Key to Umbria
 


Roman Conquest of Italy (Topic):

Topic: Temples Dedicated in 194 - 191 BC


Home   Cities    History    Art    Hagiography    Contact


Background: Temple Dedications in 218 - 191 BC

Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at pp. 199-207) catalogued all of the known dedications of temples in Rome in the period 509-55 BC.  This list contains six temples dedicated during the Second Punic War (218 - 201 BC):

  1. five in  218 - 215 BC, during the initial disastrous phase of the war; and

  2. the sixth in 205 BC.

This period of activity was apparently followed by a pause that lasted until 194 BC.  However, it was followed by a four-year period (194 - 191 BC inclusive) that was, Orlin observed (at p. 185):

  1. “... an intense time of temple construction, [in which] eight temples were dedicated ...” 

Even more striking is the fact that four of theses temples were dedicated in 194 BC alone.

As we shall see, five of these eight temples had been vowed in battle by individual commanders.  The other three were:

  1. the Temple of Faunus on the Tiber Island, which had been commissioned in 197 BC by a pair of aediles in their official capacity and was dedicated in 194 BC;

  2. the shrine of Victoria Virgo on the Palatine, which had been commissioned by Marcus Porcius Cato and probably financed from booty gained in his Spanish campaign of 194 BC, and which was dedicated in 193 BC; and

  3. the Temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine, which had been built to house a black stone that represented the goddess that had been brought to Rome from Pessinus after the consultation of the Sibyline Bools in 205 BC, during the Second Punic War and was dedicated in 191 BC.

Temples Not Vowed in War, Dedicated in 194-1 BC

Temple of Faunus on the Tiber Island (194 BC)

Livy

Livy recorded the construction and dedication of this temple in two related passages:

  1. In 197 BC:

  2. “The plebeian aediles, Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Caius Scribonius Curio, brought many pecuarii (grazers of animals) to trial before the people: three of them were convicted and [the aediles] used the money that they paid as fines to build a temple to Faunus on the [Tiber] Island”; (‘History of  Rome, 33: 42: 9).

  3. In 194 BC, one of these aediles, Domitius:

  4. “... dedicated [this temple] while city praetor”, (‘History of  Rome, 34: 53: 4).

John Briscoe (referenced below, 1973, at p. 330) pointed out that:

  1. “... the fact that the [fines paid by] only three men were sufficient to provide enough money to build a temple suggests that [they] were not humble shepherds: we are dealing with large-scale operators, [who] had presumably either occupied ager publicus without permission or broken the law concerning the number of animals that could be grazed.”

Penelope Davies (referenced below, at p. 83) observed that the Second Punic War had weighed most heavily on the populus:

  1. “ ... whose old concerns [regarding the] disruption of agriculture and debt had resurfaced: [in order to court their political support, the], aediles [Domitius and Scribonius] pursued those whose misconduct had exacerbated [these] problems, and especially honoured the nature god Faunus [see below], who could oversee the regulation of pastureland.”

Ovid

Ovid recorded that: 

  1. “On the [13th February], the altars of rustic Faunus smoke [during sacrifices], [in the place] where the [Tiber] island breaks the parted waters”, (‘Fasti’ 2: 193-4, based on the translation of James Frazer, 1931, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below).

The fasti via Principi Amedeo similarly record an annual festival of ‘Fauno [i]n insula’ on 13th February. 

Paolo Carafa and Paola Pacchiarotti (referenced below, at p. 553 and p. 570, note 108) suggested that Ovid’s reference to the place “where the island breaks the parted waters” indicated that it was located at the island’s northern point.   They pointed out (at p. 570, note 108, citing Maurice Besnier, 1902) that:

  1. “The remains of walls and large marble blocks that were still visible here in the 16th and 17th century might have been associated with this temple”, (my translation).

However, any trace of this temple has since disappeared.

Vitruvius

Vitruvius recorded that:

  1. “An example of the prostyle [temple type] exists in aede Iovis et Fauni (in the Temple of Jupiter and Faunus) on the Tiber Island”, (‘On Architecture’, 3: 2: 3).

Although Vitruvius’ sentence is ambiguous, other sources indicate that there were two separate temples, albeit that both were on the island, possibly in close proximity to each other:

  1. the temple of Jupiter/ Vediovis, dedicated on 1st January 194 BC (see below); and

  2. the Temple of Faunus under discussion here, dedicated on 1st January 194 BC.

Vitruvius; record indicated that each of these temples consisted of a cella (hall) preceded by a pronaus (porch) with four columns that extended across the width of one of its shorter sides.

Cult of Faunus

According to Varro:

  1. Fauni [Fauns] are deities of the Latins, and can be male or female (Faunus and Fauna).  In so-called Saturnian verses, tradition has it that, in woodland places, they used to speak (fori, foretell) the future, from which ‘speaking’, they were called Fauni” , (‘On the Latin Language’, 7: 36, based on the translation by Roland Kent, referenced below).

Hélène Moreau (referenced below, at p. 175) argued that:

  1. “The association of the name of Faunus with that of the Latins shows that the god was considered to be a deity of local origin, who must have appeared very early in the Roman pantheon, albeit that his origins are more than uncertain: he appears in a number of important episodes of the life of Romulus and Remus, in close connection with the legend of foundation ... of Rome, [and] seems to be the only god whom [the twins] worshiped during their youth, ... while they lived among the shepherds.   In this context, Faunus is the god of everything that is the opposite of the city: wild spaces, pastures, mountains, forests ... [and] also of cultivated fields ... Faunus appears as the god of a society with a pastoral, pre-agricultural economy, like that of the first inhabitants of Latium.  Consequently, his role in the Roman pantheon was to ensure the protection of farmers and breeders of animals ... ”

Eric Olin (referenced below, 2010, at p. 181) characterised Faunus as:

  1. “... an ancient Italic god of the countryside, whom mythology turned into the father of [King] Latinus, that aetiological father of the Latins ... ”

Shrine of Victoria Virgo on the Palatine (193 BC)

Livy recorded that the year of 193 BC was noted for widespread portents of danger:

  1. “There were great floods ...  and the Tiber overflowed  ... Also, the Porta Caelimontana was hit by a thunderbolt and the wall [nearby] was struck by lightning in several places.  [Furthermore], there were showers of stones at Aricia, at Lanuvium and on the Aventine, ...  [and] a great swarm of wasps flew into the forum [at Capua] and settled in the Temple of Mars ... Because of these prodigies, the decemviri were directed to consult the [Sibylline] Books, [following which] a nine-day sacrifice was performed, a supplication proclaimed, and the City purified.  At the same time, a shrine to Victoria Virgo near the Temple of Victory was dedicated by Marcus Porcius Cato, two years after he had vowed it”, (‘History of  Rome, 35: 9: 3-6).

