Part Two Ancient Rome Moneta: Sacred Memory in Mid-Republican Rome*

Daniele Miano

Roman history has proved to be a fertile ground for memory studies. As several scholars have shown, memorial practices were particularly important in the social and political system of the Roman Republic.

Three goddesses are occasionally described in ancient sources as goddesses of memory. One is Venus, who is known by the epiclesis Mimnernia or Meminia in Servius Auctus (ad Aen. 1, 720). However, this information is late and isolated, and is probably of no help for the Republican period. A better connection with memory is attested for Minerva. The evidence is the following: first, in his epitome of Festus, Paulus Diaconus explains the name Minerva ‘in view of the fact that she reminds carefully' (109 L.: quod bene moneat). Moreover, Festus glosses the expression promenervat, from the Carmen Saliare, as (pro)moneat (222 L.). Arnobius derives Minerva from Meminerva (3, 31), and near the Trebbia river, in the locality of Travo, several dedications to a Minerva Memor, or Medica, were found, dated from the first to the third century ad (CIL XI 1292-1309). Finally, Augustine associates Minerva with ‘the memory of boys' (Civ. Dei 7, 3: puerorum memoria). It seems absolutely clear that Minerva had been associated with memory, at least in late Republican antiquarian scholarship. For the earlier period, however, it is difficult to have any certainty.

The third goddess is Iuno Moneta. In this case, the association with memory seems to be stronger and better attested. In this paper, my aim is to analyze the functions of this goddess during the Republic, with particular attention to the early stage of their historical development. I suspect, indeed, that Moneta had a strong connection with memory, and that the historical context in which this connection developed is that of the second half of the fourth century bc. This period has seen an impressive increase in the monumentality of the city of Rome. It is possible that this change came with a development of the idea of memory and monumentality itself, which could in turn have been reflected by religious institutions.

The paper is divided into two parts. The first part is dedicated to the goddess Moneta: I shall discuss the ancient evidence for her cult and functions, and the etymology of the name. Hopefully, this will show that the connection between Moneta and memory is solid, and will help us to understand what kind of memory is associated with the goddess. In the second part of the paper, I shall briefly discuss the concept of monumentum, and illustrate the development of monumentality in Rome during the fourth century bc.

Moneta

Let us start with Moneta. I should apologize if, for a number of reasons, I focus here on Moneta, leaving Iuno out of the picture. I have good reasons for doing so. First of all, the ancient sources themselves refer to the goddess either as Iuno Moneta or simply as Moneta, as this name could stand on its own.³ Second, Iuno is a very complex goddess, with a strong multifunctional character. Even without considering the interpretation of iunones as female versions of individual male genii,⁴ which may well be a late development, Iuno has a large number of epithets, and an extremely broad range of different functions.⁵ This means that a general discussion of the goddess Iuno would take us far away from the subject of this paper; moreover, it would probably not be of much help in explaining the functions of Moneta.

Rather disingenuously, the title of this paper alludes to Moneta as a goddess of memory. This is far from being obvious, and it is a point that needs to be demonstrated. In the past decade, modern scholarship has given much attention to the cult of Moneta; this was the object of a groundbreaking article by Meadows and Williams.⁶ According to Meadows and Williams, Moneta is essentially a goddess with multiple functions: she was a protector of correct measures; she was connected with money because of the vicinity of her temple to the Roman Republican mint, but she was also connected with memory. She was ‘the goddess who acts as guarantor both of historical memory and of standards of measurement and coinage, and who also guards against falsifica­tions of either'⁷. For Meadows and Williams, this connection led to a change of coin-types at the end of the second century Bc.8 Whereas earlier coinage included a few standardized and recurring types, from this period the types on coins increased in number and variability. Moreover, they often show a connection with the family background of the monetalis, be it historical or mythical.

The linguist and comparativist Jean Haudry published a book on Moneta in 2002.¹⁰ He does not cite the article by Meadows and Williams, but he rejects the possibility of identifying Moneta as a goddess of memory. The reason is that, as is proved by a fragment of Afranius, in the late second century bc there was a goddess called Memoria, who was identified with Mnemosyne.¹¹ A similar observation on the nature of Moneta was recently made by Alex Hardie, who comments on a fragment of Livius Andronicus calling Moneta the mother of the Muses.¹² He thinks that if Moneta is connected with the verb monere, the name cannot be used as a translation of Mnemosyne: monere implies an active reminding, advising or warning, which does not seem to render well the functions of recollection of Mnemosyne. A much better trans­lation would have been Memoria. Therefore, he thinks that Livius Andronicus did not refer to Moneta as an existing goddess of memory, but that he created a literary goddess, mixing Greek and Roman characteristics.¹³ For Hardie, Moneta was an adviser and a deity who brought warnings. Her connection with collective memory is somehow secondary, and originated because in her temple were kept the libri lintei, records containing lists of magistrates, and because of her connection with monumental coinage.

What then is the ancient evidence for the cult of Moneta? Livy writes that the temple of the goddess was vowed during the war with the Aurunci in 345 bc by the dictator L. Furius Camillus (7, 28, 4-6), and was built on the Arx the following year, on the site of the house of M.

