JUNO SOSPITA: A FOREIGN GODDESS THROUGH ROMAN EYES

Rianne Hermans

If we care to compare our national characteristics with those of foreign peo-

ples, we shall fijind that, while in all other respects we are only the equals or
even the inferiors of others, yet in the sense of religion, that is, in reverence
of the gods, we are far superior.1

1. Introduction

From the fourth century bc onwards, Rome developed from its modest
origins as a small city-state on the banks of the Tiber into an empire that
encompassed a large part of the known world. For modern historians the
complete lack of contemporary historical writings makes this period of
conquest difffijicult to interpret. We are largely dependent on later ancient
writers that describe, explain and justify the wars of expansion long
after they were fought. On the other hand, the dependence on non-
contemporary sources may, at the same time, be intriguing, since the
writings reveal a sort of self-defijinition: Romans reflect upon their own
history, their position in the world and the origins and nature of their
society.2 As the fragment from Cicero exemplifijies, a major part of this
reflection was religious in nature.3 Like foreign communities that trans-
formed from enemies into allies, the Romans also encountered foreign
gods and were often quite willing to give them a place in their pantheon.
Rome’s success was the gods’ success.4
One particularly striking set of foreign—and perhaps previously hos-
tile—set of deities is those who are recognized as manifestations of Juno
in ancient literature. These Junones have received little attention in mod-
ern literature. In this article, I want to shed light on the incorporation

1
Cic. Nat. D. 2.8: Et si conferre volumus nostra cum externis, ceteris rebus aut pares aut
etiam inferiores reperiemur, religione id est cultu deorum multo superiores.
2
Cornell (1991); Dench (1995; 2005).
3
Bergemann (1992, 3–81); Levene (1993, 16–30); Miles (1995, 4–7); Bleich-Schade (1996,
3–85); Davies (2004, 21–89).
4
Beard, North & Price (1998, 74).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 327 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 328 rianne hermans

and ‘exotic’ status of one of them, Juno Sospita of Lanuvium. According

to ancient writers, Livy in particular, the little village in the Alban hills
was famous because of the goddess. When the Romans took control over
the area, they also became involved in the organisation of her cult. The
sources, however, also inform us about a sanctuary for Juno Sospita in the
city of Rome itself, perhaps even two. In my analysis I wish to examine
the position of Juno Sospita in the Roman pantheon and study the relation
between the cult centres in Lanuvium and in Rome. Did the focus of the
cult shift after the goddess received a temple in Rome? Was she perceived
as a Roman or perhaps as a local or foreign deity? What does the case of
Juno Sospita tell us about religious self-perception in Roman society?
In search of an answer to these questions I will relate the literary dis-
course on Juno Sospita’s nature and arrival in Rome to her place in the
religious landscape, the material remains of her cult and her iconographic
representation. The comparison does not intend to prove the historical
writings right or wrong: rather, I consider both the literary and material
sources as expressions of the same desire of the Romans to categorize
and defijine the complex religious reality that surrounded them.5 My argu-
ment, therefore, is not so much a reconstruction of the actual moment
of incorporation, but instead aims at exposing and understanding the
multi-layered perception of foreign elements and ‘foreignness’ in the cult
of Juno Sospita.

2. Iunonia sedes

In 338 bc, after the Latin War, the fate of the small city of Lanuvium was
in the hands of the Roman Senate. Lanuvium had been a part of the rebel-
lious Latin League, but, unlike some of the other participating cities, it
received rather mild punishment.6 The inhabitants obtained the civitas
cum sufffragio (citizenship with the right to vote) and no land was taken
for the establishment of a colony. Perhaps this was the result of earlier
friendly relations between the two cities; elsewhere Livy describes Lanu-
vium as a fijidelissima urbs (“most loyal city”).7 There was, however, one
important stipulation: the senate decreed that “the temple and grove
of Juno Sospita should be held in common by the citizens of Lanuvium

5
Ando (2008). See also Cornell (1995, 26–30).
6
Cornell (1995, 247–352); Forsythe (2005, 189–91); Chiarucci (1983, 29–30).
7
Liv. 6.21.2.

