Why a Second Temple for Venus Erycina ? On April 23, 181 BCE Lucius Porcius Licinus, duwmuir aedibus dedicandis, dedicated the temple to Venus Erycina at the Colline gate that his father had vowed during a campaign against the Ligurians three years earlier (’). At first glance this event seems wholly unremarkable ; it had long been the practice at Rome for new temples to be built following a vow made by a general on campaign, and sons had previously dedicated temples vowed by their fathers (°). However, anomalies begin to appear if one looks more closely. Most obviously, Rome already had one temple to this goddess: Fabius Maximus the Cunctator had dedicated this temple on the Capitoline hill during the opening stages of the Second Punic War (3). Secondly, the goddess involved is hardly a typical Roman deity, but rather an incarnation of Sicilian goddess from the Western, or more Punic-influenced, side of the island. And finally, although sons been appointed to dedicate their fathers’ temples in the past, none had done so since M. Claudius Marcellus had dedicated the temple of Honos et Virtus in 205. Why would the Romans build a second temple to the same goddess only thirty-four years after the erection of the first temple ? Why to this particular goddess ? And what can we learn from the identity of the parties involved in its construction? The answers to these questions shed light on a major transitional period in the Roman Republic. The questions raised here touch on a more general problem, that of multiple temples to the same divinity. No satisfactory answer has been offered to date for this practice. The simplest solution might be that the earlier temple had fallen into disrepair and that the new temple was meant as a replacement. Yet this can hardly be the case with the two temples of Venus Erycina, for the second temple was built while the first temple still stood on the Capitoline hill. Moreover, the first temple to Venus Erycina presented a special case in its own right, constructed during the crisis of Hannibal’s invasion of Italy and involving a consultation of the Sibylline Books and the installation of an imported foreign deity inside the pomerium for the first time (4). Other (I) Livy XL.344. (2) Examples of vows made by generals are too numerous to mention ; ef. Livy XXXII,32 and XL,34. For sons as dedicators, see Livy 11,42 and X,46, Both practices are discussed more fully in my book, Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic, Leiden, 1996. (3) For the vow, see Livy XXII,9-10. For the dedication, Livy XX1II,30-31. (4) R. SCHILLING, Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome, Patis, 1979, p. 94-102.WHY A SECOND TEMPLE FOR VENUS ERYCINA? 71 scholars have rightly drawn attention to the links created between Rome and Sicily through this cult dating from the First Punic War, and such links would obviously have been particularly important during the crisis of Hannibal’s invasion of Italy (8). Yet an explanation along these lines cannot help us with the second temple, for Hannibal had long since been defeated and Rome's military attention was now directed elsewhere. On the other hand, Licinus had a wide range of deities to whom he might choose to vow a temple, so wwe are entitled to believe there was a purpose in his decision to build a second temple to this same goddess (6). Any explanation of the temple to Venus Erycina dedicated in 181 BCE must account both for the unusual features of the second temple to Venus Erycina as well as the historical context in which it was dedicated, i.e. the religious, political and social turmoil in Rome during the years following the final defeat of Carthage in 202. Despite, or perhaps even because of, the military victories over Hannibal and then over Philip and Antiochus, Rome faced a number of serious internal issues during these years, including problems with lenders, with the grain supply, and with the Latin allies (7). A number of portents, including a serious fire, floods, a plague, and even an eclipse, served as indications that the pax dewm was in grave jeopardy, if indeed it had not already been ruptured (*). Two particularly notorious religious incidents occurred during the 180’s: the suppression of the so-called Bac- chanalian conspiracy, which began in 186 and continued through 181, and the burning of the books of Numa in 181, the very year in which the temple of Venus Erycina was dedicated. The 180's also saw notable political events such as the censorship of Cato the Elder as well as the infamous “trials