Regarding the functions of the goddess, we can discuss the ancient evidence under four headings, broadly following the exposition of Meadows and Williams. The first thing they argue is that Moneta was a goddess of correct measures. The evidence for this is the following: 1) Isidore (Etym. 16, 8, 8) explains the name Moneta by the fact that she warns against frauds in metal or in weight;¹⁹ 2) Hyginus Gromaticus refers to the pes monetalis as a measure of length²⁰ and some imperial inscriptions refer to standard measures kept on the Capitol.²¹ Meadows and Williams combine these two items and suggest that standard measures were kept in the temple of Moneta.²² However, as they also emphasize, much prudence is needed: we have a late literary reference to a cube with the standard capacity of an amphora, but in this case it is explicitly stated that this object is dedicated to Iuppiter.²³ Moreover, these inscriptions say in Capitolio, which, if it actually refers to a temple, can only signify that of Iuppiter.

It is also argued that Moneta is a goddess of warnings. The evidence concerning this function of the goddess is, one must admit, much richer. First, in Cicero's De divinatione, Quintus explains the name Moneta by the story that she advised the Romans to sacrifice a pregnant sow as a procuratio after an earthquake. Marcus derides Quintus' opinion: what else did Moneta warn us (moniti) against, after the sow?²⁴ Second, the Suda entry on Moneta reports that, during the war against Pyrrhus, the Romans were short of money and requested the help of Hera. After the oracle, they dedicated the temple of Moneta, which is glossed as σύμβουλος, ‘advisor', and decided to mint coinage in the temple.²⁵ Third, two different commentators on Lucan gloss the word Moneta by noting that she warned the Romans against the Gauls when they were besieged on the Capitol (monuisse; quod monuit, Ad. Luc. 1, 380).²⁶ Finally, The text of Isidore I have already mentioned (supra n. 19), says that Moneta warns against frauds: again, the verb being used is monere. The tradition about Moneta as a goddess who warns seems decisively strong. A point I should like to underline is that all the Latin texts above, and perhaps also the source of the Suda, used the verb monere to explain the name Moneta. Moneta may have been interpreted as a goddess who warns because of her name.

For the evidence of Moneta as a goddess of money, I have already mentioned the relevant sources, the above-mentioned passage of Isidore and the Suda entry both clearly associating Moneta with money. However, the tradition referred to by the Suda is late and isolated, and Isidore can be inter­preted in at least three different ways. Livy, on the other hand, refers to ‘the temple and the mint of Moneta' as a single architectural complex (6, 20, 13: aedes atque officina Monetae), but he never says that she is a goddess of money. It would seem to me that Moneta as a goddess of money must have been a late development. Further evidence suggesting this comes from the iconography of the goddess. As was shown by Dennert, the coin-types of the goddess seem to change after Domitian: whereas the late Republican iconography of Moneta consisted of a bust with earrings and a necklace, after Domitian it was changed into a standing woman holding a cornucopia and a balance.²⁷ This is the same type as Aequitas, another imperial ‘financial' goddess. According to Dennert, this was the point at which Moneta was turned into a goddess of money, and this could be associated with the transfer of the mint from the Capitol, an area where Domitian made substantial urban changes, or with a monetary reform.²⁸

Let us finally analyze the connection between Moneta and memory. First of all, Moneta is used to translate Mnemosyne in two texts: a fragment of Livius Andronicus' Latin translation of the Odyssey, which is indeed our oldest literary reference to Moneta,²⁹ and the Praefatio of Hyginus' fabulae, which says that the Muses were born from Iuppiter and Moneta.³⁰ Moreover, we have a passage of Cicero's philosophical work De natura deorum (3, 47) in which Cotta, arguing against the existence of gods, mentions Moneta alongside ‘Honour/Rank/Public Office', ‘Trust/Loyalty/Good Faith', ‘Moral Balance/ Reason/Will', ‘Concord’, and ‘Hope' (Honos, Fides, Mens, Concordia, Spes), who are defined as the gods ‘we can make up by ourselves with our intellectual activity' (quae cogitatione nobismet ipsis possumus fingere). This passage is an obvious reference to the so-called ‘personified abstractions' that, in the light of recent scholarship, ought rather to be called divine virtues, or qualities.³¹ In this context, Moneta is obviously a goddess of memory: other interpreta­tions, such as ‘warning' and ‘advice', would not fit well with the rest of the list, because they are actions rather than virtues or qualities. I cannot discuss this in detail. It is enough to remember, here, that Cicero and Varro deal with these kinds of divinities in their works, and they define virtues as gods granting a benefit and taking the name of the benefit itself.³² Moreover, another relevant point is that these authors only mention gods who had a public cult in Rome: in this sense an important distinction to draw is between divine virtues, which had public cults and temples, and rhetorical personifications, which could be freely created by the author of a literary text using the technique of prosopo­poeia. Finally, it must be kept in mind that the critical argument against divine virtues that we find in De natura deorum was extremely influential, and was followed by Pliny the Elder and some early Christian authors.³³