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 328 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 juno sospita: a foreign goddess through roman eyes 329

and the Roman people”.8 The fact that this is explicitly mentioned in the
agreement indicates the signifijicance of the site, which had a long history
of worship with which Rome sought to associate itself. It must be noted,
however, that Livy’s words may reflect a contemporary rather than a his-
torical reality.
Several generations of archaeologists have located Juno’s sanctuary on
the highest hill of present-day Lanuvio, the so-called Colle San Lorenzo.9
Three phases in the temple building have been identifijied and the oldest
remains—including parts of the roof construction, a decorated ridge piece
and several terracotta antefijixes—are from the sixth century bc. The rich
decoration suggests that the sanctuary was frequently visited in this early
stage and the influx of Romans did not change this.10 On the contrary, in
the late fourth century, when Roman magistrates are assumed to have
taken part in the organization of the cult, the complex was restored and
enlarged.11 The third and fijinal renovation took place around 50 bc.12 At
that time a large porticus with commercial and administrative spaces was
added, so that the complex now occupied the entire Colle San Lorenzo.
Juno had a special relationship with Lanuvium: Ovid has the goddess
talking about the city as “my own” and Silius Italicus labels it Iunonia
sedes.13 The epigraphic record shows a complex and hierarchical cult orga-
nization, in which Roman magistrates played an important role.14 The con-
suls sacrifijiced in Lanuvium each year and the most important magistrate
(in Lanuvium known by the ancient name of dictator) was a Roman sena-
tor as well.15 Titus Annius Milo was one of these dictatores; and, in fact,
he was on his way home from the inauguration of a priest of Juno Sospita
when he got involved in the fatal fijight with Clodius Pulcher, on the Via
Appia.16 Dedicatory inscriptions found as far afijield as Africa show that the
title of sacerdos Lanuvianus was also used in a purely honorifijic way.17

8
Liv. 8.14.2.
9
Lumley-Savile (1886, 67; 1893, 147) Pullan (1884, 327); Chiarucci (1983, 166–8); Coarelli
(1987, 62–4); Attenni (2009; 2010, 26–32); Santi (2010, 33–7); Zevi (2010, 38–41).
10
Chiarucci (1983, 19–29).
11
Coarelli (1987, 69–73); Attenni (2009, 3–16).
12
Coarelli (1987, 76–80).
13
Ov. Fast. 6.60; Sil.It. Pun. 8.360.
14
CIL X.3913; CIL XIV.2097–8; 2100–1; 2104; 2113–17; 2120; 2122–4; 2160.
15
Cic. Mur. 90.2–4; Cic. Pro Mil. 17.45; CIL X.3913; CIL XIV.2097; 2110; 2121.
16
Cic. Mil. 27.45.
17
CIL V.6992; 7814; CIL VIII.26583; CIL IX.4206–7; CIL X.4590.

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 329 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 330 rianne hermans

