (493 BC)

The victory at Lake Regillus seems to have ended the war.  However, according to Livy, it was not until the consulship of Spurius Cassius Vecellinus and Postumus Cominius Auruncus (493 BC) that:

1. “... a treaty was made with the Latin peoples.  In order to make this treaty one of the consuls [Cassius] remained in Rome, while the other [Comiuius] was dispatched to the Volscian war [see below]”, (‘History of Rome’, 2: 33: 4).
   

He then described how Cominius subsequently took Corioli.  with the help of the heroic C. Marcius Coriolanus (see below).  In the final passage on this year, Livy observed that:

1. “The glory of [Corialanus] overshadowed [that of Cominius’’] to the extent that, if the record on a bronze column of the treaty with the Latins [had not indicated that] it was struck by Spurius Cassius alone, in the absence of his colleague, men would have forgotten that ... Cominius had [held command in the] war on the Volsci”, (‘History of Rome’, 2: 33: 9).
   

Dionysius of Halicarnassus,, who gave a very similar account of these events, recorded the most important provisions of this treaty as follows:

1. "Let there be peace between the Romans and all the Latin cities as long as the heavens and the earth shall remain where they are.  Let them: neither make war upon another; nor bring in foreign enemies; nor grant a safe passage to those who shall make war upon either [party].  Let them assist one another, when warred upon, with all their forces; and let each have an equal share of the spoils and booty taken in their common wars.  ... ”, (‘Roman Antiquities’, 6: 95: 2).
   

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1997, at p. 337) argued that, while this:

1. “... cannot be a literal translation of an archaic Latin document, ... what matters is whether [or not] the content [set out by Dionysius] ... was largely invented: and there is, [in fact], no reason to believe that it was.”
   

He argued (at pp. 335-6) that it can be:

1. “... [established] beyond reasonable doubt that, in the Republican period before 338 BC, the Latins had a political league that met at [a place called] Ferentina, ... [which] was probably near Nemi and Aricia.”
   

It seems likely that the foedus Cassianum had been agreed between Rome and this Latin League.   Oakley observed (at p. 336) that this treaty:

1. “... stopped the fighting between Rome and the other Latin states for over a century, and thus proved to be a turning point in her history.”
   

He also noted (at p. 337) that:

1. “A factor that may have induced both parties [to it]  to have come to terms was the predatory raiding of the Aequi and the Volsci [since the battle at Lake Regillus].” 
   

Evidence for the success of the alliance included the facts that:

1. ✴the Hernici joined it in 486 BC (see below); and
   

2. ✴the allies founded a number of colonies before the Gallic sack, including at least one (Circeii) in Volscian territory.
   

First Latin War (499 - 493 BC)

The first Roman victory recorded in our surviving sources after the expulsion of the kings was against  an alliance of Latin cities in 499 or 496 BC and ended with the so-called foedus Cassianum.  According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus,  the most important provisions of this treaty were as follows:

1. "Let there be peace between the Romans and all the Latin cities as long as the heavens and the earth shall remain where they are.  Let them: neither make war upon another; nor bring in foreign enemies; nor grant a safe passage to those who shall make war upon either [party].  Let them assist one another, when warred upon, with all their forces; and let each have an equal share of the spoils and booty taken in their common wars.  ... ”, (Roman Antiquities’, 6: 95: 2).
   

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1997, at p. 337) argued that, while this:

1. “... cannot be a literal translation of an archaic Latin document, ... what matters is whether [or not] the content [set out by Dionysius] ... was largely invented: and there is, [in fact], no reason to believe that it was.”
   

He argued (at pp. 335-6) that it can be:

1. “... [established] beyond reasonable doubt that, in the Republican period before 338 BC, the Latins had a political league that met at [a place called] Ferentina, ... [which] was probably near Nemi and Aricia.”
   

It seems likely that the foedus Cassianum had been agreed between Rome and this Latin League.   Oakley observed (at p. 336) that this treaty:

1. “... stopped the fighting between Rome and the other Latin states for over a century, and thus proved to be a turning point in her history.”
   

Evidence for the success of the alliance included the facts that:

1. ✴the Hernici joined it in 486 BC; and
   

2. ✴the allies founded a number of colonies before the Gallic sack, including at least one (Circeii) in Volscian territory.