Thus, it seems that Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder) had:

  1. vowed a shrine to Victoria Virgo in 194 BC, when he had served as proconsul in Spain; and

  2. dedicated it in the following year, when (as far as we know) he held no public office. 

Its dies natalis (1st August) is recorded in two of the surviving calendar-based fasti:

  1. fasti Antiates Maiores: Spei Victor(is) II (To Spes; to the two Victories)

  2. fasti Praenestini: Victoriae Victoriae / virgini in Palatio Spei in/ foro Holitorio  [i.e., to:

  3. Victoria, (probably the Temple of Victory on the Palatine - see below);

  4. Victoria Virgo, also on the Palatine; and

  5. Spes, in the Forum Holitorium).

None of our surviving sources indicates the circumstances that prompted Cato to build the new shrine to Virgo Victoria, although they may be deduced from the following:

  1. The fasti Triumphales record that he was awarded a triumph in 194 BC for a victory that he had won in Spain as proconsul.

  2. Plutarch described the campaigns that he undertook there:

  3. “... while he was subduing some of the tribes and winning over others by diplomacy, a great host of barbarians fell upon him and threatened to drive him ignominiously out of the province.  He therefore [paid] the neighbouring Celtiberians to become his allies. ...  [In the battle that followed], he was completely victorious, and the rest of his campaign was a brilliant success. ... Cato himself says that he took more cities than he spent days in Spain ... His soldiers got large booty in this campaign, and he gave each one of them a pound of silver besides, saying that it was better to have many Romans go home with silver in their pockets, than to have a only a few [go home] with gold.  But, he says that ... no part of the booty fell to him, except what he ate and drank.  ... [When his replacement arrived from Rome], he took five cohorts of men-at‑arms and 500 horsemen as escort on his way home: on this march, he subdued the tribe of the Lacetanians and put to death 600 deserters whom they delivered up to him.  .... [On his return to Rome, he] celebrated a triumph” (‘Life of Cato the Elder’, 10-11).

  4. Livy recorded that, in 194 BC:

  5. “... Marcus Porcius Cato triumphed over Spain.  In his triumph, he carried 25,000 pounds of silver bullion, 123,0000 silver denarii, 540,000 silver coins of Osca, and 1,400  pounds of gold.  From the booty, he gave 270 asses to each of his soldiers, and three times that amount to each trooper”, (‘History of  Rome, 34: 46: 2-3).

None of these accounts record that Cato had vowed to build the shrine during a battle.  However, if Plutarch is correct in claiming that he took nothing for himself during his campaign in Spain, we might reasonably assume that the booty that was not dispersed to the soldiers passed to the public purse: Penelope Davies (referenced below, at p. 120) suggested that he:

  1. “... probably earmarked some [of it] to finance his [shrine] to Victoria Virgo ...”

It is certainly possible that the Senate devoted a small part of this booty to the building of the shrine, and that, despite the fact that Cato held no public office in 193 BC, he was asked to dedicate it as a mark of honour.  As I discuss below, this procedure would have been consistent with other circumstantial evidence that suggests the existence of a senatorial policy to rein in the growing ambition and ostentation of other members of Rome’s military élite.

As noted above, the surviving fasti place Cato’s shrine on the Palatine and record that shared its dies natalis (1st August) with another Temple of Victory:  it is usually (and reasonably) assumed that this was the imposing Temple of Victoria that Lucius Postumius Megellus had dedicated in 294 BC (as described in my page on the Temples Vowed in the Second Samnite War).  Penelope Davies (referenced below, at p. 92) argued that Cato’s shrine:

  1. “.... may have sat on unusually small foundations between the Temples of Victoria and Magna Mater [which would have been still in construction in 193 BC - see below].”

She observed that its:

  1. “... modest scale, [which was] possibly exaggerated by its position between two substantial temples, fits the mood of austerity that Cato advocated after the Second Punic War.  If ... Megellus’ Temple of Victoria ... had initiated a discourse on monumentality in sacred architecture, [then the shrine] of Victoria Virgo voiced an antithetical retort.”

Temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine (191 BC)


According to Livy, in 205 BC, towards the end of the Second Punic War:

  1. “The state was ... suddenly occupied with religious matters following the discovery of a prediction in the Sibylline books, ... according to which:

  2. ‘When ever a foreign enemy brings war into the land of Italy, he may be driven out of Italy and conquered, if the mater Idaea (the mother goddess of Mount Ida in the Troad] should be brought from Pessinus [in  modern Anatolia] to Rome”, (‘History of Rome’, 29: 10: 4-5).

The Romans sent ambassadors, first to Delphi and then to the court of King Attalus I of Pergamum, who

  1. “... received [them] graciously, and conducted them to Pessinus in Phrygia, where he presented them with a sacred stone that, according to the inhabitants, was the Mother of the Gods, and bade them convey it to Rome”, (‘History of Rome’, 29: 11: 7-8).

The sacred stone duly arrived off the coast of Italy in 204 BC.  For reasons that Livy could not understand, the young Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica was chosen as the ‘best man’:

  1. “... to go to Ostia, attended by all the matrons, to meet the goddess: [he was instructed] to receive her from the ship himself and, when landed, to place her in the hands of the matrons  ... [Then], passing her from one to another in orderly succession, [the matrons] conveyed her into the temple of Victory, in the Palatine on [[12th] April, which was made a holiday.  Crowds carried presents to the goddess ... There was [also] a banquet of the gods, and games called the Megalesian”, (‘History of Rome’, 29: 14: 10-14).

According to Livy, soon after the stone was temporarily housed in the Temple of Victory::

  1. “... the censors, Marcus Livius Salinator and Caius Claudius Nero, had signed the contract for the building [in 204 BC], in accordance with instructions from the Senate”, (‘History of Rome’, 36: 36: 4). 

As Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at p. 143) pointed out, since the import of the goddess was a collective endeavour, it would be natural for the serving censors to commission her new temple.  Livy then recorded that, in 191 BC:

  1. “... after the lapse of 13 years, [the urban praetor], Marcus Junius Brutus dedicated it.  According to Valerius Antias,  the games that were held on the occasion of its dedication were the first scenic games ever given [in Rome], and were called the Megalesia”, (‘History of Rome’, 36: 36: 4).

As Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 124) pointed out, it is noteworthy that the urban praetor dedicated the temple, despite the fact that both of the consuls (Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, who had collected the goddess at Ostia 13 years earlier) and Marcus Acilius Glabrio) were in the city at the time.  He observed that the reason for this might have bee purely practical: Nascia was already celebrating his own votive games and Glabrio was preparing to go to war.  However, a passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus suggests that the custom of praetors presiding over the rites of the goddess had been established at an early date:

  1. “... even though [the Romans have occasionally] introduced certain rites from abroad in pursuance of oracles, they celebrate them in accordance with their own traditions, after banishing all fabulous clap-trap.  The rites of the Idaean goddess are a case in point: for the praetors perform sacrifices and celebrated games in her honour every year according to the Roman custom, [albeit that] the priest and priestess of the goddess are Phrygians ...”, (‘Roman Antiquities’, 2: 19: 3-4).

As Brennan observed, it is conceivable that this custom had been established at the time of the introduction of the cult of the Magna Mater to Rome in 204 BC.

There are two relevant entries in the fasti Praenestini:

  1. 4th April:

  2. “The games of the mater deum magna Idaea (Great  Mother of the Gods for Mount Ida) ..., [which are celebrated] because, when goddess was summoned by the Sibylline Books, she moved her home from Phrygia to Rome.”

  3. Thus, although the games that had been held for the first time on 12th April 204 BC, they subsequently moved to 4th April.

  4. 10th April:

  5. “Games are held in the Circus for the Great  Mother of the Gods for Mount Ida on the Palatine, because on this day her temple was dedicated.

  6. Thus, Brutus dedicated the temple on 10th April 191 BC.

Cult of the Magna Mater in Rome

As noted above, the formal name for the goddess in Rome was mater deum magna Idaea (the mother of the gods of Mount Ida).  This leads us to recall that Homer referred to:

  1. “... Aeneas, whom fair Aphrodite conceived to Anchises, [King of Troy], among the spurs of Ida”, (‘Iliad’, 2:  820-1). 

Thus, one might  expected that the Romans would have associated the cult of the goddess with Aeneas, the founder of the city, from the time of its introduction to Rome. 

However, as Erich Gruen (referenced below, 1990, at p. 16) pointed out, most of the surviving annalistic sources (including Livy, above) assert that the stone that represented the goddess came from:

  1. “The temple-state of Pessinus, [which] was situated near the border between Galatia and Greater Phrygia, a very long way from Pergamum [and Mount Ida in the Troiad].”

He noted that, if this reflected what had actually happened in 205 BC, then there was no implicit geographical link between the sacred stone on the one hand and Mount Ida and Aeneas on the other.  However, he argued (at p. 19) that:

  1. “A solution [to this apparent conundrum] is at hand.  For the Romans of the later Republic,  ... [the shrine at] Pessinus was  the principal functioning shrine of the goddess in Asia Minor ... [However], that assumption need not bind us, ... [since] different circumstances had prevailed in 204 BC.”

Gruen pointed out (at p. 17) that Varro’s etymological conjecture might well have been closer to the truth.  The relevant Varronian passage reads as follows:

  1. “The Megalesia is so called from the Greeks, because, by direction of the Sibylline Books, [the cult of the Magna Mater] was brought from King Attalus of Pergama; there, near the city wall, was the Megalesion (that is, the temple of this goddess), whence she was brought to Rome”, (‘On the Latin Language’, 6: 15, translated by Roland Kent, referenced below, at p. 189)”.

Gruen pointed out (at p. 18) that this statement is:

  1. “... entirely consistent with the stone’s [putative] origin at Mount Ida.  [We might reasonably assume that] Attalus transferred it to Pergamum [before presenting it] to the legates of Rome.”

This association between the goddess and Aeneas was certainly not lost on the Augustan poets:

  1. Jacob Latham (referenced below, at pp. 104-5) pointed out that, in Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’, the goddess:

  2. “... guided the first steps of the Trojans from their desolated city to Italy [Aen. 2: 692–704].  Even the ships in which Aeneas and his crew set sail were made from[her] sacred pines ...  [Aen. 9: 77–91].”

  3. Later in the poem, these trees were specifically:

  4. “... the sacred pines of [Mount] Ida” (‘Aen.’, 10: 230).

  5. In his long poem relating to the rites of 4th April that celebrated  the arrival of the cult in Rome, Ovid recorded that, centuries earlier:

  6. “When Aeneas carried Troy to the Italian fields, the goddess almost followed the ships that bore the sacred things; but she felt that fate did not yet call for the intervention of her divinity in Latium, and she remained behind in her accustomed place”, (‘Fasti’ 4: 250-4, based on the translation of James Frazer, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below, at p. 207).

  7. Clearly, for Ovid, this accustomed place was on Mount Ida.

Erich Gruen (referenced below, 1990, at pp. 18-9) acknowledged that:

  1. “There is nothing to prove that these conceptions of the Augustan age had been fully formed [in 204 BC], when the Romans legates had brought home the sacred stone ... [that represented the goddess.  However, [at least three elements in the historical record]:

  2. the choice of this particular deity;

  3. the elaborate ceremonial [that attended her arrival in Rome]; and

  4. [her] elevation to a place of such honour and distinction on the Palatine itself;

  5. receive readiest explanation [in terms of] Rome’s reassertion of her Trojan origins.”

In a later book, Erich Gruen, referenced below, 1992, at pp. 46-7) linked this putative reassertion to the earlier transfer of the cult of Venus Erycina to Rome:

  1. “A temple of Venus Erycina rose on the Capitol in 215 BC [after Hannibal’s devastating victory over the Romans at Trasimene two years before].  The association with Aeneas, [the son of Venus/ Aphrodite] and Troy plainly provided the central ingredient in this move.  The cult had its origin in Sicilian Eryx, a site where ... Aeneas [was said to have] dedicated a shrine to his mother.”

  2. “[A decade later], when ... Roman success [in the Hannibalic war] seemed assured, the link with Troy gained still more attention: ... the cult of Magna Mater was transported from Mount Ida to Rome and established on the Palatine. ... [This] episode had diplomatic, military and religious implications.  But all were joined by the golden thread of the Trojan legend that announced Rome’s cultural credentials to the nations of the Hellenistic world.”