3. Cult Place(s) in Rome

The renowned and esteemed sanctuary was less than 20 miles from Rome;
however, eventually, Juno Sospita received a cult in the city as well. Livy
informs us that the consul Gaius Cornelius Cethegus vowed a temple to
the goddess in 197 bc, which was inaugurated in 193 bc on the Forum Holi-
torium.18 Remains of the temple have been identifijied under the church of
San Nicola in Carcere and on the Forma Urbis. Some confusion arises,
however, when we examine Juno Sospita’s position in the Roman calen-
dar. There is an entry in the Fasti Antiates Maiores, to be reconstructed as
Iunon(i) S[osp(itae)] Matr(i) Re[g(inae)] on the fijirst of February, in cor-
respondence with several other Juno cults that were celebrated on the
calendae (fijirst day) of the month.19 Ovid, in his poem on the Fasti, men-
tions a festival for the goddess on the same day, but states that the temple
was “the neighbour of the Phrygian Mother Goddess” [Magna Mater, on
the Palatine] and that it had “tumbled down”.20
Was Ovid mistaking Magna Mater for Mater Matuta (who did have
a temple on the Forum Holitorium), as is recurrently assumed?21 Then
why does he claim that the temple had disappeared by his time? Coarelli
comes up with a complex but plausible solution.22 He links two references
in the Fasti Antiates Maiores and the Fasti Vallense on the fijirst of July
and reconstructs the complete entry [Iun]on(i) [Sospitae ad theatrum Ma]
rcell(i).23 If this was the festival of Juno Sospita on the Forum Holitorium,
the other dies natalis (1 February) indicates another cult place that prob-
ably was much older and might well have been the temple on the Palatine
that is mentioned by Ovid.
Clearly, Juno Sospita was fijirmly established in Rome, possibly even
from a very early date. Did this mean that her worship in Lanuvium
gradually became overshadowed? A possible answer to the question lies
in an analysis of the cult practice and the iconographic appearance of
the goddess. With regard to celebrations and sacrifijices, very little is actu-
ally known about the way Juno Sospita was worshipped. In contrary to

18
Liv. 32.30.10.
19
CIL I2.248–9, Degrassi, In. It. XIII.1, tab. I–III.
20
Ov. Fast. 2.55–9.
21
Ziolkowski (1992, 77–9); Richardson (1992, 217–18); Schultz (2006, 210).
22
Coarelli (1996, 128–9; 1996, 129–30).
23
Fasti Antiates Maiores: CIL I2.248–249; In. It. XIII.1, tab. I–III. Fasti Vallense: CIL 12.320;
In. It. XIII.18.

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 330 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 juno sospita: a foreign goddess through roman eyes 331

other Juno cults, there are no accounts of participating matronae, jubi-

lant processions or the donation of signa. There is, however, a long list
of prodigia: extraordinary omens and portents that were considered as
signs of divine wrath, after which placation of the gods (procuratio) was
needed.24 Most of these incidents—including the ones where Juno Sospita
was involved—were reported at times in which the Roman state was in
grave danger, especially during the Punic and Macedonian wars. Remark-
ably, Livy does not mention a single portent in the city of Rome (nor does
Julius Obsequens, who replicated his descriptions of omens in the fourth
century ad), whereas Juno’s temple in Lanuvium was the constant scene
of lightning strikes, rains of stones, nesting ravens and other trouble.
Lanuvium appears also in one of the Elegiae of Propertius, in which he
describes the town as the scene of a peculiar fertility rite that involved
young girls entering the cave of a giant snake to ensure prosperous crops
for the following year—provided that the girls were virgins and their offfer-
ings were accepted.25 The story is reproduced by Claudius Aelianus and by
the fijifth-century writer Quodvultdeus who presents a bizarre version in
which a monk destroys the now mechanical snake, thereby proving the
fijictitious nature of the pagan gods.26 It is of course very difffijicult to say any-
thing about the historicity of the narrative and neither is it clear whether
Juno Sospita had a part in the rites. The discovery of a long, man-made
corridor under the Colle San Lorenzo, in the vicinity of Juno’s temple, has
caused many archaeologists and historians to make the link between god-
dess and ritual, but the site itself has, so far, not provided further evidence
to support this theory.27
Juno Sospita was often depicted with a snake closely following her feet.
Her warrior-like appearance is quite distinctive: she wears a goatskin with
ears and horns, curled shoes, a round shield in the one hand and an ele-
vated spear in the other. The modern identifijication of this image as Juno
Sospita is, above all, the result of an observation made by Cicero:
Precisely as much as you believe Juno Sospita of your native place to be
a goddess. You never see her, even in your dreams, unless equipped with
goat-skin, spear, buckler and slippers turned up at the toe. Yet that is not

