DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0345
IULIUS, DIVUS, AEDES 287
erected (βωμός, App. BC i. 4; ii. 148; iii. 2), and a column of Numidian
marble twenty feet high inscribed Parenti Patriae (Suet. Caes. 85).
Column and altar were soon removed by Dolabella1 (Cic. ad Att. xiv. 15 ;
Phil. i. 5), and it was on this site that the temple was afterwards built
(App. locc. citt. ; Cass. Dio xlvii. 18). From the evidence of coins,2 the
temple was restored by Hadrian (Cohen, Hadrien 416-419, 1388), but
the existing architectural fragments belong entirely to the original
structure (Toeb. i. 5). It had the right of asylum (Cass. Dio xlvii. 19),
and the Arvai Brethren met there in 69 a.d. (Act. Arv. a. 69, Febr. 26,
CIL vi. 2051, 55).
A considerable part of the foundations, already uncovered (LS ii. 197),
and the evidence of the coins of Hadrian, enabled Richter in 1889 to
reconstruct the temple in its main lines (Jahr. d. Inst. 1889, 137-162 ;
Ant. Denkmaler i. 27, 28), and additional information was given by the
excavations of 1898-1899 (CR 1899, 185, 466 ; Mitt. 1902, 6l-62 ; Ι9θ5>
75-76; BC 1903, 81-83 i Atti 563-566). The temple consisted of two parts,
a rectangular platform 3.5 metres high, 26 wide, and about 30 long ; and
on this the stylobate proper which rose 2.36 metres above the platform,
making the cella floor very high (Ov. ex Ponto ii. 84 : divus ab excelsa
Iulius aede videt ; Met. xv. 842), and was about 17 metres in width.
In the middle of the front of the platform is a semi-circular niche 8.3
metres in diameter, of which some of the peperino wall has been left in
place, and in this niche is a portion of the concrete core of a round altar
standing on the travertine slabs which formed the pavement of the forum
when the temple was built. The first altar therefore, which Dolabella
destroyed, must have been restored, and preserved in the niche of this
platform when the temple itself was built. This platform projected
beyond the stylobate on both sides for a distance of 7 metres, and the
projection was called rostra aedis divi Iuli (Frontin. de aq. 129 ; Cass.
Dio lvi. 34 : έμβολα τα Ίονλίβζά) because the wall on both sides of the
niche was decorated with the beaks of the ships captured at Actium
(Cass. Dio li. 19) in a style similar to that of the old rostra. From this
rostra the emperors seem to have spoken frequently (Cass. Dio locc. citt. ;
liv. 35 ; Suet. Aug. 100). There is some evidence in support of the view,
probable in itself, that Caesar had himself erected a second rostra at the
east end of the forum, which was represented by the rostra aedis divi
Iuli after the building of the temple (Liv. Ep. 116 ; Richter, Gesch. d.
Rednerbuhne 52-53 ; Gilb. iii. 167-168, 171-172).
1 Cf. also Cass. Dio xliv. 50. Caesar’s veterans had some idea of replacing the altar
(Cic. ad Fam. xi. 2, veteranos de reponenda ara cogitare), which may be identical with the
‘ bustum ’ of Cic. Phil. i. 5, though in Jord. i. 2. 407, it is interpreted as a cenotaph behind
the altar. Cf. CR 1899, 186 ; and for the statue base in front of the temple, see Equus
Tremuli ; Statua (Loricata) Divi Iulii.
2 A coin (Cohen, Aug. 122 ; BM. Rep. ii. p. 14, 4356-7 ; Aug. 63) which Hiilsen (HC 61)
refers to the curia, is thought to represent this temple by Mattingly (BM. p. cxxiii, n. 4)
but without good reason.
erected (βωμός, App. BC i. 4; ii. 148; iii. 2), and a column of Numidian
marble twenty feet high inscribed Parenti Patriae (Suet. Caes. 85).
Column and altar were soon removed by Dolabella1 (Cic. ad Att. xiv. 15 ;
Phil. i. 5), and it was on this site that the temple was afterwards built
(App. locc. citt. ; Cass. Dio xlvii. 18). From the evidence of coins,2 the
temple was restored by Hadrian (Cohen, Hadrien 416-419, 1388), but
the existing architectural fragments belong entirely to the original
structure (Toeb. i. 5). It had the right of asylum (Cass. Dio xlvii. 19),
and the Arvai Brethren met there in 69 a.d. (Act. Arv. a. 69, Febr. 26,
CIL vi. 2051, 55).
A considerable part of the foundations, already uncovered (LS ii. 197),
and the evidence of the coins of Hadrian, enabled Richter in 1889 to
reconstruct the temple in its main lines (Jahr. d. Inst. 1889, 137-162 ;
Ant. Denkmaler i. 27, 28), and additional information was given by the
excavations of 1898-1899 (CR 1899, 185, 466 ; Mitt. 1902, 6l-62 ; Ι9θ5>
75-76; BC 1903, 81-83 i Atti 563-566). The temple consisted of two parts,
a rectangular platform 3.5 metres high, 26 wide, and about 30 long ; and
on this the stylobate proper which rose 2.36 metres above the platform,
making the cella floor very high (Ov. ex Ponto ii. 84 : divus ab excelsa
Iulius aede videt ; Met. xv. 842), and was about 17 metres in width.
In the middle of the front of the platform is a semi-circular niche 8.3
metres in diameter, of which some of the peperino wall has been left in
place, and in this niche is a portion of the concrete core of a round altar
standing on the travertine slabs which formed the pavement of the forum
when the temple was built. The first altar therefore, which Dolabella
destroyed, must have been restored, and preserved in the niche of this
platform when the temple itself was built. This platform projected
beyond the stylobate on both sides for a distance of 7 metres, and the
projection was called rostra aedis divi Iuli (Frontin. de aq. 129 ; Cass.
Dio lvi. 34 : έμβολα τα Ίονλίβζά) because the wall on both sides of the
niche was decorated with the beaks of the ships captured at Actium
(Cass. Dio li. 19) in a style similar to that of the old rostra. From this
rostra the emperors seem to have spoken frequently (Cass. Dio locc. citt. ;
liv. 35 ; Suet. Aug. 100). There is some evidence in support of the view,
probable in itself, that Caesar had himself erected a second rostra at the
east end of the forum, which was represented by the rostra aedis divi
Iuli after the building of the temple (Liv. Ep. 116 ; Richter, Gesch. d.
Rednerbuhne 52-53 ; Gilb. iii. 167-168, 171-172).
1 Cf. also Cass. Dio xliv. 50. Caesar’s veterans had some idea of replacing the altar
(Cic. ad Fam. xi. 2, veteranos de reponenda ara cogitare), which may be identical with the
‘ bustum ’ of Cic. Phil. i. 5, though in Jord. i. 2. 407, it is interpreted as a cenotaph behind
the altar. Cf. CR 1899, 186 ; and for the statue base in front of the temple, see Equus
Tremuli ; Statua (Loricata) Divi Iulii.
2 A coin (Cohen, Aug. 122 ; BM. Rep. ii. p. 14, 4356-7 ; Aug. 63) which Hiilsen (HC 61)
refers to the curia, is thought to represent this temple by Mattingly (BM. p. cxxiii, n. 4)
but without good reason.