At this point it is necessary to face the objections of Haudry and Hardie to the interpretation of Moneta as a goddess of memory: why did Livius Andronicus use Moneta and not Memoria to translate Mnemosyne? A possible, simple answer is that there was no cult of Memoria at Rome, and Livius Andronicus wanted to choose a ‘true' Roman goddess as an equivalent of Mnemosyne, in order to give more power to his verses. However, as I have already mentioned, there may be indeed an early text translating Mnemosyne as Memoria: a fragment of Afranius (late second century bc).³⁴ Reading the fragment, it is absolutely clear that the author was making a broad use of prosopopoeia. Usus, Memoria and Sapientia were never gods at Rome; the author is just personifying them for a rhetorical effect. Moreover, in spite of Haudry's opinion, it is questionable that Afranius was referring to Mnemosyne: in this case we would certainly have Iuppiter instead of Usus. This is not true of the other text translating Mnemosyne as Memoria, which is Arnobius' work against the pagans. Arnobius mentions Memoria twice: 1) in Book 3, he says that the Muses are daughters of Iuppiter and Memoria (3, 37); 2) in Book 4, he presents an argument against the cult of virtues which closely resembles the one used by Cotta in Cicero's work; divine virtues are not gods, but reflections of human behaviour (4, 1-2). Arnobius wanted to prove a point: pagan gods do not exist. For this purpose, it was important to use the names of actual pagan divinities, rather than to personify random concepts. He mentions Virtus, Salus, Honos, Victoria, Concordia, Pietas, Memoria, Pax, Aequitas and Felicitas. Other than Memoria, and perhaps Aequitas, all of them had public cults at Rome.³⁵ There is, I think, a possible explanation. Arnobius may refer to a real cult of Memoria. This hypothesis is very attractive, and seems to be supported by a text of the fifth-century ad Christian writer Hydatius. In his Chronicon, he informs us that Heraclianus, who fled to Africa after being defeated by Honorius, was killed near Carthage, ‘in the house/temple/tomb of memory' (Chron. 19: in aede memoriae). One may interpret this as an allusion to a cult of Memoria in fifth-century ad Africa, if one translates aedes as ‘temple. Arnobius was also African. He came from Sicca Veneria, a city in the western part of modern Tunisia: if there was a temple of Memoria near Carthage, he was likely to know it. However, much prudence is needed. On a famous inscription, the so-called Testament of Basel (CIL XIII 5708), the expression cella memoriae is used three times. In the inscription, it clearly signifies a tomb or a part of one. Another funerary inscription mentions a cubiculum memoriae, which is, again, a tomb (CIL VI 10276). It is not impos­sible that, writing in aede memoriae, Hydatius was alluding to some kind of tomb, or a funerary monument. However, it has been observed that, especially in funerary inscriptions and practices, Memoria is occasionally used as a substitution of Di Manes and it might have had a religious meaning.³⁶ This might have influenced Arnobius.

Moreover, it is possible that Arnobius, was modelling his Memoria on Moneta. In fact, it is likely that the main source of Arnobius, for the section containing the criticism of pagan religion, is Book 3 of De natura deorum, in which Cicero mentions Moneta as a goddess of memory.³⁷ It is possible that Arnobius' Memoria is based on Cicero's Moneta. As we have seen, at the time of Arnobius, Moneta had probably become a goddess of money. Therefore, to render what Cicero was saying, the best thing for Arnobius was to change Moneta into Memoria.³⁸

To sum up, we may observe that for Moneta as a goddess of measures we have extremely weak evidence, and it is questionable that she ever was so. Moneta, at some point, had become a goddess of money, but this was probably a late development, which may have occurred under Domitian. The two directions to which the evidence points are those of Moneta as a goddess who warns and a goddess of memory.

I think that this twofold function of the goddess is more easily explained through the connection between Moneta and the verb monere. To start with the verb moneo, this is a causative in -eyo- from the Indo-European root *men, ‘thought' (cfr. mens). Therefore, etymologically, moneo means ‘to bring to mind, to warn, to remind'. The strong and consistent connection between monere and Moneta which appears in ancient sources is extremely significant from a historical point of view. It shows how this relationship, at least from the time of Cicero, and perhaps already for Livius Andronicus, was regarded as essential for a proper understanding of the goddess. Cicero, who considers the goddess both a goddess who warns and a reminder, provides a key clue. First of all, he shows how these two functions are strongly associated, and not necessarily alternative to each other. Second, he helps to clarify what kind of memory must be associated with Moneta: not a reflective act of recollection but an active reminding. Moneta seems to be associated with what we may call an hortatory memory, whose main purpose is to remind rather than to remember.

It is worth considering whether or not Moneta really comes from moneo. The main reason it is important to do so is that this may provide evidence of the meaning of the divine name at the time of the origin of the cult. The relationship between the divine name and the verb has puzzled scholars of linguistics because the long e in Moneta is quite odd: as a regular derivative from moneo, we would normally expect *Monita or Moneta. Early reference works about Latin etymology either completely ruled out the possibility of such a derivation,³⁹ or mentioned it as a remote possibility.⁴⁰ In the 1990s, Prosdocimi and Marinetti argued that the ancient etymology might have been reliable, and that Moneta derives from an archaic participle in -eto-.⁴¹ However, this question has been definitely resolved in a recent study by Ivy Livingston, who essentially agrees with the Prosdocimi and Marinetti thesis.⁴² The key to the riddle was a red frog, rubeta, deriving from rubeo, ‘to become red', and acetum, ‘vinegar’, from aceo, ‘to be sour', both explicable as archaic participial derivations in -eto-. Although rubeo and aceo are stative verbs, and not causative verbs like moneo, these parallels strongly suggest that Moneta comes from moneo: she is ‘the one who reminds, i.e. the memory’.⁴³ This shows how the connection with moneo lies at the origin of the divine name, and might have been in the mind of L. Furius Camillus at the time the temple of the goddess was founded in 345 bc.

Monumentum

As noticed by Meadows and Williams (41-2), in the Latin language there is at least one other concept showing the same semantic connections with monere and memoria that Moneta seems to have: monumentum. There is no problem about its etymology; monumentum comes from moneo, as documentum comes from doceo.⁴⁴ Literally, it is ‘something which reminds’. The ancient sources describe the meaning of this word in a quite coherent manner. For Varro, meminisse, monumentum and moneo all come from memoria: the primary meaning of monumentum is a tomb, but anything constructed to preserve memory (memoriae causa) can be called a monumentum.⁴⁵ Cicero,⁴⁶ Festus (in Paulus),⁴⁷ the Digest,⁴⁸ Servius,⁴⁹ Isidore⁵⁰ and Porphyrion⁵¹ confirm what Varro says: they all connect monumentum with memoria and/or monere, thus making of monumentum a sign of memory.