24
Liv. 21.62.4; 23.31.15; 24.10.6; 29.14.3; 31.12.6; 32.9.2; 35.9.4; 41.21.13; 42.2.4; 45.19.2; 45.16.5;
Jul. Obs. Prod. Lib. 6, 9, 11, 12, 20, 46. See MacBain (1982); Kragelund (2001, 65–6).
25
Prop. Eleg. 4.8.3–14.
26
Claud. De Nat. An. 11.16; Quodvult. Lib. Prom. 3.43.
27
Dumézil (1966, 294–7); Palmer (1974, 26); Scullard (1981, 71); Hänninen (1999, 35–6);
Boëls-Janssen (1993, 472–3); Attenni (2009, 20–2).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 331 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 332 rianne hermans

the aspect of the Argive Juno, nor of the Roman. It follows that Juno has
one form for the Argives, another for the people of Lanuvium, and another
for us.28
The diffferent attributes can be recognized in a range of iconographic
sources, amongst which a giant statue now kept in the Sala Rotonda of
the Vatican Museums.29 Especially informative are the coin series, appear-
ing from the late second century bc onwards, that show a full fijigure or
a bust of Juno Sospita.30 Her appearance changes little over time: on the
coins of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (with his son Commodus on
the obverse) the goddess looks the same as on the coins of the Republican
monetarii.
There is a strong connection with Lanuvium here: for four out of fijive
Republican monetarii that put Juno Sospita on their coins a Lanuvian ori-
gin can be determined and both Antoninus Pius and Commodus were
born there.31 With the depiction of Juno Sospita, accompanied by a ref-
erence to the snake ritual, the moneyers seem to refer explicitly to that
Lanuvian descent.32 While Juno Sospita had a temple in Rome during all
the coin-issues, her appearance was not that of a Roman Juno, as Cicero
makes very clear. The image of the goddess represented—at least for a
large part of the audience that saw it—the archaic and respectable cult
in Lanuvium.

4. A Problematic Continuity

But was this cult, in fact, so ancient? As we have seen, the oldest remains
on the Colle San Lorenzo have been dated to the sixth century bc. But
how do we know if the deity that was worshipped there—if it actually

28
Cic. Nat. D. 1.82: Tam hercle quam tibi illam vestram Sospitam. Quam tu numquam ne
in somnis quidem vides nisi cum pelle caprina, cum hasta, cum scutulo, cum calceolis repan-
dis: at non est talis Argia nec Romana Iuno. Ergo alia species Iunonis Argivis, alia Lanuvinis,
alia nobis.
29
La Rocca (1990, 819–22); Chiarucci (1983, 56fff); Martin (1987, 112).
30
Republic: RRC 316/1 (=BMC 1615–1641); RRC 384/1 (= BMC 2977–3095); RRC 412/1
(= BMC 3394–3510); RRC 472/1 (= BMC 4018–4022); RRC 379/1 (= BMC 3147–3149); RRC
379/2 (= BMC 3394–3510); RRC 509/1–5 (= BMC II.26–28). Empire: RIC III 608; RIC III 1583.
For Celtic imitations of the RRC 412/1 issue, see Forrer (1968, 123, fijigs. 230 and 231.
31
Cic. Fin. 2.63–65; Cic. Div. 1.79; Cic. Mil. 53.13–16; Hist. Aug. An. Pius 1.2; Hist. Aug. Com.
1.2. Cf. Farney (2007, 68–74, 260, 267, 270); Chiarucci (1983, 44–6).
32
Farney (2007, 68–74).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 332 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 juno sospita: a foreign goddess through roman eyes 333

