Marble statue of Vediovis (ca. 80 AD) from his temple on the Capitol (now in the Musei Capitolini)

From Dr Erin Warford (referenced below) 

This page deals with two temples dedicated to Vediovis in quick succession in 194-2 BC, both of which were vowed by the same man, L. Furius Purpurio.

Career of L. Furius Purpurio

We first hear of Furius in 210 BC, when he was serving as a military tribune in the army of the consul M. Claudius Marcellus in Samnium.  When news reached Marcellus that Hannibal had inflicted a major defeat on the Romans at Herdonea, in Apulia, and that Cn. Fulvius Centumalus, who had commanded the defeated army as proconsul, had been killed, he marched from Samnium and caught up with Hannibal at Numistro in Lucania.  Livy described a ferocious day-long battle:

1. “Night, however, separated the combatants while the victory was yet undecided.  ... Hannibal broke up his camp quietly at night and withdrew into Apulia.  When daylight revealed the enemies' flight, Marcellus  ... left the wounded with a small guard at Numistro under the charge of L. Furius Purpurio, one of his military tribunes ... ”, (‘History of Rome’, 27: 2: 9-12).
   

He might well have been fighting under Marcellus in 208 BC, when Marcellus and his consular colleague, T. Quinctius Crispinus, were killed in a Carthaginian ambush near Venusia. Praetorship (200 BC).

Praetor (200 BC)

Furius next appears in our surviving sources in 200 BC, when he was elected praetor and sent to Cisalpine Gaul.  His designated task was to stand down the consular army there and to assemble a small garrison force at Ariminum.  However, as Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p.197) explained, he almost immediately found himself facing an emergency when three Gallic tribes:

1. “... the Insubres, Cenomani and Boii, [together with] some Ligurians under the leadership of the Carthinaginian Hamilcar [who had remained in Italy after Hannibal’s withdrawal, apparently as a free-lance thorn in the Roman side], launched an entirely unexpected attack on the [Latin colonies of] Placentia and Cremona.”
   

The consul C. Aurelius Cotta sent his army ahead to reinforce Furius’ small force, while he attended to other business at Rome.  When Placentia fell to the Gauls, Furius led what was, in effect, a consular army to the relief of Cremona.  According to Livy, at a crucial moment in the ensuing battle, Furius:

1. “... vowed a temple to Deoiove (sic), should he rout the enemy on that day”, (‘History of Rome’, 31: 21: 12).
   

He appears to have scored a stunning victory and, when the news reached Rome:

1. “Not only had men rejoiced ... , but also a three-day period of thanksgiving had been decreed to the immortal gods, because the praetor ... had conducted affairs ... well and successfully.  [Indeed, it seems that it was the] will of fate that Gallic wars ... [should be] entrusted to the gens Furia”, (‘History of Rome’, 31: 48: 11-12).
   

Livy’s  observation that the gens Furia seemed fated to protect the Romans from the Gauls, would have alluded to:

1. ✴the famous (if unhistorical) victory of Marcus Furius Camillus at the Allia in ca. 390 BC in the aftermath of the Gallic sack of Rome; and
   

2. ✴subsequent Gallic victories won by L. Furius Camillus in 349 BC and Publius Furius Philo in 223 BC.
   

Although it is possible that this was Livy’s own observation, it is also possible that Furius himself had made this point in the case that he made for this unprecedented honour. 

However, not everyone was so delighted with Furius’ success: the consul Cotta:

1. “... having arrived in his province and having found the campaign already over, made no secret of his anger at Furius for having fought in his absence.  He therefore ordered Furius to Etruria, while he himself led the legions into the enemy's country, and, laying it waste, carried on the war with more booty than glory. Furius (partly because there was nothing for him to do in Etruria and partly because he was ambitious for a triumph over the Gauls, which he thought he could more easily obtain in the absence of the angry and jealous consul) unexpectedly appeared in Rome, summoned the Senate in the Temple of Bellona, gave an account of his achievements, and asked that he be allowed to enter the city in triumph”, (‘History of Rome’, 31: 47: 4-7).
   

Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 198) noted that Furius’ actions gave rise to:

1. “... a heated debate in the Senate.  Two points are said to have been at issue:
   

2. ✴... whether a praetor was entitled to a triumph when he was borrowing a consul’s army; and
   

3. ✴... the propriety of Furius’ leaving his military provincia [Etruria] without the permission of the Senate.”
   

Despite Cotta’s opposition:

1. “L. Furius, the praetor, triumphed over the Gauls while still in office and deposited in the treasury 320,000 asses of bronze, and 100, 500 pieces of silver.  There were [however] no captives led before his chariot, no spoils displayed, no soldiers in his train: everything but the victory was in possession of the consul [Cotta]”, (‘History of Rome’, 31: 49: 2-4).
   

Despite these apparent indignities, Furius could comfort himself by the knowledge that he had become the first praetor in Roman history to be awarded a triumph.  However, as Corey Brennan (referenced below, at pp. 199-200) observed, Furius’ presumptuous behaviour seems to have had repercussions:

1. “It would seem that [his] consulship was shunted off [until 196 BC, by which time] the row over the circumstances in which he had gained his triumph had subsided.” 
   

Consul (196 BC)

Furius’ victory in 200 BC had not ended the Gallic insurgency in Cisalpine Gaul: the region had received the attentions of a consul and a praetor in each of 199 and 198 BC and, as Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 200) observed, it then became the practice to deploy both consuls in the north, except when an overseas war was in progress.  Thus, when Furius was elected as consul in 196 BC, he and his colleague, M. Claudius Marcellus (the eponymous son of the consul who had triumphed in Gaul in 222 BC and won the spolia opima) were both sent into Cisalpine Gaul.