Temples Vowed in War, Dedicated in 194-1 BC

As noted above, the period 194-1 BC  saw the dedication of five temples that had been vowed in battle by an individual who belonged (or who aspired to belong) to this military élite:

  1. three of these temples were dedicated in 194 BC:

  2. the Temple to Fortuna Primigenia, which had been vowed in 204 BC by the consul Publius Sempronius Tuditianus during the later stages of the Second Punic War;

  3. the Temple of Vediovis on the Tiber Island, which had been vowed in 200 BC by Lucius Furius Purpurio (as praetor) during an engagement with Gallic and Ligurian tribes in Cisalpine Gaul; and

  4. the Temple of Juno Sospita, which had been vowed in 197 BC by the consul Caius Cornelius Cethegus at the beginning of a battle in Cisalpine Gaul;

  5. 192 BC saw the dedication of another Temple of Vediovis, this time on the Capitol: Lucius Furius Purpurio had was vowed it as consul during another engagement with Ligurian tribes in Cisalpine Gaul in 196 BC; and

  6. 191 BC finally saw the dedication of the Temple to Iuventus, which the consul Marcus Livius Salinator had vowed in 207 BC by during the Battle of Metaurus.

Temple of Fortuna Primigenia on the Quirinal (194 BC)

Livy recorded the vowing and dedication of this temple in two related passages:

  1. In 204 BC, during the later stages of the Second Punic War:

  2. “At the start of [an engagement with Hannibal in Bruttium], the consul [Publius Sempronius Tuditianus] vowed a temple to Fortuna Primigenia, should he rout the enemy: his prayer was granted [when] the Carthaginians were routed and put to flight ...”, (‘History of  Rome, 29: 36: 8-9).

  3. In 194 BC:

  4. “Quintus Marcius Ralla, a duovir created for this purpose, dedicated a temple to Fortuna Primigenia on the Quirinal hill; the consul Publius Sempronius Sophus [see below] had vowed this temple ten years before, during the [Second] Punic War, and had let the contract as censor”, (‘History of  Rome, 34: 53: 5-6).

John Briscoe (referenced below, 1981, at p. 132) observed that:

  1. “... there was no Sempronius Sophus in office during the Second Punic War, and the reference [in the second passage] is clearly to Publius Sempronius Tuditianus [as in the first passage.  However, [he began his four-year term as censor] in 209 BC, ... [when] he cannot have let the contract for a temple that he had not yet vowed.  It is impossible to say how the confusion arose.”

This temple of Fortuna Primigenia was almost certainly one of three temples on the Quirinal that were dedicated to Fortuna that were recorded by Vitruvius (none of which survive):

  1. “An example of [a temple ‘in antis’] will be the nearest of the tres Fortunae [i.e. the three temples dedicated to Fortuna] to the Colline Gate”, (‘On Architecture’, 3: 2: 2).

The evidence for this is largely derived from the surviving calendar-based fasti, which indicate possible dates for its dedication:

  1. 5th April

  2. fasti Antiates Maiores: Fort(unae) Publ(icae)

  3. fasti Praenestini: Fortunae Publicae Citerio[ri] / in colle

  4. 24th May

  5. fasti Antiates Maiores: For[t(unae)] p(opuli) r(omani) Q(uiritium)

  6. fasti Caeretani: Fortunae P(ublicae) p(opuli) R(omani) Q(uiritium) in / colle  Quirun(ali)

  7. fasti Esquilini: Fortunae Public(ae) p(opuli) R(omani) in coll(e)

  8. fasti magistrorum vici: Fortunae P(ublicae) p(opuli) R(omani)/ Quirit(ium) in coll(e)

  9. fasti Venusini: Fortun(ae) Prim(igeniae) in col(le)

  10. 10th November

  11. fasti Antiates Maiores: Fort(unae) Pr(imigeniae)

Daniele Miano (referenced below, at p. 105) discussed the divergent views among scholars, but concluded that:

  1. “Adam Ziolkowski [referenced below] ... has demonstrated that Fortuna Primigenia was entirely different from her neighbour on the Quirinal, Fortuna Publica populi Romani: as Primigenia and Publics are never identified [together] in any [surviving] ancient source, it is more likely that there is a mistake in the fasti Venusini.”

This hypothesis is supported by the fact that Ovid recorded the dies natalis of the two temples to Fortuna Publica:

  1. 5th April:

  2. “When the next Dawn shall have shone in the sky, and the stars have vanished, and the Moon shall have unyoked her snow-white steeds, he who shall say:

  3. ‘On this day of old, the temple of Public Fortune was dedicated on the hill of Quirinus’;

  4. will tell the truth”, (‘Fasti’ 4: 374-5, based on the translation of James Frazer, 1931, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below, at p. 217).

  5. 24th May

  6. “Nor will I pass thee over, thou Public Fortune of the powerful people, to whom a temple was dedicated next day.  (‘Fasti’ 5: 729, from the translation of James Frazer, 1931, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below,  at p. 317).

In other words, it seems that:

  1. the fasti Venusini confused the two separate temples; and

  2. the fasti Aniates Maiores correctly recorded the dies natalis of all three temples:

  3. 5th April: Fortuna Publica Citerior (presumably the nearest of the three to the city centre);

  4. 24th May: Fortuna Publica of the Roman People; and

  5. 1oth November: Fortuna Primigenia

Thus, despite the confusion in the sources, we can reasonably assume that:

  1. Publius Sempronius Tuditianus had vowed the temple to Fortuna Primigenia as consul in 204 BC (although, pace Livy , if he subsequently let the contract to build it on the Quirinal, then he clearly did not do so during his censorship (209-5 BC); and

  2. Quintus Marcius Ralla dedicated it on 10th November 194 BC.

Cult of Fortuna Primigenia

[In construction]

According to Valerius Maximus:

  1. “[The consul] Lutatius Cerco, who ended the First Punic War [in 241 BC], was forbidden by the Senate to consult the sortes Fortunae Praenestinae because they judged that public business should be conducted under national auspices, not foreign ones”, (“Memorable Doings and Sayings’, 1: 3: 2, based on the translation by David Shackleton Bailey (referenced below, 2000) of a surviving fragment from Iulius Paris)

Thus, it seems that Lutatius had intended to consult for some reason the venerable oracle of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste (some 35 km from Rome), but had been forbidden to do so because the Senate considered that hers was a ‘foreign’ cult.  Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at p. 181) observed that:

  1. “In this short span of [fewer than 50 years], Fortuna Primigenia moved from being a goddess whom the Senate did not trust to a home of the Quirinal hill, inside the pomerium of Rome itself.”