Monumentum, in the general sense, is a key concept for understanding how the Romans represented their past, together with exemplum, uirtutes and mos maiorum. It is closely connected with historiography, and helps us to under­stand the connections between historiography, documents, ceremonies and other memorial practices.⁵² The memory represented by monumenta is also an hortatory memory, whose purpose is to present certain exempla uirtutis from the past as models to imitate and surpass in the present and the future.

Meadows and Williams argue that these parallel semantic connections shared by Moneta and monuments were probably the reason for the prolifer­ation of coin-types in the late second century bc⁵³. I think that from the above discussion it is evident that their argument cannot be upheld. First, Moneta probably became a goddess of money much later. Second, the connection between Moneta and moneo is older than late second century bc and does not explain a sudden change in coin-types. As Wiseman suggested some time ago, the lex Gabinia of 139 bc, introducing secret ballots at the elections, offers a pragmatically convincing explanation of the popularity of moneyership (i.e. the public office of those in charge of minting coins) and, arguably, also of the proliferation of coin-types⁵⁴.

Consequently, there must be another connection between Moneta and monumenta. Here I should like to argue that both the theonym and the concept of monumentum were developed in the same historical period. A terminus ante quem for monumentum is Plautus' Curculio, where the word already has the same meaning we are accustomed to: the joking reference is to an honorary statue made of wine, to remember the drinking ability of the old Leaena.⁵⁵ Although we do not know much about the earlier history of the word monumentum, we are better informed about that of the goddess Moneta.

It is known that the temple of Moneta on the Capitol was founded by L. Furius Camillus in 345 bc. The circumstances of the vow were quite excep­tional: it was one of the first temples ever to be vowed by a general on the battlefield.⁵⁶ It inaugurated what eventually became a standard mid-Repub­lican practice of vowing new temples during battles. As victory monuments they increased the glory of the victor, and ensured the remembrance of his deeds.

Now, it is a well known fact that the city of Rome experienced a dramatic increase in monumentality during the second half of the fourth century bc.⁵⁷ To give some numbers, in the 142 years from the beginning of the Republic to the Licinio-Sextian Laws (509-367 bc), we know of 15 new temples, statues and public buildings.⁵⁸ In the 77 years from the Licinio-Sextian Laws to the end of the Samnite Wars (367-290 bc), we know of 30 such public works, which means that the pace had more than doubled, with a significant increase towards the end of the period.⁵⁹ The monuments are concentrated in three areas: the Forum-Comitium, the Capitol-Arx and the Quirinal.⁶⁰ This probably suggests an attempt by groups and individuals to occupy significant public spaces with memorials, at the same time charging them with additional symbolic value, proposing and discussing new cultural and political concepts. It is certainly significant that in 367-290 we know of six temples dedicated to Virtues, and two to related cults, out of a total of 11: it is the highest percentage in Republican history.⁶¹

It is likely that, when the cult of Moneta was introduced at Rome, a new conception of memory and monumentality was elaborated by contemporary Romans. It is hard not to associate this idea of monumental memory with the aristocratic competition which increased after the Licinio-Sextian Laws and, even more, after the Genucian Laws, with a larger number of people competing every year for a single patrician place and a single plebeian place in the consulship.⁶² I think this sudden development of monumentality makes it plausible that the concept of monumentum might have been developed in the second half of fourth century bc. In a political regime of increased aristocratic competition, it is evident that hortatory memory was a very useful tool.

L. Furius Camillus, the founder of the temple of Moneta, was also consul in 338 bc, with C. Maenius. After a series of battles, the two consuls put an end to the Latin war. Livy and Eutropius inform us that they were awarded a triumph and a special honour: two honorary equestrian statues of them were set up in the Forum.⁶³ Livy states that, at that time, this was extremely rare. One could even say, with a great degree of probability, that these were indeed the first honorary statues ever erected in Rome.⁶⁴

From the above discussion it follows that L. Furius Camillus was greatly inter­ested in memory. He inaugurated the mid-Republican practice of dedicating temples as victory monuments, and subsequently, with his colleague, he had probably the first honorary statue to a living statesman erected in Rome. It comes as no surprise, then, that his temple was dedicated to Moneta, a goddess whose primary functions were memory and warning.

However, this does not allow us to recognize in Moneta a goddess of memory tout court. Moneta was essentially believed to be the goddess quae monet (who warns), and as such she possessed a variety of functions: hortatory memory was one of them. The parallel semantic connections that she has with monumentum, if considered in the light of the development of monumentality in the fourth century bc, can lead to a possible conclusion.

Moneta is probably not the goddess of monuments, but her primary functions might have been historically developed at the same time as the idea of monumentum, and as a cognate concept. This could have happened during the second half of the fourth century bc, when a complex system of honorary statues, victory monuments, and public and private celebrations, started to shape the Roman monumental landscape. If this is right, I think that the hortatory character of Moneta and monumenta suggests that, in the Middle­Republic, active reminding started to have a recognized cultural, political and social importance.