Interestingly, this decision on the allocation of provinciae was made despite the opposition of the consuls themselves: according to Livy:

1. “... when the question of the provinces was brought up and the Senate was in favour of decreeing Italy to both consuls, they urged that they should draw lots for Macedonia along with Italy.  Marcellus, who was more anxious for the province of Macedonia, argued that the peace [that T. Quinctius Flamininus, had agreed with Philip V of Macedon] was a make-believe and a fiction, and that Philip would rebel once the army was withdrawn.  This unsettled the minds of the senators, and [Marcellus] might have won his point, had not Q. Marcius Ralla and C. Atinius Labeo, tribunes of the people, announced that they would veto any action if the question was not first referred to the assembly  ... This motion was then laid before the people convened on the Capitoline, and all 35 tribes voted in favour.  ... Italy was then decreed to both the consuls, ... and that [Quinctius should be prorogued in Macedonia]”, (‘History of Rome”, 33: 25: 4-11).
   

Both consuls duly left Rome for Cisalpine Gaul.  Livy recorded that Marcellus defeated the Insubres but then suffered a setback against the Boii, after which the consuls united their armies and marched into:

1. “... the territory of the Boii as far as Felsina, plundering as they went.  This city, all the forts in the neighbourhood, and most of the Boii surrendered ..”, (‘History of Rome”, 33: 37: 3).
   

The consuls pursued the rebels that remained in arms, and engaged with them on the Ligurian border, where:

1. “... the Romans fought with much greater desire for slaughter than for victory, to the extent that they left the enemy hardly a messenger to tell of the defeat.  When the letters of the consuls reporting these achievements arrived in Rome, the Senate decreed a thanksgiving of three days”, (‘History of Rome”, 33: 37: 8-9).
   

It seems that. at this point, Furius paid the price for his earlier presumption:

1. “A little later the consul Marcellus arrived in Rome and was voted a triumph with the complete agreement of the senators: still in office, he triumphed over the Ligures and Comenses.  He left the hope of a triumph over the Boii to his colleague, because he personally had suffered defeat at the hands of that people, but had been victorious when associated with his colleague”, (‘History of Rome’, 33: 37: 9-10) .   
   

However, while the Fasti Triumphales record that Marcellus was awarded a triumph over the Insubrian Gauls, they made no reference to a triumph awarded to Furius:  Corey Brennan (referenced below, at pp. 199-200) observed that:

1. “There is a good possibility that, ... [he] was turned down in a request for a second triumph, [this time over the Boii].  Many in the Senate must have thought that [he] was fortunate enough to have managed to triumph as praetor in 200 BC.” 
   

Temple of Vediovis on the Tiber Island

Site of the temple of Aesculapius and possible sites of the temples of Faunus and of Vediovis on the Tiber Island

Adapted from the website of Digital Augustan Rome

As we have seen, Livy recorded that, at a crucial point in the Battle of Cremona in 200 BC (above), Furius, as praetor:

1. “... vowed aedemque Diiovi (sic: a temple to ‘Diiovis’), should he rout the enemy on that day”, (‘History of Rome’, 31: 21: 12).
   

Livy returned to this temple in his account of the events of 194 BC, when:

1. “The duovir C. Servilius dedicated a temple to Jupiter on the [Tiber] Island that had been:
   

2. ✴vowed in the Gallic war [in 200 BC] by the praetor L. Furius Purpurio,; and
   

3. ✴contracted for by the same man as consul [in 196 BC]”, (‘History of  Rome’, 34: 53: 7).
   

Most scholars accept that there was a temple on the island that:

1. ✴Furius:
   

2. •vowed as praetor in 200 BC; and
   

3. •commissioned as consul in 196 BC; and
   

4. ✴Servilius dedicated as duovir aedes dedicandae in 194 BC;
   

albeit that Livy’s record (as it survives) is ambiguous as to its dedicatee: ‘Diiovis’ at 31: 21: 12; and Jupiter at 34: 53: 7.

Dedicatee of Furius’ Temple on the Tiber Island

Calendar-Based Fasti and Ovid

Hélène Moreau (referenced below, at p. 323) reproduced all of the entries in the surviving calendar-based fasti that relate to cults on the Tiber Island.  None of them recorded a temple dedicated to Jupiter, but three of them recorded a temple to Vediovis, which shared its dies natalis (1st January) with the temple of Aesculapius (which had been founded on the south part of the island shortly after 293 BC - see the map above):

1. ✴ fasti Antiates Maiores (84-55 BC): Aescula(pio) Co[r]o(ndini) Vedioue
   

2. ✴fasti Magistrorum vici (late 1st century BC): Aesc(ulapio) [Ved(ioui)]; and
   

3. ✴fasti Praenestini (6-9 AD): Aescu]lapio, Vediovi in insula.
   

It is important to underline the fact that the last of these explicitly placed this temple of Vediovis on the island.

Ovid was clearly referring to this temple when he recorded that:

1. “On [1st January], ... the [Tiber] island ... received [Aesculapius], whom the nymph Coronis bore to Phoebus [i.e., Apollo].  Jupiter also shares [the island.  Thus], a single place  holds them both, and the temples of the great grandfather (magnus avus, i.e. Jupiter) and his grandson [Aesculapius] are joined together”, (‘Fasti’ 1: 289-94, based on the translation of James Frazer, referenced below, at p. 23).
   

Ovid must have been aware that the earlier calendar-based fasti recorded that this temple was dedicated to Vediovis, so we might reasonably wonder why he asserted that it was dedicated to Jupiter.  Interestingly, Ovid explained the nature of Vediovis, the dedicatee of Furius’ temple on the Capitol, to the readers of his ‘Fasti’ by referring to the cult statue in this temple:

1. “He is the young Jupiter: look on his youthful face; look then on his hand, [which] holds no thunderbolts: Jupiter assumed the thunderbolts [only] after the giants dared to attempt to win the sky; at first he was unarmed”, (‘Fasti’, 3: 429-48, based on the translation of James Frazer, referenced below, at p. 153)..
   

Thus, he might have used poetic licence in the earlier passage in order to designate Vediovis on the island as Jupiter.  An observation by Steven Green (referenced below, at p 134) could explain why he might have done so: Green pointed out that, since Ovid dedicated the ‘Fasti’ to Germanicus, the link that he made here between Aesculapius and his magnus avus, Jupiter might have been intended to:

1. “... encourage the young prince to understand that the sentiment was equally applicable to himself, and to look forward to the day when he would share the same honour as his own magnus avus, Augustus.” 
   