was the same deity as in later times—was known as Juno Sospita at any
point before the Roman conquest? The archaic past of the Juno Sospita
cult, as presented by Livy and others, is often confijirmed in modern lit-
erature on the basis of iconographical sources.33 Indeed, we have a num-
ber of archaic representations of a goddess that resemble the later Juno
Sospita: a female fijigure with goatskin, horns, curled shoes and armour
appears on a vase from the fourth century bc, a tripod from the sixth
century bc, a small bronze statue from the fijifth century bc and several
other objects.34 There is also a signifijicant number of late sixth and early
fijifth-century bc terracotta antefijixes, found all over Latium Vetus, which
show the head of a helmed fijigure with goat horns.35 The portraits seem
to reflect an important continuity, but, in fact, only the goat horns are
similar; the other attributes are not visible and the later goddess wears no
helmet. There is another problem: none of the archaic sources originate
from Lanuvium itself. The fijigurative antefijix that was found on the Colle
San Lorenzo actually bears no resemblance to the other antefijixes.36 Fur-
thermore, it has been stressed that a portrayal of Juno Sospita as lateral
rooftop decoration would certainly be an exception: the roofs of other
Etrusco-Italic temples from the sixth, fijifth and fourth centuries bc dis-
play no antefijixes of gods or goddesses, but only of minor mythological
fijigures like maenads, gorgons or satyrs.37 It therefore remains uncertain
whether there is a connection between the antefijixes and the deity that is
later recognized as Juno Sospita. There are two female heads with large
holes, interpreted as being used for fastening the goat’s skin, from the late
fijirst century bc, but the lack of other evidence from Lanuvium may call
into question the identifijication of the early sanctuary.38 Or, as Darmgaard
Andersen states: “It is thus uncertain whether a so-called Juno Sospita
antefijix identifijies a temple as a temple of Juno Sospita”.39

33
Douglas (1913, 66–72); La Rocca (1990, 819); Martin (1987, 112–19); Chiarucci (1983,
56fff ).
34
Vase: Ducati (1932, 14). Tripod: Höckmann (1981. 64). Bronze: Richardson (1983, 361);
Cristofani (1985, 281). Other objects: Douglas (1913, 66–72); La Rocca (1990, 819–22).
35
Andrén (1940, 52, 99, 112, 387, 398, 469, 502); Riis (1981, 33, 45); Lulof & Knoop (1998,
24).
36
Andrén (1940, 420–1).
37
Damgaard Andersen (1998, 164–5).
38
Hafffner (1966, 186–205); Martin (1987, 112–14).
39
Damgaard Andersen (1998, 164).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 333 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 334 rianne hermans

5. Caecilia’s Dream

Finally, one episode in Roman history that involved Juno Sospita has to
be discussed, precisely because it touches on the heart of the issues that
are discussed in this paper. In 90 bc the senate gave the order to restore
the temple of Juno Sospita, as a result of a dream of Caecilia Metella, the
daughter of an ex-consul. Cicero writes about it almost contemporaneously
in De Divinatione; however, it is Obsequens’ more suggestive version—in
which he mentions that restoration was needed because the sanctuary
was “befouled by ladies attention to dirty and vile physical needs”—that
has received most of the scholarly attention.40 This has resulted in a debate
on the exact nature of the “dirty and vile physical needs”. However, a more
essential question is sometimes overlooked: which was the sanctuary in
need of restoration?41 Many scholars have easily interpreted the absence
of an indication of place as an implicit reference to the cult on the Forum
Holitorium in Rome, which they see as the obvious frame of reference for
the Roman public.42 But is this indeed so self-evident?
One problem in the interpretation of the story is the presumed decrepit
state of the sanctuary, something which seems hard to imagine in the cen-
tre of Rome; on the busy Forum Holitorium or on the Palatine. But it also
seems unlikely in the case of the well-known temple of Lanuvium, which
delivered, for example, enough gold to support Octavian’s men in 42 bc
and to make a 209 pound heavy statue during the rule of Hadrian.43 How-
ever, Cicero uses the word restitutum [restituere], without giving any fur-
ther details; this rather ambivalent expression can be used in the sense of
‘reviving’ or ‘renewing’ an existing structure.44 Furthermore, an ideological
factor can be of importance here: on the basis of a comparison between
building inscriptions and actual archaeological remains, scholars have
suggested that restoration was more appreciated in Roman society than
the construction or enlargement of a building.45 Consequently, a simple
adaptation could have been recorded and remembered as a restoration,
perhaps because the Metelli family took pride in the incident.