Notes

* I am grateful to Prof. Tim Cornell, Prof. Enrico Montanari and Prof. John Thornton for reading this paper and giving many comments and corrections, and to Prof. David Langslow, who provided helpful advice with linguistics. I should also like to thank the Thomas Wiedemann Memorial Fund for funding my travel to Birmingham. This paper is largely based on my monograph (Miano 2011), which can be consulted for a broader discussion. Regretfully, I was unable to consult in time Viglietti 2011.

1 Minerva and moneo come from the root *men- (de Vaan 2008: 380-1). However, this is not enough to be certain that promenervare originally meant monere. Ancient etymologies are extremely important from a historical point of view,

in order to understand how a certain goddess was interpreted in a certain text and period. However, they cannot be used to project these interpretations in the past. For other ancient etymologies of Minerva, see Maltby 1991: 385.

2 Montanari 1990: 85-93; Oakley 1997-2005, II: 73-6; Pina Polo 2011: 35-40, with sources and bibliography.

3 Livy uses both forms: Moneta in 6, 20, 13: adiectae mortuo notae sunt: publica una, quod, cum domus eius fuisset, ubi nunc aedes atque officina Monetae est, latum ad populum est, ne quis patricius in arce aut Capitolio habitaret; ‘After his death two stigmas were affixed to his memory. One by the State. His house stood where now the temple and mint of Juno Moneta stand, a measure was consequently brought before the people that no patrician should occupy a dwelling within the Citadel or on the Capitoline (Livy translations, here and in subsequent notes, by C. Roberts). He uses Iuno Moneta in 7, 28, 4: dictator tamen, quia et ultro bellum intulerant et sine detractatione se certamini offerebant, deorum quoque opes adhibendas ratus inter ipsam dimicationem aedem lunoni Monetae vovit; cuius damnatus voti cum victor Romam revertisset, dictatura se abdicavit; ‘But as they had begun the war without any provocation and had shown no reluctance to accept battle, the Dictator thought it his duty to secure the help of the gods, and during the actual fighting he vowed a temple to Juno Moneta. On his victorious return to Rome, he resigned his Dictatorship to discharge his vow.' But, immediately after that, Moneta again, 7, 28, 6: Anno post, quam vota erat, aedes Monetae dedicatur C. Marcio Rutilo tertium, T. Manlio Torquato iterum consulibus; ‘The temple of Moneta was dedicated in the following year, when C. Marcius Rutilus was consul for the third time and T. Manlius Torquatus for the second.'

Plin., N.H. 2, 16: quam ob rem maior caelitum populus etiam quam hominum intellegi potest, cum singuli quoque ex semet ipsis totidem deos faciant lunones Genios que adoptando sibi, gentes vero quaedam animalia et aliqua etiam obscena pro dis habeant ac multa dictu magis pudenda, per fetidos cibos, alia et similia, iurantes; Tibull. 3, 12, 1, speaking about a luno Natalis.

Sospita, Mater, Regina, Lucina, Curritis, Gabina, Martialis, Caelestis, Pronuba. For an overview of the cults of Iuno, see La Rocca 1990; Graf 1999.

Meadows and Williams 2001.

Meadows and Williams 2001: 48.

Meadows and Williams 2001: 49. This is the most controversial aspect of their article, and was criticized by Wiseman 2009: 66.

Mommsen 1901: 281, for the association with the libri lintei. Marbach 1933: 119; Radke 1965: 221-3.

Haudry 2002.

Haudry 2002: 3-4, cfr. Afran. 34-5 Ernout: Usus me genuit, mater peperit Memoria: / Sophiam vocant me Grai, vos Sapientiam. However, Haudry's general conclusions are unconvincing: he thinks that Moneta comes from the Indo-European *moni, ‘neck', and she would be a prehistoric Indo-European goddess of necklaces. In spite of the general argument, in Haudry‘s book there are useful discussions of etymology (3-16) and of the temples of the goddess (91-6).

Hardie 2007: esp. 556-60.

Hardie 2007: 558-9.

It has been argued that the cult of Moneta on the Arx might be older than the temple of L. Furius Camillus, but Adam Ziolkowski (1993) has convincingly demonstrated the contrary. Contra Roller (2010: 152-3), who argues that the temple might have been founded by M. Furius Camillus. This is because Plutarch (Cam. 36, 7) and Ovid (Fast. 6, 183-6) speak about the temple of Moneta in connection with the demolished house of M. Manlius Capitolinus. However, I am not convinced by this argument. The only sources clearly providing dates for the foundation of the temple are Livy and Valerius Maximus, but the account of the latter is confused and Livy must be preferred.

ILS 3108 = CIL VI 362: Iunoni monetae regin. | sacrum | [L.] Antonius L. 1. Euthetus et Antonia Dionysia | vot. sol.

1 June: Ovid., Fast. 6, 183-6; Macr., Sat. 1, 12, 30; Fasti Antiates Maiores (Degrassi 1963: 12); Fasti Venusini (Degrassi 1963: 58). 10 October: Fasti Antiates Maiores (Degrassi 1963: 20); Fasti Sabini (Degrassi 1963: 53). Ziolkowski 1992: 73-6; Ziolkowski 1993: 212-13. Duplicated temples (all dates bc): luppiter Stator (296, 187), luno Regina (396, 187), Venus Erycina (217, 184), Veiovis (200, 196), Hercules Victor (147, 146), Honos et Virtus (222, 101)

Tucci 2005. For Tucci, the temple was later relocated by Catulus on the monumental Tabularium.

Moneta appellata est quia monet ne qua fraus in metallo vel in pondere fiat. Campbell 2000: 90: Praeterea pes eorum, qui Ptolemeicus appellatur, habet monetalem pedem et semunciam; ‘Moreover, their measurement of one foot, which is called the Ptolemaic foot, is equivalent to one monetal foot plus 1/24' (trans. Campbell).

