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 find 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, 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 difficult 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-definition: Romans reflect upon their own history, their position in the world and the origins and nature of their society.2 As the fragment from exemplifies, 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

* University of Amsterdam; [email protected]. 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). 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 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 define 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 rebellious Latin League, but, unlike some of the other participating cit- ies, it received a rather mild punishment.6 The inhabitants obtained the civitas cum suffragio (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 Lanuvium as a fidelissima 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.