Livy

As was have seen, Livy recorded at 31: 21: 12 that this temple was dedicated to ‘Diiovis’.  In fact, as John Briscoe (referenced below, at p. 113) pointed out, the surviving manuscripts all identify this dedicatee as ‘deo Iovi’, which makes little sense,: the emendation to ‘Diiovis’, which generally appears in English translations, was first suggested by the philologist Henri Valois in the 17th century.  However, as Briscoe pointed out, this putative deity is nowhere recorded in our surviving sources.  He therefore suggested that the deity that Livy actually named here was:

1. ✴Vediovis, as suggested by Rudolf Merkel in 1841; or
   

2. ✴the equivalent Veiovis, as suggested by Otto Roßbach in 1917.
   

He also pointed out that, on this basis, Livy was clearly mistaken when he identified the dedicatee of the temple as Jupiter in 34: 53: 7: Servilius had almost certainly dedicated this temple to Vediovis, on 1st January, 194 BC.

Vitruvius (?)

From Joseph Gwilt (translator), referenced below, my additions in red

These illustrations are at p. 93 in the version republished in 2021 as ISBN-13 : 979-8597820705

Some scholars believe that Vitruvius referred to a temple of Jupiter on the island in a passage in which he classified Roman temples in terms of the layout of their pronaoi (porches):

1. “A temple is called IN ANTIS when it has antæ or pilasters in front of the walls that enclose the cella, [together] with two columns [placed] between the antæ and crowned with a pediment ...  The PROSTYLOS temple is similar, except that it has columns instead of antæ in front, which are placed opposite antæ at the angles of the cella.  [These columns] support the entablature, which returns on each side, as in those in antis.  An example of the prostylos exists in the temple of Jove and Faunus on the Tiber Island”, (‘On Architecture’, 2: 3: 2-3, based on the translation of Joseph Gwilt, referenced below).
   

Hélène Moreau (referenced below, at pp. 141-2) argued that, although, in Vitruvius’ passage, the cults of:

1. “... Jupiter and Faunus seem to be housed in the same aedes, this is certainly a mistake:
   

2. ✴Livy’s record of the [dedication] of the Temple of Faunus [on the island in 194 BC] is clear; and
   

3. ✴the god Faunus in insula is mentioned alone in the fasti via Principi Amedeo on the [13th] of February”, (my translation).
   

She concluded that the putative second temple in Vitruvius’ account must have been this temple of Faunus, and suggested that the other one was Livy’s temple of Diiovis/ Jupiter, which the calendar-based fasti record as the temple of Vediovis.  John Briscoe (referenced below, at p. 113) was also of this opinion:

1. “There was certainly a temple of Vediovis on the island.  Vitruvius ... [calls] it a temple of Jupiter, but [three of the calendar-based fasti] refer to a festival of Vediovis in insula on the [1st] January.”
   

One of eight surviving sheets from an Italian edition (16th century) of Vitruvius’ ‘On Architecture’

The text at the top left summarises 3: 2: 2 (temples in antis), and that below summarises 3: 2: 3 (prostyle temples),

with the ‘Tempio di Giove et di Fauno” given as an example

From the website of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, my additions in red

It is indeed possible that Vitruvius referred in this passage to two separate prostyle temples on the island, in which case, they could have been:

1. ✴Furius’ temple of Vediovis, which Vitruvius had mistakenly thought to be a temple of Jupiter; and
   

2. ✴the well-documented temple of Faunus.
   

These were both built in the period 197-4 BC, possibly to the same ‘prostyle’ design, and were dedicated within six weeks of each other.  However, the evidence for this hypothesis is by no means conclusive, and some scholars argue that:

1. ✴Vitruvius would have known whether there was one prostyle temple on the island or two; and
   

2. ✴there is no basis for emending the surviving manuscripts so that this passage refers to separate temples of Jove and of Faunus. 
   

Thus, for example, Adam Ziolkowski (referenced below, at p. 166, note 14) concluded that, although the text is ambiguous, Vitruvius probably referred to a single temple and that the well-documented temple of Faunus was also dedicated to Jupiter.  Lawrence Richardson (referenced below, at p. 148) similarly assumed observed that:

1. “The temple [of Faunus] was a tetrastyle prostyle ... , and Vitruvius says that Jupiter and Faunus were worshipped together there.”
   

The sheet illustrated above might throw some light on the matter.  It was one of eight sheets from the manuscript draft of an Italian edition of Vitruvius’ ‘On Architecture’ that were acquired by the Metropolitan Museum, New York, in 2007 BC, as recorded by Carmen Bambach (referenced below).  She attributed them to a member of the Sangallo family and dated them to 1530-50.  This sheet illustrates the temple of Faunus (identified at the lower right) in front of one of the the bridges of the Tiber Island, with its floor plan to the left.  The text below summarises Vitruvius’ description of prostyle temples (albeit that the form of the temple, as he represented it, has only two columns in front of the facade, as opposed to the Vitruvian four).  In this Italian text, Vitruvius’ Roman example of this style is rendered as ‘[il] Tempio di Giove e di Fauno’.  It thus seems that ‘Sangallo’ also assumed that Vitruvius gave this dedication to the temple that was generally known as the temple of Faunus.

In summary, it is sometimes argued that Vitruvius identified two prostyle temples on the island:

1. ✴Furius’ temple of Vediovis, which he mistakenly thought to be a temple of Jupiter; and
   

2. ✴the temple of Faunus, which was illustrated in the now-lost Italian edition of Vitruvius’ ‘On Architecture’ from ca. 1540 that was discussed above.
   

However, his original text almost certainly referred to a single temple of Jove and Faunus.  A Roman temple of this dedication is otherwise unknown, but it is possible that a cult site devoted to Jupiter was subsequently housed within the temple of Faunus.  It seem to me that this is the more likely scenario, in which case, this passage from Vitruvius has no bearing on the dedication of Furius’ temple on the island.