Temple of Vediovis (?) on the Tiber Island (194 BC)

See my page Temples Dedicated to Vediovis in 194  and 192 BC

Temple of Juno Sospita in the Forum Holitorium (194 BC)

Although, once again, the relevant sources are confused, it is almost certain that a temple to Juno Sospita was also dedicated in the first six weeks of 194 BC, this time in the Forum Holitorium.

Livy recorded the vowing and dedication of this temple in two related but internally inconsistent passages:

  1. In 197 BC, at the beginning of a battle in Cisalpine Gaul, the consul Caius Cornelius Cethegus:

  2. “... vowed a temple to Juno Sospita, provided that the enemy should be routed and driven from the field on that day”, (History of  Rome, 32: 30: 10). 

  3. Livy’s list of four temples that were dedicated in 194 BC included:

  4. “... one to Juno Matuta in the Forum Holitorium, which had been vowed and contracted for in the Gallic war four years before by the consul Caius Cornelius, who also dedicated it while censor”, (‘History of  Rome, 34: 53: 3).

Clearly, once again. these passages relate to the same temple.  John Briscoe (referenced below, 1973, at p. 227) argued that Livy’s ‘Juno Matuta’ in the second passage:

  1. “... must be wrong, since ‘Matuta’ is not known as an epithet for Juno, while Sospita (Saviour) is known and is indeed extremely suitable for [a temple dedicated in war].” 

Rianne (A. M.) Hermans (referenced below, at p. 94) agreed, and argued that:

  1. “ ... the temple of Juno Sospita was [therefore] almost certainly located in the Forum Holitorium, where it was squeezed in between the temples of Janus and Spes, which were both older. ... Remains of the [three] temple have been identified under the church of San Nicola in Carcere, and [they were depicted] on the Forma Urbis [Roma of the 3rd century AD].  The temples were repeatedly restored, and most of the visible remains date from the 1st century AD.”

Thus, it seems that Caius Cornelius Cethegus:

  1. vowed a temple to Juno Sospita in  197 BC;

  2. arranged for it to be built in the Forum Holitorium; and

  3. dedicated it in 194 BC.

Dies Natalis of Cethegus’ Temple

According to Ovid:

  1. “The worship of Juno claims Ausonia’s Kalends”, (‘Fasti’ 2: 55-59, based on the translation of James Frazer, 1931, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below).

In other words, throughout Ausonia (a poetic reference to Italy), the first day of every month was dedicated to Juno.   Two surviving records suggest that the 1st February was dedicated specifically to Juno Sospita:

  1. An entry in the fasti Antiates Maiores reads:

  2. “[1st] of February: .... to Juno Sospita Mater Regina [Juno: Saviour; Mother; Queen]; and

  3. according to Ovid, on 1st February:

  4. “... [Juno] Sospita, the neighbour of the Phrygian Mother Goddess, is said to have been enriched with new delubra (shrines)”, (‘Fasti’ 2: 55, based on the translation of James Frazer, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below, 1931, at p. 61). 

It is tempting to assume from this that Cethegus dedicated his temple to Juno Sospita in the Forum Holitorium on 1st February 194 BC.  However, as discussed in the next section, this second testimony (by Ovid) does not relate, at least directly, to a temple of Juno Sospita in this location.

Digression: Ovid’s ‘New Shrines’ of Sospita

In the passage quoted above, Ovid’s new shrines (delubra) to Juno Sospita stood next to the temple of Magna Mater (above): thus, it related to delubra on the Palatine that had been dedicated to Juno Sospita on 1st February of an unknown year.  His use of the relatively unusual word delubra is interesting.  Ferdinando Castagnoli (referenced below, at p. 4) observed that:

  1. “‘Delubrum’ is a term that is often used as a synonym of ‘aedes’ (temple), but it also had a precise technical significance.  In fact, we find consensus in the [surviving] ancient sources” (my translation). 

He cited a number of sources, including two that referenced the work of Varro in the 40s BC:

  1. Macrobius:

  2. “According to Varro, in the 8th book of his ‘Divine Antiquities’:

  3. some people judge that a ‘delubrum’ includes, besides the temple building, the open space taken over for the gods’ use, as in the case of Jupiter Stator in the Circus Flaminius; while

  4. others take it to be the place where a god’s image has been dedicated.  [Thus], just as the place where a candle is inserted is called a ‘candelabrum’, so the places where a god (deus) is located is called a ‘delubrum’.

  5. We can take it that, in his customary fashion, Varro particularly endorsed the second alternative: namely that the term ‘delubrum’ is derived from the dedication of a god’s image”, (‘Saturnalia’, 3: 4: 2-3, from the translation by Benjamin Goldlust, referenced below, at p. 177).

  6. Nonius Marcllus:

  7. haec aedis, quae nunc est, multis annis post facta sit.  quia omnia regis temporibus delubra parva facta”, (Lindsay p. 792)

  8. “According to Varro, in the 1st book of his ‘Biography of the Roman People’, what we call ‘aedes’ (temples) replaced all the smaller ‘delubra’ (shrines) of the regal period”, (my translation).

Castagnoli (as above) concluded that:

  1. “Despite some misleading indications offered by the etymologists, it seems certain that the original meaning of [delubrum was] an uncovered area associated with a temple”, (my translation).

Quintus Caecilius Metellus had built two temples near the Circus Flaminius, dedicated to Jupiter Stator and to Juno Regina respectively, after his triumph over the Macedonians in 146 BC and enclosed them both with a portico known as the Porticus Metelli: it seems that Macrobius (above), following Varro, thought that the paved area within this portico, or perhaps just the part of it around the first of these temples, was known as the delubrum of Jupiter Stator.  This was similar to the meaning of the word fanum, which Livy used in connection with another temple of Jupiter Stator, this time on the slopes of the Palatine (see my page Temples of Jupiter Victor and Jupiter Stator): Livy (‘History of Rome’, 10:36) recorded that Atilius Regulus, the consul of 294 BC, vowed a temple to Jupiter Stator during a battle against the Samnites towards the end of the Third Samnite War, and explained that:

  1. “The same vow had been made formerly by Romulus, but only the fanum - that is, the area appropriated for the temple - had yet been consecrated.  However, in [294 BC, now that] the State [had] been twice bound by the same vow, it became a matter of religious obligation that the Senate should order the temple [itself] to be erected”, (‘History of Rome’, 10:37).

It seems to me that, judging from these somewhat sketchy records of a usage that was already archaic, Ovid probably conceived of the original delubra on the Palatine as one or more shrines standing within an area that had been delineated and dedicated to Juno Sospita on 1st of February in an unknown year, possibly during the Regal or the early Republican period.