of the Scipios”. All of these events must be viewed against the backdrop of the growth of Roman power following the conclusion of the Hannibalic war, accompanied by increasing amounts of wealth flowing into the city and increasing contacts with the Greek East. The indissoluble link between religion (5) Sce especially D. Krenast, Rom und die Venus vom Eryx in Hermes 93, 1965, p. 478-489, Cf. also K. Gatinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome, Princeton, 1969, p. 173-176; R. ScmiLuinG, La religion romaine de Vénus, Paris, 1954, p. 241-242 ; 252-254; R. ScHILuNG, Rites [n. 4], p. 138. (6) Ci. E. Srene, Venus, Cybele, and the Sabine Women : The Roman Construction of Female Sexuality in Helios 16, 1989, p. 144-145, for similar comments on the construction of the first temple to Venus Erycina and to Cybele. (7) See A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor, Oxford, 1978, p. 76-77 for a discussion of the various problems arising at this time. (8) Eg. Livy XXXV,215-6; XXXV40,8; XXXVIIL284; XXXVIIL36,4; XXXVIII,44,7. The eclipse and the plague were explicitly treated as portents, as the decemviri proclaimed a three-day supplicatio in response to each. Livy records numerous other portents and related expiations during this period as well.2 E.ORLIN and politics at Rome suggests that there ought to be a relationship amongst all these events, although finding a common thread is bound to be difficult when each episode in itself is subject to multiple interpretations. Many interpretations of this period have focused on the issue of Hellenic intrusions onto Roman culture, and have seen in the repression of Bacchic worship and the burning of Numa’s books a reaction against such encroach- ments, This type of reading is based largely on Livy’s presentation of these incidents. For instance, Livy offers the following from a speech made by the consul Postumius during the Bacchanalian affair : “How often in the times of our fathers and grandfathers has it been a task for the magistrates that they forbid the introduction of foreign rites, that they exclude little sacrificers and fortune-tellers from the Forum, the Circus and the City, that they search out and burn books of prophecies, and that they abolish every system of sacrifice except that performed in the Roman way. For indeed those men most learned in every divine and human law used to judge nothing equal for the dissolution of proper religious feeling than when sacrifices are performed not with ancestral but with foreign rites” (). This interpretation has been combined with the image of Cato as a stern anti-Hellene and the attacks on the philhellenic Scipiones to present a picture of the events of the 180’s as a struggle between pro- and anti-Greek elements among the Roman aristocracy (!°). Yet recent critiques have shown interpretation along these lines to be overly simplistic. Postumius’ speech is filled with more posturing and moralizing retrojection than with historical fact (!'). In actuality, Roman religion was quite tolerant of foreign religions and had incorporated several foreign cults into the state religion, including the Magna Mater as recently as 204 (/2), Cato can no longer be viewed simply as the defender (9) Livy XXXIX,16,8-9. (10) E.g. T. Frans, Roman Imperialism, New York, 1914, p. 163-195 ; H. H. Scut- tarp, Roman Politics, 220-150 B.C., Oxford, 1973. (11) The one incident that appears to meet Postumius’ description is treated more fully below p. 79-80. Livy seems to have fashioned a general rule for Postumius to pronounce from this one episode, which occurred in 213 under the pressures of Hannibal's invasion. Cf. R. MacMuten, Hellenizing the Romans (2"4 Century B.C.) in Historia 40, 1991, p. 429, who sees a Livian knock against Mark Antony in Postumius’ speech. A. Dusourpicu and E. Lemirre, La rumeur dans Vaffaire des Bacchanales in Latomus 56, 1997, p. 304-305, also detect Livy’s personal interpretation of the affair in this section of the speech. (12) Cf. W. Warne Fow.er, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, London, 1911, p. 223-269; K. Larre, Romische Religionsgeschichte, Munich, 1960, p. 148-194; G, Dumezu, Archaic Roman Religion, Volume 1, Chicago, 1970, p. 407-455 ; J. Baver, Histoire politique et psychologique de la religion romaine, Patis, 1969, p. 120-127: A. WARDMAN, Religion and Statecraft among the Romans, London, 1982, p. 1-9.initial tail hliatai iene einen oan of Roman values, for he himself made use of Greek practices when it suited his needs ("3), And the domestic