Two on copper vases (I century ad, III century ad): ILS 8627: mensurae ad exemplum | earum quae in Capitolio sunt; ILS 8628: mensurae exactae in Capitolio. Copper steelyard: ILS 8632 = CIL XI 6727, 1: i. Capitolio esaminata. Meadows and Williams 2001: 29.

Ps. Priscian, Carmen de ponderibus, 62-3: amphora fit cubus hic, quam ne violare liceret,/ sacravere lovi Tarpeio in monte Quirites.

Cic., diu. 1, 101 (Quintus character): atque etiam scriptum a multis est, cum terrae motus factus esset, ut sue plena procuratio fieret, vocem ab aede Iunonis ex arce exstitisse; quocirca Iunonem illam appellatam Monetam; ‘The other illustration has been reported by many writers. At the time of the earthquake a voice came from Juno's temple on the citadel commanding that an expiatory sacrifice be made of a pregnant sow. From this fact the goddess was called Iuno Moneta.' Id. 2, 69 (Marcus character): quod idem dici de Moneta potest; a qua praeterquam de sue plena quid umquam moniti sumus?; ‘Your Moneta may likewise be dismissed with a question: What did she ever admonish us about except the pregnant sow?'(trans. W A. Falconer).

Suda μ 1220,1-6 (Adler): Μονήτα ή "Ηρα παρά Ρωμαίοις έξ α’ιτίας τοιασδε.

Ρωμαίοι δεηθέντες χρημάτων έν τώ προς Πύρρον και Ταραντίνους πολέμω ηυξαντο τή "Ηρα- τήν δε χρησαι αύτοίς, ε’ι των όπλων άνθέξονται μετά δικαιοσύνης, χρήματα αύτοίς μή έπιλείψειν. τύχοντες οΰν ο'ι Ρωμαίοι της α’ιτήσεως έτίμησαν "Ηραν Μονήταν, τουτέστι σύμβουλον, το νόμισμα έν τώ ιερώ αύτης όρίσαντες χαράττεσθαι; ‘Hera amongst the Romans [sc. acquired this name] for the following reason. The Romans, in need of money during the war against Pyrrhus and the men of Taras, prayed to Hera; and [the story goes that] she replied to them that if they hold out against the arms [of the enemy] with justice they would not go short of money. Successful, then, in their request, the Romans honoured Hera Moneta, that is advisor, having determined to stamp the coinage in her temple’ (trans. D. Whitehead, www.stoa.org) access date 10/4/2011. Schol. ad Lucan 1, 380: Moneta Iuno dicta est. cum enim Senones a Capitolio removisset, Moneta dicta est, quod monuisset ut Capitolium tuerentur; ad Lucan 1, 380: Moneta autem est dicta Iuno eo quod monuit nocte per anserem Romanos de adventu Gallorum, ne Capitolium introirent. For the retrojection of the presence of Moneta on the Capitol to the times of the Gallic sack, see Ziolkowski 1993. Wiseman (2004: 129-30; 2009: 64-5) thinks that the whole story might have been created at the time of the foundation of the temple of Moneta because when L. Furius Camillus was dictator, his magister equitum was Cn. Manlius Capitolinus. I should like to thank Prof. Wiseman for pointing this out to me during the discussion of my paper.

Dennert 1997: 852-4. For the republican type, see RRC 396/1; 464/2. The earliest imperial type is RIC 2, 1, 303. The earliest type of Aequitas is RIC 2, 1, 399. See Dennert for the complete list.

Dennert 1997: 853.

Liv. And., Odyssey fr. 23 Morel = fr. 21 Blansdorf: Nam diuina Monetas filia docuit. ‘There taught the divine daughter of Moneta’ Hyg. Fab. Praef. 27: Ex Ioue et Moneta, Musae.

Axtell 1907; Fears 1981; Clark 2007.

Cic., de leg. 2, 19; 2, 28; Nat. deo. 2, 23, 60-2; 3, 24, 61; Varr., Ant. re. div. fr. 189 Cardauns.

Plin., NH 2, 14-22; Lact. Ep. 21; Arnob. 4, 1-2.

Afran. 34-5 Ernout: Usus me genuit, mater peperit Memoria: / Sophiam vocant me Grai, vos Sapientiam.

Axtell 1907: 32-3.

Axtell 1907: 54: ‘Numerous inscriptions have Memoriae sacrum ([CIL] VI. 23057, 17398), Bonae Memoriae ([CIL] III. 7436; XI. 81), in place of Dis Manibus (and some with it, e. g., [CIL] XL 1097), followed by the genitive and often by the dative. It may be conjectured that, like the Di Manes, the memory of the departed may have been thought of as a spirit guarding his existence in the minds and hearts of his friends.'

Champeaux 1994: 327-52.

The only other evidence for a cult of Memoria is a passage of Servius, Ad Aen. 3, 607: physici dicunt esse consecratas numinibus singulas corporis partes, ut aurem memoriae; ‘Scholars of nature say that specific parts of the body are sacred to divinities, so ears are sacred to memory.' This theory might be connected with magical or thaumaturgic practices, and it would be extremely difficult to date. Ernout and Meillet 1951: 732.

Walde and Hofmann 1954: 107-8.

Prosdocimi and Marinetti 1993: 173-6.

Livingston 2004: 23-30.

Livingston 2004: 29. Accepted in de Vaan 2008: 387.

