DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0143
CASTOR
103
Praen. CIL p. i2. 308 ; Asc. in Scaur. 46; Suet. Tib. 20 ; Cal. 22 ; Flor.
Ep. iii. 3. 20, cf. Lact. Inst. ii. 7. 9 ; CIL vi. 2202, 2203, although perhaps
not in Rome, cf. Jord. i. 2. 369), forms due either to vulgar usage or
misplaced learning. Besides aedes, templum is found in Cicero (pro Sest.
79; in Vat. 31, 32; in Pis. II, 23; pro Mil. 18; de domo IIO; de
harusp. resp. 49 ; ad 0. fr. ii. 3. 6), Livy once (ix. 43. 22), Asconius (in
Pis. 23 ; in Scaur. 46), the Scholia to Juvenal (xiv. 261), the Notitia
and Chronograph (loc. cit.). In Greek writers it appears as to tw
Διόσκουρων iepov (Dionys. vi. 13), το Διοσκόρειον (Cass. Dio xxxviii. 6;
lv. 27. 4; lix. 28. 5 ; Plut. Sulla 33), νεως των Διόσκουρων (Cass. Dio
lx. 6. 8 ; App. BC i. 25 ; Plut. Sulla 8 ; Pomp. 2 ; Cato Min. 27).
This temple was restored in 117 b.c. by L. Caecilius Metellus (Cic. pro
Scauro 46, and Ascon, ad loc. ; in Verr. i. 154 ; Plut. Pomp. 2). Some
repairs were made by Verres (Cic. in Verr. i. 129-154), and the temple
was completely rebuilt by Tiberius in 6 a.d., and dedicated in his own
name and that of his brother Drusus (Suet. Tib. 20 ; Cass. Dio lv. 27. 4 ;
Ov. Fast. i. 707-708). Caligula incorporated the temple in his palace,
making it the vestibule (Suet. Cal. 22 ; Cass. Dio lix. 28. 5 ; cf. Divus
Augustus, Templum, Domus Tiberiana), but this condition was
changed by Claudius. Another restoration is attributed to Domitian
(Chron. 146), and in this source the temple is called templum Castoris
et Minervae, a name also found in the Notitia (Reg. VIII), and
variously explained (see Minerva, templum). It had also been supposed
that there was restoration by Trajan or Hadrian (HC 161), and that the
existing remains of columns and entablature date from that period, but
there is no evidence for this assumption, and the view has now been
abandoned (Toeb. 51). The existing remains are mostly of the Augustan
period (AJA 1912, 393), and any later restorations must have been so
superficial as to leave no traces.
This temple served frequently as a meeting-place for the senate (Cic. in
Verr. i. 129 ; Hist. Aug. Maxim. 16; Valer. 5 ; CIL i2. 586. 1), and played
a conspicuous role in the political struggles that centred in the forum
(Cic. de har. resp. 27; de domo 54, no; pro Sest. 34; in Pis. 11, 23 ;
pro Mil. 18; ad Q. fr. ii. 3. 6; App. BC i. 25), its steps forming a
sort of second Rostra (Plut. Sulla 33 ; Cic. Phil. iii. 27). In it were
kept the standards of weights and measures (CIL v. 8119. 4 ; xi. 6726. 2 ;
xiii. 10030. 13 if. ; Ann. d. Inst. 1881, 182 ; Mitt. 1889, 244-245), and the
chambers in the podium (see below) seem to have served as safe deposit
vaults for the imperial fiscus (CIL vi. 8688, 8689),1 and for the treasures
of private individuals (Cic. pro Quinct. 17 ; Iuv. xiv. 260-262 and
Schol.). No mention is made of the contents of this temple, artistic
1 8688 ‘ actori Caesaris ad Castor, et ad loricata(m) ’ seems to allude to two separate
buildings ; and the latter is mentioned alone (‘ a loricata ’) in ib. 8690-2 (=xv. 7143-7145).
Mommsen (CIL in loc.) believes this ‘ loricata ' to be a building defended by a lorica
(i.e. a kind of government safe deposit) ; contrast Jord. i. 2. 374, who follows Hirschfeld
(Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 3 f.) in referring it to the Statua Divi Iulii (q.v.).