Ovid then observed that:

  1. “If you ask, where the templa (temples) that were dedicated to the goddess on [the] Kalends are now, the answer is that they have tumbled down because of the long lapse of time.  All the [other ancient temples] would similarly have gone to wrack and ruin, had it not been for the far-seeing care of [Augustus], ... builder and rebuilder of  temples ...”, (‘Fasti’ 2: 55-59, based on the translation of James Frazer, 1931, revised by G. P. Goold, referenced below, at p. 61).

As Geraldine Herbert-Brown (referenced below, at p. 34) pointed out, in this passage:

  1. “... Ovid focuses on the fate of all of the temples [that had been] dedicated to [Juno] on the kalends, which he says had been razed by the ravages of time ... He [goes on to assert] that a like fate would have been shared by all other [ancient ?] temples, had it not been for the ... [attention of] Augustus.”

She noted (at p. 43) that it is unclear precisely which temples Ovid is writing about here, but that this was beside the point:

  1. “... the [poetic] potential of the word ‘Sospita’... [allowed Ovid] to select ... 1st February to eulogise Augustus as [‘positor’ (builder) and ‘repositor’ (restorer] of temples.”

In other words, although Ovid had started his chapter on February with the dedication of an ancient religious complex that Augustus had not restored (probably because it was then known only from surviving records and/or traditions], the fact that this complex had been dedicated to Juno Sospita had allowed him to:

  1. “ ... cleverly [transform] the subject of the encomium from the goddess to Augustus.”

Dies Natalis of Cethegus’ Temple (Continued)

Geraldine Herbert-Brown (referenced below, at pp. 35-6) analysed a hypothesis that has often been put forward by scholars: that Ovid’s claimed proximity to the temple of the  Phrygian Mother Goddess was a red herring, and that his record for 1st February referred directly to the temple in the Forum Holitorium that was dedicated in 194 BC.  However, this temple almost certainly still existed in  Ovid’s time:

  1. Rianne Hermans (referenced below, at p. 95) pointed out that it appears on the Forma Urbis Roma of the 3rd century AD ; and

  2. Herbert-Brown observed (at p. 35) that considerable remains of it were incorporated into the church of San Nicola in Carcere.  She agreed with James Frazer (referenced below, 1929, at p. 298) that:

  3. “... we must reckon with the possibility that Ovid had access to a tradition, [now] lost to us, of a temple of [Juno Sospita] on the Palatine, [next to that of  the Phrygian Mother Goddess.”

She put forward (at p. 41) a hypothesis that neatly captures the material discussed so far without the need to assume that Ovid’s record is either mistaken or misleading:

  1. Juno Sospita originally had a sanctuary on the Palatine, next to the site chosen of the Temple of Magna Mater (commissioned in 204 BC and dedicated in 191 BC).

  2. Since this new ‘victory temple’ would have overshadowed Juno’s sanctuary:

  3. “... it was decided to ... [relocate it] to the Holitorium, and preserve 1st February as the new dedication day.”

  4. Cethegus’ victory in  197 BC provided a perfect opportunity, and he presumably dedicated the new temple on 1st February 194 BC.

  5. The site of her original sanctuary was used for the small shrine of Victoria Virgo (above), which Cato the Elder built beside it in 194 BC and dedicated by in the following year. 





Rianne Hermans (referenced below, at pp. 95-6) noted that some scholars have proposed that:

  1. the fasti Antiates Maiores and Ovid’s fasti both referred to an ancient temple on the Palatine that had indeed  ‘tumbled down’ by Ovid’s time; while

  2. Livy’s temple in the Forum Holitorium was the second temple to be dedicated to the goddess in Rome. 

However, she concluded that the case that can be made for this hypothesis:

  1. “... is hardly conclusive. ... [All that] we can conclude [with certainty] is that Juno Sospita was firmly based in Rome from at least [194] BC ...”

Howard Scullard (referenced below, at p. 71) reached broadly the same conclusion:

  1. “In the Forum Holitorium, remains of three temples survive under the church of San Nicola in Carcere, and the most southerly is often identified with that of Juno Sospita; ... it cannot be the temple mentioned by Ovid, since this had disappeared before the poet's day: however, it could be the temple vowed by Cethegus (if that really was in the Forum Holitorium).”

In other words, it seems that Ovid was either mistaken or referring to an otherwise unknown earlier temple, which had also been dedicated on 1st February and which had disappeared by the Augustan period.

Cult of Juno Sospita


As I discuss in my page on the Cult of Juno Sospita


Rianne Hermans (referenced below, at p. 83)  pointed out that the cult of Juno Sospita was deeply rooted in the Latin city of Lanuvium, some 30 km south of Rome: 

  1. “From the 7th century BC onwards, [the religious life of this city] revolved around [its] acropolis.  Eventually,... [it was mostly covered by the sanctuary of Juno Sospita, which] dominated the landscape, especially after its monumentalisation in the middle of the 2nd century BC.”

Furthermore, this sanctuary seems to have been an important element of the religious life of Latium as a whole, at least by the 4th century BC: thus, Livy recorded that, after the Romans’ definitive victory over the Latins in 338 BC:

  1. “The people of Lanuvium were given civitas [citizenship, probably with voting rights] and their cults were restored to them, with the stipulation that the temple and grove of Juno Sospita should be held in common by the citizens of Lanuvium and the Roman people”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 14: 2-3).

Nevertheless, the centre of the cult of Juno Sospita remained very firmly at Lanuvium (unlike that of Juno Regina, which had been transferred to Rome after the fall of Veii in 396 BC, as discussed in my page on the  Temple of Juno Regina on the Aventine). 

The shrine at Lanuvium played a central role in Roman religion from 338 BC.  For example, Eric Orlin (referenced below, 2010, at p. 123) pointed out that, in the dreadful year of 218 BC, when Hannibal invaded peninsular Italy, accompanied by widespread portents of disaster:

  1. “... numerous expiations [were] ordered at that time.  Many [of these] rituals were performed at Rome ... [but the] decemviri [also] decreed that the Romans should make an offering to of 40 pounds of gold to Juno Sospita in Lanuvium ... Bringing an expiatory offering, especially such a costly one, from Rome to the sanctuary at Lanuvium moves the relationship with [the goddess] well beyond recognition of her importance; it makes her a goddess of the Romans, to be propitiated in exactly the same way as a divinity whose home lay in [Rome itself].”