Ernout and Meillet 1951: 732; Walde and Hofmann 1954: 107; de Vaan 2008: 387. Varr., l.l. 6, 6, 49: Meminisse a memoria, quom in id quod remansit in mente rursus movetur; quae a manendo ut manimoria potest esse dicta. Itaque Salii quod cantant: Mamuri Veturi, significant memoriam veterem. Ab eodem monere, quod is qui monet, proinde sit ac memoria; sic monimenta quae in sepulcris, et ideo secundum viam, quo praetereuntis admoneant et se fuisse et illos esse mortalis. Ab eo cetera quae scripta ac facta memoriae causa monimenta dicta; ‘Meminisse comes from memoria as, in that act, what lies in the mind is brought back; that (memoria) may come from manere, as manimoria. Therefore, when the Salii sing “Oh, Mamurius Veturius”, they mean “Old Memory”. From the same word comes monere, because what reminds (monet) is exactly like the memory. So the monuments, consisting in tombs and therefore located along the road, remind the passer-by what has been in the past, and that they are mortals. For that reason, other items written or done to preserve memory are called monimenta' Ad Caes. fr. 7 Shackleton Bailey: sed ego quae monumenti ratio sit nomine ipso admoneor; ad memoriam magis spectare debet posteritatis quam ad praesentis temporis gratiam; ‘But what a monument is about, I am admonished by the word itself. It should pay regard to the memory of posterity rather than the approval of present day.'

Fest. 123 L.: Monimentum est, quod et mortui causa aedificatum est et quicquid ob memoriam alicuius factum est, ut fana, porticus, scripta et carmina.

11, 7, 42 monumentum generaliter res est memoriae causa in posterum prodita: in qua si corpus vel reliquiae inferantur, fiet sepulchrum, si vero nihil eorum inferatur, erit monumentum memoriae causa factum.

Ad Aen. 3, 486: monumenta memoria. monumenta autem a mentis admonitione sunt dicta; cfr. 12, 945.

Or. 15, 11, 1: Monumentum ideo nuncupatur eo quod mentem moneat ad defuncti memoriam; cfr 1, 41, 2; Id., Diff. 1, 522.

Ad Carm. 1, 2, 15: monumentum non sepulcrum tantum dicitur, sed omnia quidquid memoria testantur; ‘It is called monumentum not just a tomb, but everything which testifies memory.'

Wiseman 1986; Holkeskamp 1996; Jaeger 1997: 15-29; Holkeskamp 2001; Holscher 2001; Walter 2004: 131-7; Roller 2004; Holkeskamp 2006; Roller 2009. Meadows and Williams 2001: 49.

Wiseman 1971: 4.

Plaut., Cur. 139-40: Tibi ne ego, si fidem seruas me cum, uineam pro aurea statua statuam, / Quae tuo gutturi sit monumentum; ‘Assuredly, if you keep faith with me, in place of a golden statue, I'll erect for you one of wine, which shall be a memorial of your gullet' (trans. H. T. Riley).

Oakley 1997-2005: II, 267-8. The other known temples are that of Iuppiter Stator, vowed by Romulus, possibly the clearest instance of projection of a republican temple (vowed by M. Atilius Regulus in 294 bc) into the regal period (Ziolkowski 1992: 87-91) and that of Castores probably vowed by L. Postumius Albus during the war against the Latins and dedicated by his son in 484 bc, which is a very isolated case in the fifth century bc (Liv. 2, 42, 5).

Cornell 2000.

Richardson 1992: 445-6.

Richardson 1992: 446-7; Miano 2011: 23-44, 201-4.

Holkeskamp 2001; Holkeskamp 2006; Miano 2011: 23-44. Holkeskamp suggests an influence of the triumphal route in the distribution of monuments, although the development of the Quirinal as a sacred area (temples of Salus, Pudicitia Plebeia, Iuppiter Victor and Quirinus, built 302-293 bc) suggests that other factors were also at play.

Virtues: two temples of Concordia (367, 304), Salus (302), Victoria (294), Fors Fortuna (293) and Pudicitia Plebeia (296). Related cults: Moneta and Iuppiter Victor (295). Remaining temples: Iuppiter Stator, Quirinus (293) and Venus Obsequens (295). All dates are bc. For discussions of individual temples, see the entries in the Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae and Ziolkowski 1992. Ziolkowski believes that the temple of Concordia of 367 bc is legendary, but I think this is mostly based on argumenta ex silentio, and ought to be reconsidered, Miano 2011: 181-7.

Holkeskamp 1993. I am taking for granted the convincing reconstruction of the relationship between Genucian and Licinio-Sextian Laws in Cornell 1995: 337-40. For the expression monumental memory, see Morstein and Marx 2004: 92-107.

63 Liv. 8, 13, 9: additus triumpho honos ut statuae equestres eis, rara illa aetate res, in foro ponerentur; ‘An additional honour was paid to the two consuls in the erection of their equestrian statues in the Forum, a rare incident in that age.’ Eutr. 2, 7, 3: statuae consulibus ob meritum victoriae in rostris positae sunt; ‘Statues of the consuls were erected on the rostra, because of the merits of their victory.’

64 Holscher 1978: 34-5 (Italian translation); Sehlmeyer 1999: 48-52; Papini 2004: 186-7.

Bibliography

Axtell, H., 1907. The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and Inscriptions. Chicago, IL.

Campbell, B., 2000. The Works of the Roman Land Surveyors. London.

Champeaux, J., 1994. Arnobe lecteur de Varron (Adu. nat. III)’, Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 40, 327-52.