103
Praen. CIL p. i2. 308 ; Asc. in Scaur. 46; Suet. Tib. 20 ; Cal. 22 ; Flor.
Ep. iii. 3. 20, cf. Lact. Inst. ii. 7. 9 ; CIL vi. 2202, 2203, although perhaps
not in Rome, cf. Jord. i. 2. 369), forms due either to vulgar usage or
misplaced learning. Besides aedes, templum is found in Cicero (pro Sest.
79; in Vat. 31, 32; in Pis. II, 23; pro Mil. 18; de domo IIO; de
harusp. resp. 49 ; ad 0. fr. ii. 3. 6), Livy once (ix. 43. 22), Asconius (in
Pis. 23 ; in Scaur. 46), the Scholia to Juvenal (xiv. 261), the Notitia
and Chronograph (loc. cit.). In Greek writers it appears as to tw
Διόσκουρων iepov (Dionys. vi. 13), το Διοσκόρειον (Cass. Dio xxxviii. 6;
lv. 27. 4; lix. 28. 5 ; Plut. Sulla 33), νεως των Διόσκουρων (Cass. Dio
lx. 6. 8 ; App. BC i. 25 ; Plut. Sulla 8 ; Pomp. 2 ; Cato Min. 27).
This temple was restored in 117 b.c. by L. Caecilius Metellus (Cic. pro
Scauro 46, and Ascon, ad loc. ; in Verr. i. 154 ; Plut. Pomp. 2). Some
repairs were made by Verres (Cic. in Verr. i. 129-154), and the temple
was completely rebuilt by Tiberius in 6 a.d., and dedicated in his own
name and that of his brother Drusus (Suet. Tib. 20 ; Cass. Dio lv. 27. 4 ;
Ov. Fast. i. 707-708). Caligula incorporated the temple in his palace,
making it the vestibule (Suet. Cal. 22 ; Cass. Dio lix. 28. 5 ; cf. Divus
Augustus, Templum, Domus Tiberiana), but this condition was
changed by Claudius. Another restoration is attributed to Domitian
(Chron. 146), and in this source the temple is called templum Castoris
et Minervae, a name also found in the Notitia (Reg. VIII), and
variously explained (see Minerva, templum). It had also been supposed
that there was restoration by Trajan or Hadrian (HC 161), and that the
existing remains of columns and entablature date from that period, but
there is no evidence for this assumption, and the view has now been
abandoned (Toeb. 51). The existing remains are mostly of the Augustan
period (AJA 1912, 393), and any later restorations must have been so
superficial as to leave no traces.
This temple served frequently as a meeting-place for the senate (Cic. in
Verr. i. 129 ; Hist. Aug. Maxim. 16; Valer. 5 ; CIL i2. 586. 1), and played
a conspicuous role in the political struggles that centred in the forum
(Cic. de har. resp. 27; de domo 54, no; pro Sest. 34; in Pis. 11, 23 ;
pro Mil. 18; ad Q. fr. ii. 3. 6; App. BC i. 25), its steps forming a
sort of second Rostra (Plut. Sulla 33 ; Cic. Phil. iii. 27). In it were
kept the standards of weights and measures (CIL v. 8119. 4 ; xi. 6726. 2 ;
xiii. 10030. 13 if. ; Ann. d. Inst. 1881, 182 ; Mitt. 1889, 244-245), and the
chambers in the podium (see below) seem to have served as safe deposit
vaults for the imperial fiscus (CIL vi. 8688, 8689),1 and for the treasures
of private individuals (Cic. pro Quinct. 17 ; Iuv. xiv. 260-262 and
Schol.). No mention is made of the contents of this temple, artistic
1 8688 ‘ actori Caesaris ad Castor, et ad loricata(m) ’ seems to allude to two separate
buildings ; and the latter is mentioned alone (‘ a loricata ’) in ib. 8690-2 (=xv. 7143-7145).
Mommsen (CIL in loc.) believes this ‘ loricata ' to be a building defended by a lorica
(i.e. a kind of government safe deposit) ; contrast Jord. i. 2. 374, who follows Hirschfeld
(Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 3 f.) in referring it to the Statua Divi Iulii (q.v.).