Dedicatee of Furius’ Temple: my Conclusion

The evidence of three surviving entries in the calendar-based fasti indicates beyond doubt the existence on the island of a temple of Vediovis that was dedicated on 1st January.  This was almost certainly the temple that, according to Livy (31: 21: 12), Furius had vowed in 200 BC (albeit that the manuscript requires emendation at this point).  This means that Livy was mistaken when, at 34: 53: 7, he designated the temple vowed by Furius, which  Servilius dedicated on the island in 194 BC, as a temple of Jupiter: it was almost certainly the temple of Vediovis with its dies natalis on  1st January .

Two potential problems with this conclusion must be addressed:

1. ✴Ovid unambiguously designated this temple as a temple of Jupiter.  However, I argued above that he would have been well aware of the evidence of the calendar-based fasti, and that he exercised poetic licence in order to render Vediovis (whom he characterised in a later passage as the young Jupiter) as Jupiter tout court.
   

2. ✴Some scholars argue that Vitruvius (at 3: 2: 3) referred to Furius’ temple on the island as a prostyle temple of Jupiter, an architectural form that it shared with the nearby temple of Faunus.  However, I argued above that this passage clearly referred to a single temple of Jupiter and Faunus, and that the well-documented temple of Faunus on the island might well have also housed the cult of Jupiter Jurarius, which epigraphic evidence places on the north of the island (under the present church of San Giovanni Calibita) a few decades after the temple of Faunus was dedicated.   If so, then this passage by Vitruvius has no bearing of the matter of the dedicatee of Furius’ temple.
   

In other words, we can reasonably privilege the evidence of  the calendar-based fasti: the temple that:

1. ✴Furius vowed in battle as praetor in 200 BC, and
   

2. ✴Servilius dedicated on the Tiber Island as duovir in 191 BC;
   

was dedicated to Vediovis, and its dies natalis was 1st January.

Location of Furius’ Temple

Ovid

The only indication of the location of this temple in the sources discussed so far is from Ovid, who commented that:

1. “On [1st January, ca. 291 BC], ... the [Tiber] island ... received [Aesculapius] ... Jupiter also shares [the island.  Thus], a single place holds them both ...”, (‘Fasti’ 1: 289-94, based on the translation of James Frazer, referenced below, at p. 23).
   

If Ovid’s testimony that these two temples ‘joined together’ is literally true, then both would thus have been to the south of the island.  Gil Renberg (referenced below, at  pp. 103-4) observed that, if (as other evidence suggest - see below) the temple of Jupiter was to the north of the road that bisected the island, then Ovid might have meant, not that they were physically joined, together, but rather that they simply shared the island.  It seems to me that the key point that Ovid wanted to make was that the the temples of Aesculapius and ‘Jupiter’ shared two things:

1. ✴their location (the Tiber Island); and
   

2. ✴and their dies natalis (1st January).
   

In other words, this passage probably has no bearing on the question of the precise location of Furius’ temple on the island.

Evidence from the Site of the Ospedale Fatebenefratelli

Church of San Giovanni Calibita and the Ospedale Fatebenefratelli 

This page in the website of the Ospedale Fatebenefratelli on the island contains a summary of the essentially unpublished excavations of 1989-94 under the so-called Cortile dei Pesci (which now forms part of the modern hospital), which:

1. “... brought to light, at a depth of 3.30 meters, a rectangular aula (hall) in tufa blocks, to be identified with a temple of Jupiter (sic), and an area behind, belonging to the same sanctuary, paved with [lapis Gabinus (volcanic stone from Gabii)] ...  The mosaic floor [of the aula], made up of small white tesserae ... has, at its centre, within an area framed by a band of black tesserae, an inscription, [CIL VI 40896a], also [picked out] in small black tesserae, that is probably referable to a restoration of the temple that we know from Livy was dedicated in 194 BC.  Structures [that were subsequently built above] the aula possibly belong to the early phases of the church of San Giovanni Calibita” (my translation).
   

Epigraphic Evidence

Denarius (RRC 239/1 , 136 BC) issued by C. Servilius M.F 

Obverse: helmeted head of Roma 

Reverse: Dioscuri (the twins Castor and Pollux) riding apart, with spears reversed

Right and left parts of CIL VI 40896a, adapted from Manfredi Zanin (referenced below, Figures 5 and 6)

Originals: © Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Foto-Archiv CIL, Inv.-Nr. PH0007666 (bzw. 7667)

The inscription (CIL VI 40896a)  was originally in a single line and now survives in two fragments, which have been published as:

C(aius) Serveili(us) M(arci) f(ilius) pr(aetor) 

[---?] Serveilieis C f  faciendum coeraverunt eidemque probavẹ[runt]

The phrase  ‘Serveilieis’ C f’’ in the right part of the inscription implies the intervention of at least two of the praetor’s  sons, and there is room for the praenomina of three.  On this basis, the inscription is usually translated and completed as:

1. “Caius Servilius, son of Marcus, praetor [---?, C(aius), M(arcus), P(ublius)?], sons of [presumably C.] Servilius have undertaken, taken charge of and approved (this work)”.
   

This inscription has been dated on prosopographical grounds: the project documented in the mosaic floor had been commissioned by a praetor called C. Servilius, who had at least two sons who had been old enough to ‘undertake, take charge of and approve’ the work.  He was almost certainly:

1. ✴the C. Servilius M.F who issued the denarius (RRC 239/1) in  136 BC; and
   

2. ✴the C. Servilius Vatia who was praetor in Macedonia in ca. 120 BC (see Corey Brennan, referenced below, at p. 705, p. 742 and p. 903, note 161), whose youngest son, Publius (the consul of 79 BC) would have been about 15 years old in 120 BC (see, for example, Manfredi Zanin, referenced below, at p. 230)
   

As Manfredi Zanin (referenced below, at pp. 230-1) pointed out, it is possible that Vatia had only initiated the project that had involved with the laying of the mosaic pavement before he left Rome for Macedonia, and that the associated work had been ‘undertaken, taken charge of and approved’ by his sons at a slightly later period.  I argued (in my  page C. Servilius M. f., Praetor of CIL VI 40896a) this C. Servillius was probably the grandson of either C. Servilius Geminus (cos. 203 BC) or M. Servilius Geminus Pulex (cos. 202 BC). 