Clark, A. J., 2007. Divine Qualities. Cult and Community in Republican Rome. Oxford.

Cornell, T. J., 1995. The Beginnings of Rome. London.

—2000. ‘The City of Rome in the Middle Republic (c. 400-100 bc)’, in J. Coulston and H. Dodge (eds), Ancient Rome. The Archaeology of the Eternal City. Oxford, 42-60.

Degrassi, A., 1963. Inscriptiones Italiae - XIII: Fasti et Elogia. Rome. Volume 2, Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani.

Dennert, M., 1997. ‘Moneta’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae VIII, 2, 852-4.

de Vaan, M., 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Leiden and Boston.

Ernout, A. and A. Meillet, 1951. Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Paris.

Fears, J. R., 1981. ‘The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology’, ANRW II, 17, 2, 827-948.

Graf, F. 1999. ‘Iuno’, in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (ed.), Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Altertum, Band 6. Stuttgart, 72-6.

Hardie, A., 2007. ‘Juno, Hercules, and the Muses at Rome’, American Journal of Philology 128, 551-92.

Haudry, J., 2002. Juno Moneta. Aux sources de la monnaie. Milan.

Holkeskamp, K.-J., 1993. ‘Conquest, Competition and Consensus: Roman Expansion in Italy and the Rise of the nobilitas', Historia 42, 12-39.

—1996. ‘Exempla und mos maiorum. Überlegungen zum kollektiven Gedächtnis der Nobilität', in H.-J. Gehrke and A. Moller (eds), Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewußtsein, Tübingen, 301-38 (= Holkeskamp 2004: 169-95).

—2001. ‘Capitol, Comitium und Forum: offentliche Räume, sakrale Topographie und Erinnerungslandschaften der romischen Republik', in S. Faller (ed.), Studien zu antiken Identitäten. Würzburg, 97-132 (= Holkeskamp 2004: 137-68).

—2004. Senatus Populusque Romanus. Die politische Kultur der Republik - Dimensionen und Deutungen. Stuttgart.

—2006. ‘History and Collective Memory in the Middle Republic', in N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx (eds), A Companion to the Roman Republic. Oxford, 478-95.

Holscher, T., 1978. ‘Die Anfänge romischer Repräsentationskunst', Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 85, 315-57; Italian translation ‘Gli inizi dell'arte di rappresentanza

romana', in T. Holscher, 1994. Monumenti statali e pubblico. Rome, 17-51.

—2001. ‘Die Alten vor Augen. Politische Denkmäler und offentliches Gedächtnis im republikanischen Rom', in G. Melville (ed.), Institutionalität und Symbolisierung. Verstetigungen kultureller Ordnungsmuster in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Cologne, 183-211.

Jaeger, M., 1997. Livy’s Written Rome. Ann Arbor, MI.

La Rocca, E., 1990. ‘Iuno', Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae V, 1, 814-56.

Livingston, I., 2004. A Linguistic Commentary on Livius Andronicus. London.

Maltby, R., 1991. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. Leeds.

Marbach, E., 1933. ‘Moneta', RE 16, 1, 113-19.

Meadows, A. and J. Williams, 2001. ‘Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome', Journal of Roman Studies 91, 27-49.

Miano, D., 2011. Monimenta. Aspetti storico-culturali della memoria nella Roma medio-repubblicana. Rome.

Mommsen, T., 1901. The History of Rome, I. London.

Montanari, E., 1990. Mito e storia nellannalistica romana delle origini. Rome. Morstein-Marx, R., 2004. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge.

Oakley, S. P., 1997-2005. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X. 4 volumes. Oxford.

Papini, M., 2004. Antichi volti della repubblica. Rome.

Pina Polo, F., 2011. The Consul at Rome: The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic. Cambridge.

Prosdocimi, A. L. and A. Marinetti, 1993. Appunti sul verbo latino (e) italico II’, Studi Etruschi 59, 168-201.

Radke, G., 1965. Die Gotter Altitaliens. Munster.

Richardson, L., 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, MD.

Roller, M. B., 2004. ‘Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles and Cloelia’, Classical Philology 99, 1-56.

—2009. ‘The Exemplary Past in Roman Historiography and Culture’, in A. Feldherr (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. Cambridge, 214-30.

—2010. ‘Demolished Houses, Monumentality, and Memory in Roman Culture’, Classical Antiquity 29/1, 117-80.

Sehlmeyer, M., 1999. Stadtromische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit. Stuttgart.

Tucci, P. L., 2005. ‘Where high Moneta leads her steps sublime. The “Tabularium” and the Temple of Juno Moneta’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 18, 6-33.

Viglietti, C., 2011. ‘Moneta, la moneta e la memoria’, Scienze dell’antichità 16, 201-18. Walde, A. and J. B. Hofmann, 1954. Lateinisches Etymologisches Worterbuch, II.

Heidelberg.

Walter, U., 2004. Memoria und res publica. Zur Geschichtskultur im republikanischen Rom. Frankfurt a. Main.

Wiseman, T. P., 1971. New men in the Roman senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14. Oxford.

—1986. ‘Monuments and the Roman annalists’, in I. S. Moxon, J. D. Smart and

A. J. Woodman (eds), Past Perspectives. Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing, Cambridge, 87-100.

—2004. The Myths of Rome. Exeter.

—2009. Remembering the Roman People. Oxford.

Ziolkowski, A., 1992. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical and Topographical Context. Rome.

—1993. ‘Between Geese and the Auguraculum: The Origin of the Cult of Juno on the Arx’, Classical Philology 88, 3, 206-19.