40
Cic. Div. 1.4, 1.99; Jul. Obs. Prod. Lib. 55.
41
Dumézil (1974, 295); Balsdon (1962, 249); Scullard (1981, 71); Schultz (2006, 208; 2006,
26–7).
42
Gordon (1938, 25); Chiarucci (1983, 73); Palmer (1974, 31); La Rocca (1990, 819);
Richardson (1992, 217); Coarelli (1996, 128); Claridge (1998, 249).
43
Octavian’s men: App. BC 5.24. Statue: CIL XIV.2088 = ILS 316.
44
Thomas & Witschel (1992, 140–1).
45
Thomas & Witschel (1992, 135–77); Schultz (2006, 211).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 334 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 juno sospita: a foreign goddess through roman eyes 335

Even so, the question remains: where did the presumed restoration take
place? Caecilia had her dream during the Social War, and Cicero describes
it just lines before he mentions another portent: mice that gnawed the
“shields of Lanuvium”.46 A coincidence? We already saw that Cicero asso-
ciated the appearance of Juno Sospita exclusively with Lanuvium; in the
passage in the De Natura Deorum he uses the signifijicant clause “even in
your dreams”.47 Maybe Cicero fails to mention a place, because, for his
audience, it was obvious that Juno Sospita showed her concern for Roman
afffairs via her sanctuary in Lanuvium, as she had done before in times
of great distress. For the Roman senate, or the Metelli family, the dream
could have been a welcome occasion to strengthen the bonds with the
ancient cult in Lanuvium. The restoration served as a forceful reminder
of the Roman victory in the Latin War that had made Lanuvians into
Romans, and Juno Sospita into a Roman goddess.

6. Conclusion: Foreign in a Roman Way

Obviously, it is not possible to reconstruct one general view of Juno Sos-

pita: while she was recognized as a local or foreign deity by some groups
in Roman society, she could have been seen as a Roman goddess by oth-
ers. Still, the analysis of the literary discourse, the collection of prodigia
and the study of her images in this article demonstrate that Juno Sospita
was regularly—and often very explicitly—linked to her cult site in Lanu-
vium. Apart from its existence, we know nothing of Juno Sospita’s cult in
the city of Rome and this silence is perhaps signifijicant. The coin series, in
particular, show that a reference to the goddess could function as a refer-
ence to the origin of the monetarii; in that way, she could be seen as an
expression of local identity in an urban context.48 Lanuvium was known
for its cult of Juno Sospita; Juno Sospita was known for her archaic roots
in Lanuvium.
At the same time, reasonable doubts have been expressed here about
the archaic status and continuity of the cult, which are often presumed
in ancient and modern literature. Although there certainly is not enough
reason to reject the tradition completely, due consideration has to be
given to the guiding influence of late, often anachronistic, accounts. In

46
Cic. Div. 1.99.
47
Cic. Nat. D. 1.82. See Kragelund (2001, 66–7).
48
Farney (2007, 49–53).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 335 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM

 336 rianne hermans

fact, we only know of the foreign character of Juno Sospita because Roman
sources specifijically wish to emphasize it: we recognize a foreign deity, but
always through Roman eyes.
As we have seen, Juno Sospita’s exotic origin was not a static relic of a
long forgotten past. On the contrary, it was constantly reinvented, remem-
bered and reinterpreted. This reflection upon the pluralistic nature of the
Roman pantheon suited a society that was well aware of its multi-ethnic
composition and roots, and one that displayed that diversity with a certain
pride.49 The reverence for the gods, described by Cicero in the fijirst lines of
this article as the only real talent of Rome, involved not only traditional
Roman gods, but could also integrate newcomers like Juno Sospita.

49
Dench (2005, 11–25).

327-336_Roselaar_f20.indd 336 2/20/2012 3:42:33 PM