Modern scholars often identify C. Servilius Geminus (cos. 203 BC) as the duovir aedes dedicandae who dedicated the Temple of Vediovis on the Tiber Island in 194 BC.  However, as Eric Orlin  (referenced below, at p. 174, note 39) pointed out:

1. “Apart from the clearly exceptional case of [Q.] Fabius Maximus [Verrucosus] and T. Otilius, [who dedicated  the temples of Venus Erycina and Mens respectively in 215 BC, in the crisis period of the Second Punic War], only one established statesman might be included in the ranks of the duoviri aedi dedicandae: C. Servilius Geminus  ... [However], it is possible that the [C.] Servilius named by Livy [as the duoviri of 194 BC] was an otherwise undistinguished member of family, whose career never got off the ground, despite his dedication of the Temple of Vediovis.”
   

It is nevertheless possible that this marble pavement formed part of a restoration of the temple that the duovir C. Servilius had dedicated: as set out in my page Temple of Juventas, that temple was dedicated in 194 BC by another the relatively obscure duovir, C. Licinius Lucullus, but his illustrious descendants, the brothers M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (cos. 73 BC) and L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74 BC), still presided over the annual  sacra Iuventatis in the late Republic.

Archeological Evidence

As noted above, this page in the website of the Ospedale Fatebenefratelli on the island contains a summary of the essentially unpublished excavations of 1989-94 under the Cortile dei Pesci that:

1. “... brought to light, at a depth of 3.30 meters, a rectangular aula (hall) in tufa blocks ... and an area behind, belonging to the same sanctuary ... :
   

2. ✴The mosaic floor [of the aula], made up of small white tesserae ... has, at its centre, within an area framed by a band of black tesserae, an inscription, [CIL VI 40896a], also [picked out] in small black tesserae ...
   

3. ✴Structures [that were subsequently built above] the aula possibly belong to the early phases of the church of San Giovanni Calibita” (my translation).
   

Seth Bernard (referenced below, at pp. 393-4) summarised what has been published to date on the excavations from 1989-94.  In summary:

1. “[They] revealed a series of structures in large ashlar blocks superimposed by a medieval church, which appears to have been inserted directly onto the ancient structure, .... [which] is described by excavators as an aula (hall) and seems to have opened onto the ancient road that ran across the island from the Pons Cestius to the Pons Fabricius.”
   

He first addressed an addendum published Paola di Manzano and Roberto Giustini (who directed the excavations for the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma) in the ‘Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae’ (5: 270, 1999), which describes:

1. “... an aula templare of rectangular plan, 16 x 8 m in dimensions, with an adjacent platea in lapis gabinus and paved with travertine.”
   

Clearly, at this stage, di Manzano and Giustini believed that these remains were evidence of a temple dedicated to Jupiter.  According to Francesco Marcattili (referenced below, at p. 735), this suggested dedication had been attributed:

1. “... on the basis of the discovery, on a nearby site, of a votive altar [dedicated to Jupiter ?] offered by M. Valerius Fronto, and by virtue of the much earlier discovery (March 1854), [under the cloister of the nearby church of] San Giovanni Calibita, of [another inscription, CIL VI 379] pertinent to the cult of Jupiter Jurarius.”
   

However, Bernard observed that:

1. ✴“... in a note on a public lecture given by Di Manzano in the Rendiconti 1999 [see Paola di Manzano et al., 1999/8, referenced below], she concluded that it was no longer possible to state with confidence whether or not this [aula] was a temple; and
   

2. ✴in an article on excavations under S. Bartolemeo published in 2006-7 [see Paola di Manzano et al., 2006/7, referenced below], she expressed regret that further archaeological exploration was not possible in the area [in order] to clarify what must remain a difficult structure to interpret”
   

Eric Moormann (referenced below, at p. 48, note 5), referring to what seems to be the arcticle of 1998/9 (although he dated it to 2001), noted that:

1. “... [Paola] di Manzano et al. report that the existence of a sanctuary [on the excavated site] is not as sure as they argued previously.”
   

Francesco Marcattili (referenced below, at p. 735) argued that, on the basis of his analysis of the relevant data, that:

1. “It seems more coherent and logical to identify Vediovis as the ‘owner ‘of this temple with a transversal cella.”
   

Hélène Moreau (referenced below, at p. 146 ) observed that the mosaic pavement had belonged to a room that was:

1. “ ... approximately 16m wide and 8m deep, [which was] probably the cella [of this putative temple]”, (my translation).
   

She noted (at pp. 146-7) that this room:

1. “... seems to have gone through several phases of construction, none of which took place later than the 2nd century BC; the phase [that included the mosaic floor and the inscription [which she dated (at p. 145) to 125-120 BC] would then be one of the most recent, if not the last.  The orientation of the inscription indicates that the structure opened towards the south-east, on its longest side, and gave access to the street connecting the two bridges”, (my translation).
   

She placed great emphasis (at pp. 146-50) on the fact that, in her opinion, this putative temple on the island shared two characteristics with Furius’ temples of Vediovis on the Capitol (see below):

1. ✴an elongated cella, roughly twice as wide as it was long; and
   

2. ✴an entrance on the longer side of this cella.
   

Penelope Davies (referenced below, at p. 92) expressed a similar opinion: after her discussion of the plan of Furius’ temple on the Capitol , she noted that:

1. “This transverse cella scheme, [which was] apparently also used for the temple restored by Servilius on the Tiber Island, is attested only three times in Republican Rome ...”
   

Although she did not specify here, I presume that these three ‘temples’ would have been:

1. ✴Furius’ temple of Vediovis on the Capitol, at least from the time of its restoration in ca. 150 BC ,and possibly from its inception in 196 BC;
   

2. ✴the putative ‘temple restored by Servilius’ on the Tiber Island, at least from the time of this restoration in ca. 100 BC; and
   

3. ✴the Temple of Castor in the Circus Flaminius, which was built in ca. 74 BC (since she noted, at p. 188 and note 57, that it had been included in Vitruvius (4: 8: 4).
   

Thus, Francesco Marcattili, Hélène Moreau and Penelope Davies all argued that the room with the mosaic pavement was the transverse cella of a temple, and that the temple in question had been vowed by L. Furius Purpurio in 200 BC and dedicated by C. Servilius in 194 BC.