This situation continued even after the dedication of of the temple in the Forum Holitorium in 194 BC; thus, in 63 BC, in a speech defending the consul Lucius Licinius Murena, Cicero urged the jury:

  1. “Do not tear from the hereditary worship of Juno Sospita, to whom all consuls must sacrifice, the consul [Murena] who is her fellow-townsman [at Lanuvium] and her own above all others”, (‘pro Murena)” (based on the translation be C. Macdonald, referenced below).

Most scholars assume that these annual consular sacrifices took place in the sanctuary at Lanuvium.

Temple of Vediovis on the Capitol (194 BC)

See my page Temples Dedicated to Vediovis in 194  and 192 BC

Temple to Juventus on the Aventine (191 BC)

As noted above, temple of Mater Magna was dedicated on the Palatine in 191 BC.  According to Livy:

  1. “Another dedication was that of the temple of Juventas in the Circus Maximus, which was carried out by Caius Licinius Lucullus:

  2. Marcus Livius [Salinator, as consul] had vowed it [in 207 BC], on the day on which he had destroyed Hasdrubal and his army; and

  3. when he was censor [in 204 BC], ...  he had signed the contract for its construction.

  4. Games were celebrated in connection with this dedication ... , and everything was done with greater solemnity [than usual] in view of the impending war with Antiochus”, (‘History of Rome’, 36: 36: 5-7).

Duoviral Dedication of Temples Vowed in War

Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at p. 185) observed that:

  1. “Considering the tenor of these years, it is not surprising to see the Senate attempt to exercise more control over the matter of new temples. ”

He suggested (at p. 187) that is was only after:

  1. “... the small step of giving the dedication [of temples to officials previously unconnected with them] failed to have an effect that more drastic steps were taken [in order to bring matters under control].”

But, the question remains: since six of the temples dedicated in this period had been vowed by magistrates on their own authority (five of them in battle)in battle, why were four dedicated by  duoviri who had had no previous connection with them:

  1. 194 BC: Vediovis on the Tiber Island (vowed by Furius);

  2. 194 BC: Fortuna Primagenia (vowed by Publius Sempronius Tuditianus);

  3. 192 BC: Vediovis on the Capitol (vowed by Furius); and

  4. 191 BC: Juventus (vowed by Marcus Livius Salinator);

while the other two:

  1. 194 BC: Juno Sospita (vowed and dedicated by Caius Cornelius Cethegus);

  2. 193 BC: Victoria Virgo  (vowed in unknown circumstance by Marcus Porcius Cato as consul and subsequently dedicated by him);

were dedicated in the usual way ?  Orlin suggested that:

  1. the dedications by Caius Cornelius Cethegus (in 194 BC) and Marcus Porcius Cato (in 193 BC) of temples for which they had vowed probably indicated harmony between these individuals and the Senate, despite the changing political climate (see p. 181);

  2. the dedication in 194 BC by a duovir of the Temple of Fortuna Primagenia vowed by Publius Sempronius Tuditianus might simply indicate that neither Sempronius himself nor any of his male descendants were active in public life at that time (see p. 185);

  3. the dedication in 191 BC by a duovir of the Temple of Juventus vowed by Marcus Livius Salinator at a time when his son was active in public life might indicate that the family had some strong opponents in the Senate (see p. 183); and

although the dedication of Furius’s two temples of Vediovis by duoviri would have been conditioned by the wider movement to control the behaviour of ambitious individuals, it may also have been motivated in part by personal animosity arising from the controversy surrounding his triumph as praetor in 200 BC (see p. 185).

Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at p. 185) observed that, surprisingly, all of these four unusual temple dedications took place:

  1. “... in a three-year time span, from 194 to 191 BC, even though the vows for building them had been made on distinctly different occasions.”

He pointed out that this coincided with the start of a period of about a decade that:

  1. “ ... saw several victories in the East, followed by a series of magnificent triumphs, each more lavish that the one before.  These years also witnessed a series of extraordinary political events as the Senate attempted to assert its authority over these individuals and its control over the ever-increasing amounts of money coming to Rome at this time.”

It is surprising that Furius dedicated neither of the temples that he had vowed on 200 - 196 BC, despite the fact that, as Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at pp. 185) pointed out, he was still active in public life in 189 BC.   A similar situation arose in the same year with the dedication of the temple of  Fortuna Primagenia: Livy recorded the relevant details in two related passages:

  1. In 204 BC, during the Second Punic War:

  2. “At the start of [a battle in Bruttium], the consul [Publius Sempronius Tuditianus] vowed a temple to Fortuna Primigenia, should he rout the enemy: his prayer was granted [when] the Carthaginians were routed and put to flight ...”, (‘History of  Rome, 29: 36: 8-9).

  3. In 194 BC:

  4. “Quintus Marcius Ralla, a duovir created for this purpose, dedicated a temple to Fortuna Primigenia on the Quirinal hill; the consul Publius Sempronius [Tuditianus] had vowed this temple ten years before, during the [Second] Punic War, and had let the contract as censor”, (‘History of  Rome, 34: 53: 5-6).

In this case, we do not know if Sempronius or any of his male descendants were active in public life in 194 BC: all we can say is that a pair of duoviri were appointed in 194 BC for the express purpose of dedicating temples for which they had previously had no connection:

  1. on 1st January, the duovir Caius Servilius dedicated Furius’ temple on the Tiber Island to Vediovis; and

  2. on 10th November, his colleague, Quintus Marcius Ralla (whom Livy explicitly says had been created duovir for this purpose) dedicated Sempronius’ temple to Fortuna Primigenia on the Quirinal hill.

This was in sharp contrast to the cases of the other two temples that were dedicated in 194 BC:

  1. Livy recorded the vowing and dedication of the Temple of Juno Sospita in two related passages:

  2. In 197 BC, at the beginning of [a battle in Cisalpine Gaul], the consul Caius Cornelius Cethegus:

  3. “... vowed a temple to Juno Sospita, provided that the enemy should be routed and driven from the field on that day”, (History of  Rome, 32: 30: 10); and 

  4. the 1st February 194 BC saw the dedication of a temple:

  5. “... to Juno [Sospita] in the Forum Olitorium, which had been vowed and contracted for four years before in the Gallic war by the consul Caius Cornelius, who also dedicated it while censor”, (‘History of  Rome, 34: 53: 3).