political scene can not be divided so neatly into firm parties of any sort, let alone ones based on a supposed stance towards Greek culture. Clearly the relationship to Greek culture was a matter of interest to Roman aristocrats, but other factors were also at work, and a more nuanced reading is necessary. One constant throughout the history of Republican Rome is that the Senate sought to maintain its control over the state at all times, and the religious sphere was no exception. Almost every procedure and every significant rel- igious decision ultimately passed through the Senate. The college of pontifis strictly speaking was merely an advisory body, as any judgments they made were submitted to the Senate for approval. Similarly, the decemuiri sacris Jfaciundis consulted the Sibylline Books only upon instruction from the Senate, and whatever measures they reported as suggested by the Books had to be approved by the Senate before they were carried out. The Senate’s role was so essential that Mary Beard has recently argued that the Senate was the principal means of mediating between the divine and the human in Republican Rome ('*). The importance of maintaining this preeminence, in matters both religious and political, recurs as an important theme throughout the events of the 190’s and 180’s, and bears directly on the questions surrounding the second temple to Venus Erycina. A brief review of the critical events will help to throw into brighter relief the significance of this temple. Undoubtedly the most significant religious event of this period was the suppression of the so-called Bacchanalian conspiracy. This incident has been the subject of several recent studies, which have attempted to clarify some of the more obscure or controversial points (!5). A full-scale treatment is therefore not warranted and lies beyond the scope of this paper, but a few essential aspects will highlight the points most salient for our purposes. The basic outline of events is clear enough from Livy’s narrative (!6), In 186, word of the decadent behavior of devotees of Bacchus reached the ears of the consul Sp. Postumius Albinus : the reports said that secret nocturnal meetings were taking place which promoted sexual license and a variety of criminal activities (13) Cf. D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor, Heidelburg, 1954, p. 101-116; A. Asti, Cato [n. 7], p. 157-181 ; E. Gruen, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, 1992, p, 52-8 (14) M. Bear, Priesthood in the Roman Republic in Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, Cornell, 1990, p. 30-33. (15) J.-M. Panter, Bacchanalia, La répression de 186 Av. JC. @ Rome et en Jtalie : vestiges, images, tradition, Rome, 1988 ; E. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, Leiden, 1990, p. 34-78 ; A. Dusourpiev and E. Lemire, Rumeur [n. 11}, p. 293-306. (16) See Livy XXXIX,8-19 for the full narrative14 E, ORLIN including murder. When this information was laid before the Senate, the patres promptly established a quaestio to seek out and prosecute members of this cult. Seven thousand people throughout Italy were arrested, a majority of whom were eventually executed, and a further Senatorial decree, whose major points are preserved on a bronze tablet from Tiriolo, severely curtailed further worship of Bacchus (!7). Prosecutions then continued in Tarentum in 184 and in Apulia in 182 and 181 ('8), Much discussion has centered on the nature and the reliability of Livy’s narrative, which is clearly polemical (!°). The account is also a bit odd and contradicts itself in several places. Livy notes how widespread the contagion was, yet remarks how the size of the City concealed its presence from the authorities ), The supposedly hidden nature is important to Livy's account, both because it increases the threat posed by the cult and because it is integral to the story of the cult’s unmasking. That story revolves around a young Roman knight Aebutius, his mother and his stepfather who had squandered his estate and thus feared prosecution by the son when he was old enough to assume his estate. The cast of characters also includes a noble prostitute who warns Aebutius about the Bacchic rites, and his respected elderly aunt who advises the boy to take his concerns directly to the consul Postumius. That an unknown boy should have gone straight to the consul and obtained an audience, and that the consul should have learned of the dangers posed by the Bacchic devotees only through an equestrian youth and have obtained confirmation