However, Seth Bernard(referenced below, at pp. 392-3) argued that:

1. “... the structure relating to the mosaic [pavement at San Giovanni Calibita] is probably not the [temple] itself, because the mosaic inscription refers to praetorian construction rather than aedilician or censorial repair. ... A plan of the structures associated with the mosaic has not yet been published and, to the eye, the area where the mosaic was discovered appears more like a temple precinct than a temple building itself (i.e. a paved area or platform with smaller structures)”
   

He pointed out (at p. 394) that a ‘reading’ of this site is very difficult, and conceded that:

1. “... we cannot rule out [the possibility] that some parts of [the excavated] structure, perhaps those walls and blocks in tufo giallo, derive from that structure begun by Furius Purpurio [in 196 BC] and dedicated by C. Servilius [in 194 BC].”
   

If I have understood him correctly, then he argued that Furius’ temple might well have been close to (and possibly under) the room containing the mosaic pavement, but that this room was unlikely to have formed part of it.  

Evidence from the Site of the Ospedale Fatebenefratelli: my Conclusions

It seems to me that, in its  present state, the archeological evidence tells us little more than the fact that the inscription CIL 40896a was found in a mosaic pavement at a depth of 3.30 meters below the Cortile dei Pesci inside the Ospedale Fatebenefratelli.  However, it seems highly likely that the members of the gens Servilia who were named  in the inscription:

1. ✴had undertaken the construction project to which the pavement belonged in the late 2nd century BC; and
   

2. ✴were descended from the duovir C. Servilius, who had dedicated the Aedes Vediovi in Insula here on 1st January 191 BC.
   

As I mentioned above, it seems that the duoviri aede dedicandae  passed on a proprietorial interest if the sacra Juventatis to his descendants (even though the temple had been vowed by another individual), and it is therefore entirely likely that this marble pavement formed part of a restoration of the Temple of Vediovis  that the duovir C. Servilius had dedicated.

Temple of Vediovis on the Tiber Island: my Conclusions

Based on the analysis above, I conclude that:

1. ✴L. Furius Purpurio:
   

2. •vowed a temple of Vediovis in battle as praetor in 200 BC; and
   

3. •let the contract for its construction on a site on the Tiber Island near the present Ospedale Fatebenefratelli as consul in 196 BC; and
   

4. ✴C. Servilius, an ancestor of C. Servilius Vatia (pr. in ca. 125 BC) and of his son, P. Servilius Vatia (cos 79 BC),  dedicated as duovir aedes dedicandae on 1st January, 194 BC.
   

Temple of Vediovis on the Capitol

Site of the temple of Vediovis inter duos lucos (now behind the facade of Palazzo Senatori)

Adapted from the website of Digital Augustan Rome

According to Livy:

1. “Aedes duae Iovis (two temples to Jupiter) were dedicated [in 192 BC] on the Capitol; L. Furius Purpurio had vowed [them both]:
   

2. ✴one while praetor in the Gallic war; and
   

3. ✴the other while consul.
   

4. The dedication was performed by the duovir Q. Marcius Ralla”, (‘History of Rome’, 35: 41: 8).
   

John Briscoe (referenced below, at p. 114) reasonably characterised the ‘duae Iovis’ as nonsensical and pointed out that this cannot be explained by an obvious emendation of the text in order to fit the facts.  He therefore argued that:

1. “... it is likely that the process of misunderstanding goes back to Livy himself, if not to his source.”
   

However, one of the facts in question is that Livy had already recorded that, in 194 BC:

1. “The duovir C. Servilius dedicated a temple to Jupiter on the [Tiber] Island that had been:
   

2. ✴vowed in the Gallic war by the praetor L. Furius Purpurio,; and
   

3. ✴contracted for by the same man as consul”, (‘History of  Rome’, 34: 53: 7).
   

Both passages were presumably based on the same source, and the only explanation is that Livy’s reference in 35: 41: 8 to a temple that Furius had vowed ‘while praetor in the Gallic war’ should be ignored.  That leaves us with a putative temple of Jupiter on the Cappitol that was:

1. ✴vowed by Furius as consul in 196 BC; and
   

2. ✴dedicated by Q. Marcius Ralla as duovir in 192 BC.
   

Dedicatee and Location of Furius’ Temple on the Capitol

The most compelling evidence for the dedicatee of this temple is found in an account of Pliny the Elder that dealt with the durability of various kinds of wood.  He observed that:

1. “Cypress was ... chosen ... because it is the one kind of wood that, beyond all others, retains its polish in the best condition for all time.  Has not the simulacrum Veiovis in arce (cult statue of Vediovis on the Arx) ... , [which is] made of cypress, lasted since its dedication a condita urbe DLXI (in the 561st year after the foundation of Rome)”, (‘Natural History’, 16: 79).
   

If Pliny had been using Varronian dating, this would mean that the cult image in the temple of Vediovis on the Capitol had been consecrated in 193/2 BC but, as John Briscoe (referenced below, at p. 114) pointed out, we have no idea what precise dating system was used by Pliny’s source and, in any case:

1. “... it could be that the numeral in Pliny is corrupt, and that it should read 562.  It is perfectly possible that the temple and the statue were dedicated on the same day [in 192 BC] ..., and that Ralla, [who had dedicated the temple of Fortuna Primigenia as duovir in 194 BC], had been reappointed as a duovir in 192 BC.”
   

This suggests that:

1. ✴for whatever reason, Furius vowed a second Temple of Vediovis as consul in 196 BC, the year in which he let the contract for his earlier Temple of Vediovis on the Tiber Island;
   

2. ✴this second Temple of Vediovis was subsequently built on the Arx; and
   

3. ✴Q. Marcius Ralla dedicated it as duovir in 192 BC.
   

Two of the surviving calendar-based fasti recorded the dies natalis of this temple as 7th March.  This is supported by surviving entries in two of the calendar-based fasti:

1. ✴fasti Antiates Maiores: “Vedi[ove] in Capitol [io]”; and
   

2. ✴fasti Praenestini:“[f(astus). Ved]iovi, Artis Vediovis inter duo lucos”.
   