  6. Livy similarly recorded the construction and dedication of the Temple of Faunus in two related passages:

  7. In 197 BC:

  8. “The plebeian aediles, Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Caius Scribonius Curio, brought many pecuarii (grazers of animals)  to trial before the people: three of them were convicted and [the aediles] built a temple to Faunus on the [Tiber] Island out of the money they paid as fines”, (‘History of  Rome’, 33: 42: 9); and

  9. on 13th February 194 BC:

  10. “...  Cnaeus Domitius ... dedicated it while city praetor”, (‘History of  Rome’, 34: 53: 4).

The significance of the unusual arrangements for the dedication of the temples to Vediovis and to Fortuna Primagenia in 194 BC becomes clearer if we put them in a wider political context.  Eric Orlin (referenced below, 1997, at p. 182) noted that:

  1. “We know of only five cases [including these two in 194 BC] in which our sources specify that individuals from two different families were responsible for the vow and the dedication of a temple.”

The other three known cases involved the following temples:

  1. the Temple of Concordia on the Capitol, which was vowed in 219 BC by the praetor Lucius Manlius but commissioned (in 217 BC) and dedicated (in 216 BC) by pairs of duoviri who were not related to him;

  2. Furius’ Temple of Vediovis on the Capitol, which, as we have seen, was dedicated in 192 BC by the duovir Quintus Marcius Ralla (as duovir for the second time); and

  3. the Temple of Juventus at the Circus Maximus was vowed in 207 BC by the consul Marcus Livius Salinator, commissioned by him as censor in 204 BC, but dedicated in 191 BC by a duovir who was not related to him, despite that (even if he had died by that time) his son was still active in public life.

The first of these three dedications (that of the Temple of Concordia) might well have been necessitated because of the pressures of war: as Orlin pointed out (at p. 189):

  1. “Under the stress of the Second Punic War, vows [made to the gods] took on extraordinary importance, and fulfilling them promptly and properly was of paramount importance.”

However, the other four cases arose only after the war had ended, so we must look for other explanations for them. 


Dionysius of Halicarnassus dealt with Romulus’ association with this site (which Ovid mentioned in the quote above):

  1. “... finding that many of the cities in Italy were very badly governed, ... [Romulus] undertook to attract fugitives from them ... His purpose was to increase the power of the Romans and to lessen that of their neighbours; but he invented a specious pretext for this initiative, making it appear that he was showing honour to a god: for he consecrated the place between the Capitol and the citadel (which is now called, in the language of the Romans ‘inter duos lucos’ (a term that described the actual conditions at that time, when the place was shaded by thick woods on both sides where it joined the hills) and made it an asylum for supplicants.   He also built a temple there, but I cannot say for certain to which god or divinity he dedicated it .  [Thus], under the colour of religion, he undertook to protect those who fled to [this consecrated location] from ... their enemies; and if they chose to remain with him, he promised them citizenship and a share of the land he should take from the enemy”, (‘Roman Antiquities’. 2: 15: 3-4).

Plutarch also wrote of a sanctified place of asylum here:

  1. “... when Rome was first founded, they made a sanctuary of refuge for all fugitives, which they called the sanctuary of the God of Asylum.  There, they received all who came, delivering none up (neither slave to masters, nor debtor to creditors, nor murderer to magistrates), declaring that they made the asylum secure for all men in obedience to an oracle from Delphi”, (‘Life of Romulus’, 9: 3).

I wonder whether, in some traditions, Dionysius’ Romulean temple here was dedicated to Plutarch’s ‘God of Asylum’, and whether the god in question was Vediovis ??



  1. Read more: 

D. Miano, “Fortuna: Deity and Concept in Archaic and Republican Italy “, (2018) Oxford

P. Davies, “Architecture Politics in Republican Rome”, (2017) Cambridge

A. M. (Rianne) Hermans, “Latin Cults through Roman Eyes: Myth, Memory and Cult Practice in the Alban Hills: Chapter  III: Juno Sospita: Guardian of Lanuvium and Rome”, (2017), thesis from the University of Amsterdam

B. Goldlust, “Towards an Edition of Fragments: Citing Authorities and the Case of Aulus Gellius and Varro”, in:

  1. V. Arena and G. Piras (Eds), “Reconstructing the Republic: Varro and Imperial Authors”, Res Publica Litterarum, 39 (2016) 89-221, at pp. 167-78

H. Moreau, “Entre Deux Rive s- Entre Deux Ponts: l’ Île Tibérine de la RomeAantique: Histoire, Archéologie, Urbanisme des Origines au Vè Siècle après J.C”, (2014) thesis of Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille

P. Carafa and P. Pacchiarotti, “Regione XIV: Transtiberium”, in:

  1. A. Carandini, “Atlante di Roma Antica”, (2012) Rome: Vol. 1 pp 549-82; and Vol. 2, Map 247

J. Latham, “Fabulous Clap-Trap”: Roman Masculinity, the Cult of Magna Mater, and Literary Constructions of the Galli at Rome from the Late Republic to Late Antiquity”, Journal of Religion,

92: 1 (2012) 84-122

E. Orlin, “Foreign Cults in Rome: Creating a Roman Empire”, (2010) Oxford

D. R. Shackleton Bailey (translator), “Valerius Maximus: ‘Memorable Doings and Sayings’; Volume I, Books 1-5”, (2000) , Harvard (MA)

T. C. Brennan, “The Praetorship in the Roman Republic”, (2000) Oxford

E. Orlin, “Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic”, (1997) Leiden, New York, Cologne

G. Herbert-Brown,”Ovid and the Fasti: An Historical Study”, (1994) Oxford

E. Gruen, “Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome”, (1992) New York

A. Ziolkowski, “The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context”, (1992) Rome

E. Gruen, “Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy”, (1990) Berkeley, Los Angeles and London

F. Castagnoli, “I Tempio Romano: Questioni di Terminologia e di Tipologia”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 52 (1984), 3-20

J. Briscoe, “A Commentary On Livy: Books 34-37”, (1981) Oxford

H. H. Scullard, “Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, (1981) London

C. Macdonald (translator), “Cicero: In Catilinam 1-4; Pro Murena; Pro Sulla; Pro Flacco” (1976), Harvard (MA)

J. Briscoe, “A Commentary On Livy: Books 31-33”, (1973) Oxford

R. G. Kent (translator), “Varro: ‘On the Latin Language’: Volume I: Books 5-7”, (1938) Cambridge (MA)

J. G. Frazer (translator, revised by G. P. Goold), “Ovid: ‘Fasti’”, (1931), Cambridge (MA)

J. G. Frazer, “Fastorium Libri Sex’”, (1929), London


Return to Site Map: Romans