CASTOR, AEDES, TEMPLUM
* the temple of Castor and
Pollux at the south-
east corner of the forum area, close to the fons Iuturnae
(Cic. de nat. deor.
iii. 13; Plut. Coriol. 3;
Dionys. vi. 13;
Mart. i. 70. 3; FUR
fr. 20, cf.
NS 1882, 233). According to tradition, it was vowed in
499 B.C. by the
dictator Postumius, when the Dioscuri appeared on this
spot after the
battle of Lake Regillus, and dedicated in 484 by the son of
the dictator
who was appointed duumvir for this purpose (
Liv. ii. 20.
12, 42. 5;
Dionys. loc. cit.). The day of dedication is given in the
calendar as
27th January (Fast. Praen. CIL i 2. p. 308; Fast. Verol.
ap.
NS 1923, 196;
Ov.
Fast. i. 705-706), but by Livy (ii. 42. 5) as 15th July.
The later may
be merely an error, or the date of the first temple only
(see WR 216-217,
and literature there cited).
Its official name was aedes Castoris (Suet. Caes. 10 :
ut enim geminis
fratribus aedes in foro constituta tantum Castoris
vocaretur; Cass.
Dio
xxxvii. 8; and regularly in literature and inscriptions-Cic.
pro Sest. 85;
in
Verr. i. 131, 132, 133, 134;
iii. 41; Liv. cit. and viii. 11.
16; Fest.
246, 286;
1 Gell. xi. 3. 2; Mon.
Anc. iv. 13; Plaut. Curc.
481;
CIL vi.
363, 9177, 9393, 9872, 10024-aedes Castorus (CIL i 2.
582. 17) or Kastorus
(ib. 586. 1 ; cf.
EE iii. 70) appear merely as variants of
this), but we also
find aedes Castorum (Plin.
NH x. 121 ;
xxxiv. 23; Hist.
Aug. Max. 16. ;
Valer. 1. 4; Not. Reg. VIII; Chron. 146), and Castoris et
Pollucis
2 (Fast.
Praen. CIL p. i 2. 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
110; de
harusp. resp. 49; ad Q. 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
τὸ τῶϝ
Διοσκουρων ἱερόν（
Dionys. vi. 13),
τὸ
Διοσκόρειον (Cass.
Dio xxxviii. 6;
lv. 27. 4;
lix. 28. 5; Plut. Sulla 33),
ϝεὼς τῶν
Διοσκούρων (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 (Cie. 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 i 2. 586.
1), and played
a conspicuous role in the political struggles that centred in
the forum
(Cic. de har. resp. 27; de domo 54, 110; 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 ff.; 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),
3 and
for the treasures
of private individuals (Cic. pro Quinct. 7;
Iuv. xiv. 260-
262 and
Schol.). No mention is made of the contents of this
temple, artistic
or historical, except of one bronze tablet which was a
memorial of
the granting of citizenship to the Equites Campani in 340
B.C. (Liv. viii.
II. 16).
The traces of the earlier structures (including some
opus quadratum
belonging to the original temple ; see Ill. 12) indicate
successive enlargements with some changes in the plan of cella and pronaos
(for the discussion
of these changes and the history of the temple, see Van
Buren,
CR 1906,
77-82, 184, who also thinks that traces can be found of a
restoration in
the third century B.C. ; cf. however,
AJA 1912, 244-246).
The Augustan
temple was Corinthian, octastyle and peripteral, with
eleven columns on
each side, and a double row on each side of the pronaos.
This pronaos
was 9.90 metres by 15.80, the cella 16 by 19.70, and the
whole building
about 50 metres long by 30 wide. The floor was about 7
metres above
the Sacra via. The very lofty podium consisted of a
concrete core
enclosed in tufa walls, from which projected short spur
walls. On these
stood the columns, but directly beneath them at the points
of heaviest
pressure travertine was substituted for tufa. Between these
spur walls
were chambers in the podium, opening outward and
closed by metal
doors. From the pronaos a flight of eleven steps,
extending nearly
across the whole width of the temple, led down to a wide
platform,
3.66 metres above the area in front. This was provided
with a railing
and formed a high and safe place from which to address
the people.
From the frequent references in literature (see above) it is
evident that
there was a similar arrangement in the earlier temple of
Metellus. Leading
from this platform to the ground were two narrow
staircases, at the ends
and not in front. The podium was covered with marble
and decorated
with two cornices, one at the top and another just above
the metal doors
of the strong chambers. Of the superstructure three
columns on the
east side are standing, which are regarded as perhaps the
finest architectural remains in Rome. They are of white marble,
fluted, 12.50 metres
in height and 1.45 in diameter. The entablature, 3.75
metres high, has
a plain frieze and an admirable worked cornice (for the
complete description of the remains of the imperial temple previous to
1899, see Richter,
Jahrb. d.
Inst. 1898, 87-114; also Reber, 136-142; D'Esp.
Fr. i. 87-91;
ii. 87; for the results of the excavations since 1899,
CR
1899, 466;
1902,
95, 284;
BC 1899, 253;
1900, 66, 285;
1902, 28;
1903,
165;
Mitt.
1902, 66-67;
1905, 80; for general discussion of the
temple,
Jord. i. 2.
369-376; LR 271-274; HC 161-164; Thed. 116-120, 210-
212;
DE i.
175-176; WR 268-271; DR 160-170; RE
Suppl. iv. 469-
471; Mem.
Am.
Acad. v. 79-102 4; ASA 70; HFP 37, 38).
This temple was standing in the fourth century, but
nothing is known
of its subsequent history, except that in the fifteenth
century only three
columns were visible, for the street running by them was
called via
Trium Columnarum (
Jord. ii. 412, 501;
LS i. 72, and for
other reff. ii. 69,
199, 202; DuP 97). In the early nineteenth century it was
often wrongly
called the Graecostasis or the temple of Jupiter Stator.