The fasti Antiates Maiores place the temple securely on the Capitol.  However, as Howard Scullard (referenced below, at p. 87) observed:

1. “The letters ARTIS (= AEDIS ?) [in the fasti Praenestini] remain obscure .  ... [However, this entry records that Vediovis’] temple on the Capitol ... [was erected] 'inter duos lucos’: that is, between the two summits of the Capitol.”
   

The fact that the fasti Praenestini record both Vediovi in insula (1st January) and Vediovis inter duos lucos (7th March) makes it certain that there were, indeed, two Temples of Vediovis in Rome, one on the Tiber Island and the other of the Capitol. 

Ovid confirmed the location of the temple on the Capitl:

1. “The Nones [7th] of March have only one mark [in the calendar]: ... on that day, the temple of Vediovis was consecrated lucos ... ante duos (in front of the two groves)”, (‘Fasti’ 3: 429, based on the translation of James Frazer, referenced below, at p. 153).
   

Vitruvius recorded that two Roman temples:

1. “.... the temple of Castor in the Circus Flaminius, and that of of Vediovis inter duos lucos, ... [belong to a group of temples, the earliest of which] were those of Pallas (Minerva) on the Acropolis at Athens and at Sunium in Attica. ... [In all of these temples], the cellae are twice as wide as they are deep, ... and all the features that are usually [on the shorter sides of temple cellae, including their entrances] are transferred to the [longer sides], (‘On Architecture’, 4: 8: 4).
   

I will return to the architectural form of the temple below.  For the moment, I simply note that Vitruvius also placed this temple ‘inter duos lucos’.  More than a century later, Aulus Gellius recorded that there is:

1. “... a temple of Vediovis at Rome, inter Arcem et Capitolium (between the Arx and the Capitol)”, (‘Attic Nights’, 5: 12: 1-2).
   

The Arx was on the northern spur of the Capitol, under what is now the church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli: it seems that sacred groves had once covered the peak of this spur and that of the Capitol proper, and that the the depression between them was therefore designated as ‘inter duos lucos’.  As Alexander Thein observed (in the Directory of the website Digital Augustan Rome), this temple:

1. “... has been identified with the remains of a small temple under the southwestern corner of Palazzo Senatorio on the Capitol, nestled into a corner of the later Tabularium.  Its ground-plan, unusual on account of its transverse cella fronted by a tetrastyle pronaos  ..., as is well established through excavations ... “.
   

I discuss this archeological evidence below.

Architectural Form of the Temple

Impression of the Capitoline  Temple of Vediovis in 78 BC  (from the website of the Musei Capitolini)  

Plan of of the Capitoline  Temple of Vediovis and its subsequent development

Adapted from Benjamin Rous (referenced below, at p. 334)

Howard Scullard (referenced below, at p. 88) recorded that substantial remains of a temple were found in 1939 behind the Tabularium (Record Office) under a corner of the Palazzo Senatorio on the Capitol, together with a marble cult statue (illustrated at the top of the page).  The uppermost stratum of these remains belonged to the same construction date as that of the Tabularium itself (completed in 78 BC), but Scullard noted that traces two earlier phases had been detected below, one from the middle of the 2nd century BC and one from an earlier period.  More recently, Claudia Angelelli (referenced below) recorded that these investigations in the NW corner of Palazzo Senatorio:

1. “... brought to light the podium of a temple, characterised by a transverse cella and ...  identified with the temple of Vediovis ‘inter duos lucos’  [Vitruvius, 4: 8: 4], located ‘intra arcem et Capitolium’ (Gell. 5: 1: 12).  This temple was built on the saddle between the Arx and the Capitol and [vowed in 196 BC] by the consul L. Furius Purpurio (Livy, 35: 41. 8).  [In its third phase, it was] oriented SW and had a cella that was about twice as wide as it was deep (15 x 8.90 m), preceded by a narrow tetrastyle pronaos [that was approached by] a staircase of nine steps.  The four travertine bases of the columns of the pronaos remain in situ, and the two outer ones correspond to two tufa pilasters on travertine bases on the walls of the cella.  The podium, which is about 1.80 m high, has concrete foundations and travertine cladding; ... During the excavations, it was possible to [establish that]:
   

2. ✴this [third] phase dates to the Sullan era and was contemporary with the construction of the nearby Tabularium [78 BC]; and
   

3. ✴the podium overlaps a previous temple building, with a slightly divergent orientation, narrower cella and shallower pronaos”, (my translation).
   

Anton Maria Colini (referenced below), the archeologist who was responsible for the excavations on the Capitol, published the drawings above of all three phases of the construction of the temple.  He supported the archeological date for the first phase with the surviving literary sources (discussed above) to establish that these were the remains of the temple that Furius had vowed in 196 BC. 

As noted above, Vitruvius (‘On Architecture’, 4: 8: 4) recorded that this temple was one of at least two temples in Rome (the other being the temple of  Castor in the Circus Flaminius) that had a cella that was roughly twice as wide as it was deep.  Frederick Winter (referenced below, at pp. 196-7) regarded this unusual temple style as one of two important Roman interventions (the other being the theatre-temple) in what he called the ‘Italo-Hellenistic tradition’.  He observed (at p. 197) that:

1. “... the T-shaped temple plan was obviously designed to serve the needs of specific situations.  It was simply a modification of the traditional rectangular plan, but not one that would have been likely to occur to an Aegean architect, Roman designers were less bound by tradition that their Greek counterparts, ... [and] regularly adapted their temples to a wide variety of of settings and orientations; the plan [under discussion here] ... was an attempt to provide a spacious cella on sites that were wide and shallow in relation to the open space in front of the temple.  [Furius’ temple on the Capitol seems to be] the earliest known example of this plan. ... [which] seems to have appeared in the reconstruction of ca. 150 BC.”
   