through a courtesan and his mother-in-law seems rather unusual. The story reads more like a drama with stock figures than a historical narrative, and this element has not gone unnoticed in analyses of the episode (?!). Recent studies have emphasized the ways in which the crisis was manipulated, and possibly even manufactured, by the Senate and its magistrates (22). To under- stand what the Senate may have been trying to accomplish, one needs to look more closely at the actions that were taken in reaction to the supposed conspiracy. (17) The Tiriolo inscription can be found in ILLRP, no. 511. (18) Livy XXXIX,41,6-7 ; XL,19,9-10. (19) A. Brunt, Liber Pater, Paris, 1953, p. 95-115; A. J. Festuaterr, Ce que Tite-Live nous apprend sur les mystéres de Dionysos in MEFRA 66, 1954, p. 79-99 J. A. Nortu, Religious Toleration in Republican Rome in PCPS 25, 1979, p. 86-87 ; J.-M. Panter, Bacchanalia [n. 15], especially p. 196-211 ; E. Gruen, Studies [n. 15], p. 61-64. A. Dusourviev and E, Lemirre, Rumeur [n, 11], focus on the role played by rumor in Livy’s narrative without explicitly discussing the reliability of the narrative. (20) Livy XXXIX,9,1. (21) See especially P. Cova, Livio e la repressione dei bacchanali in Athenaeum 52, 1974, p. 82-109. (22) E. Gruen, Suidies[n, 15}, p. 64-65 ; A. Dunourpieu and E. Lemire, Rumeur [n. 11}, p. 298-305.WHY A SECOND TEMPLE FOR VENUS ERYCINA ? 75 Many interpreters of this affair have seen it as a strike against the increasing encroachment of Greek culture onto native Roman traditions, and potentially also as a strike against individuals who supported such Hellenization (3). Yet the Senate’s wrath was carefully targeted not so much against the cult itself as against the actions to which it supposedly gave rise. In the repressive measures taken against Bacchic initiates, capital punishment was inflicted only on those who had actually committed criminal acts: sexual debauchery (stuprum), perjury, forgery, or murder. Those who had merely participated in the rites but committed none of the acts were left in prison (4). More significantly, the Senate did not attempt to eradicate the cult entirely. In the initial destruction of sites for Bacchic worship, an exception was made for places where “an ancient altar or statue had been consecrated” (25), While this decision may have been in keeping with the Roman custom of respecting long-established shrines, it also had the effect of allowing cult worship of Bacchus to continue. Nor can we view this as simply an oversight or a minor exception made by the Senate : the senatusconsultum preserved by Livy and on the bronze tablets explicitly allowed worship of Bacchus to continue. It did, of course, specify certain conditions : a prospective worshipper needed to announce his desire to the urban praetor, who would consult the Senate at a meeting with at least one hundred members present. If the Senate granted approval, further conditions were laid down : no more than five worshippers could gather for a sacrifice, no common fund nor exchanges of oaths were permitted, and no man or woman could serve as an administrative official. While the conditions may be seen as restrictive, the fact that the Senate deliberately created mechanisms for the worship of Bacchus indicates that the intent can not have been to completely eliminate that worship (2). This fact severely cripples the attempt to view the repression of the Bacchanalia as an anti-Hellenic action. The decision of the Senate to place severe limitations on the worship of Bacchus rather than abolish it points us in another direction. The result of the Senate’s actions was to subject the cult to stringent Senatorial oversight. The initial Senatorial action asserted that, although the cult may have existed (23) E.g. A. Brum, Liber Pater [n. 19], especially p. 115-116 ; J. Bayer, Histoire [n. 12}, p. 152-155; A. Luisi, La lex Maenia e la repressione dei Baccanali nel 186 @.C. in Politica e religione nel primo scontro tra Roma e 'Oriente, edited by M. Sorvt, Milan, 1982, p. 182-185 ; J.-M. Pamex, Bacchanalia [n. 15], p. 195-245. (24) Livy XXX1X,18,3-4, Cf. J.-M. Pater, Bacchanalia [n. 15], p. 209-210, (25) Livy XXXIX,18,7. (26) There is some question as to how difficult it would have been to meet the Senate’s conditions, and whether the conditions were designed to be so onerous as to make Bacchic worship unfeasible in practice even if legally possible. But the point remains that the Senate did not attempt a total eradication of the cult. See J. NorTH, Toleration {n, 19], p. 90-91.