In fact, as discussed below, it is possible that the original temple was built according to a design of this kind.  However, it is interesting to note that, in Winter’s opinion, even if the design had dated to ca. 150 BC, it would have probably represented the first use of this design: after all, Vitruvius had linked the design to two Attic temples of the 5th century BC (the Erechtheion on the acropolis of Athens and the temple of Athena at Sounion).  However, as Antonio Corso (referenced below, at p. 383) observed, in the passage above:

1. “Vitruvius ...  writes [first and foremost] about temples with entrance pronaoi on the long sides of their  cellae.  Given the peculiar configuration of these temples, he feels the need to give an idea to his Roman readers quoting examples from the area of Rome. ... The typology of the temple with the cella at right angles to the pronaos is thought by Vitruvius to be have originated in the high classical age ... and to have been developed later.”
   

In his subsequent analysis, Corso showed that, while aspects of the two ancient Attic temples might well have inspired the Italian T-shaped temple plan, they did not conform to it (in the sense that neither was T-shaped, as is clear from his figures 11 and 12).

Antonio Corso (referenced below, at p. 383) pointed out that Vitruvius had cited three Italian examples of this later development:

1. “The temple of Castor in Circo Flaminio, built around 100 BC, had a pronaos at right angles to [and at the centre of] the cella  ... The temple of Vediovis [on the Capitol] had been given a similar configuration in the age of Sulla ... The temple of Diana Nemorensis [at Aricia] dated a little before 100 BC, to judge by the terrace on which it stood, but it is unknown archaeologically.”
   

In fact, the architectural plans above suggest that the temple on the Capitol had belonged in this Vitruvian category from a much earlier date: indeed Benjamin Rous (referenced below, at p. 333) considered it to be:

1. “...the most likely candidate [for the earliest temple of this type in Rome, albeit that] it is uncertain if the earliest phase of the building ... already possessed a transverse cella.”
   

He subsequently expanded on this remark (at p. 335):

1. “... we cannot be sure about the first phase [of its construction], since the [relevant] archeological remains ... leave room for the reconstruction of a traditional cella as well as [for an already] transverse one.”
   

He then outlined (at p. 334-5) the two subsequent phases of its construction:

1. ✴“It is ... certain that the second phase, to be placed near the middle of the 2nd century BC, had a transverse cella ...”; and
   

2. ✴“... the last phase, probably built in conjunction with the vast structure of the [adjacent] Tabularium, was dedicated in 78 BC.  In this last phase, the temple had a cella that was almost twice as wide as it was deep (15 x 8.9 m), preceded by a narrow, tetrastyle pronaos, thus exhibiting the characteristics mentioned by Vitruvius [at 4: 8: 4].”
   

Penelope Davies (referenced below, at p. 92) expressed a similar opinion: in her account of developments in temple architecture at Rome in the period 217-134 BC, she observed that:

1. “Horizontal proportions were becoming more elongated (width: length approximately 1:2) and, as evidenced by Furius’ ... temple of Vediovis [on the Capitol], new types of ground plan emerged; by the time of its mid-second-century restoration at least, and perhaps from its inception, its cella was almost twice as wide as it was long, [and] set perpendicular to a narrow tetrastyle pronaos.”
   

Cult Statues from the Temple of Vediovis on the Capitol

Much of what we know about the Roman cult of Vediovis (discussed in my page Cult of Vediovis) is derived from literary records of the first cult statue in his temple of the Capitol and the evidence of its replacement (which survives and is illustrated at the top of the page).

Cypress Statue of ca. 192 BC ?

As discussed above, Pliny the Elder (ca. 79 AD), in a passage that dealt with the durability of various kinds of wood, observed that:

1. “Cypress ... is the wood that, beyond all others, retains its polish in the best condition for all time.  Has not the cult statue of Vediovis on the Arx (simulacrum Vediovis in arce) ... , [which is] made of cypress, lasted since its dedication in the 561st year after the foundation of Rome (a condita urbe DLXI)”, (‘Natural History’, 16: 79).
   

The important point here is that the original cypress statue of Vediovis in his temple on the Capitol apparently survived in Pliny’s lifetime. 

Marble Statue of ca. 81 AD ?

It seems that the cypress statue described above was destroyed by fire soon after Pliny’s death in 79 AD: as Christer Henriksén (referenced below, at p. 410) observed, the Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) rebuilt a number of temples on the Capitol:

1. “... the temples of Iuppiter Tonans and Vediovis ([which had presumably been] damaged in the fire of 80 AD); the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (which had been rebuilt by Vespasian .. in 69 AD but had burned down again in 80 AD); and probably also the temple of Juno Moneta on the Arx.”
   

Howard Scullard (referenced below, at p. 57) noted that:

1. “During excavations of this temple in 1939, a marble statue [illustrated at the top of the page] was found: a male figure of Apolline type, with a cloak hanging over the left arm, although the arms and head were missing.  This must have replaced the earlier wooden statue, which may have been destroyed in the fire of 80 AD.”
   

Aulus Gellius (ca. 170 AD) presumably described the replacement statue (or a later copy of it) in the following passage:

1. “The statue of the god Vediovis, which is in [his] temple [on the Capitol], ... holds arrows, which, as everyone knows, are devised to inflict harm.   For that reason it has often been said that that god is [a form of] Apollo; and a she-goat is sacrificed to him ‘in humano ritu’ [by a human rite, whatever that means] and a representation of that animal stands near his statue”, (‘Attic Nights’, 5: 12: 11-12).
   

It seems that, by Gellius’ time, the statue was taken as a representation of Apollo, and the attribute in the hand of the god was ‘read’ as a bunch arrows (although it was probably, originally, a thunderbolt).

Temple of Vediovis on the Capitol: my Conclusions

If we put Livy to one side, our surviving  historical sources are easily reconciled the the archeological evidence to give a coherent history of the temple.  Based on the analysis above, I concluded that:

1. ✴L. Furius Purpurio vowed a second Temple of Vediovis as consul in 196 BC (possibly in battle against the tribes of Cisalpine Gaul and the Ligurians);
   

2. ✴this second temple was subsequently built inter duos lucos on the Capitol; and
   

3. ✴Q. Marcius Ralla (who had served as a plebeian tribune during Furius’ consulship and blocked Marcellus request for the provincia of Macedonia) dedicated it as duoviraedes dedicandae on 4th March, 192 BC.