Acknowledgements. My investigations with regard to Temple E were carried out in the autumn of 1983 as part of research for a Ph.D. thesis on Roman Corinth. I am most grateful to C.K. Williams II, Director of Corinth Excavations, for permission to work at Corinth, and to N. Bookidis for her help in many ways. I am further indebted to Dr Williams for his detailed discussion of the article, but this should not be taken to imply that he agrees with all my conclusions. D. Fishwick, M.J. Price, S.R.F. Price, J.M. Reynolds, B.S. Ridgway and H.A. Thompson have read the manuscript at various stages and I thank them warmly for their comments. The research was funded in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. An abbreviated version of this article was read at a meeting of the Classical Association of the Canadian West in February 1986.

Abbreviations in addition to those in standard use

Edwards = Edwards, K.M., Corinth 6. Coins 1896–1929 (Cambridge, Mass. 1933).Google Scholar

Freeman = Stillwell, R., Scranton, R.L., Freeman, S.E., Corinth 1, 2. Architecture (Cambridge, Mass. 1941).Google Scholar

Grant = Grant, M., Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 116, ANS New York 1950).Google Scholar

Kent = Kent, J.H., Corinth 8, 3. The Inscriptions 1926–1950 (Princeton 1966).Google Scholar

NCP = Imhoof-Blumer, F.W. and Gardner, P., Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Masterpieces of Greek Art (A.N. Oikonomides Chicago 1964).Google Scholar (Original publication, ‘A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias’, JHS 6, (1885) 50–101; 7, (1886) 57–113; 8, (1887) 6–63.)

Roux = Roux, G., Pausanias en Corinthie (Paris 1958).Google Scholar

Wiseman = Wiseman, J., ‘Corinth and Rome I: 228 B.C.-A.D. 267’, ANRW 1, 7, 1 (1979) 438–548.Google Scholar

West = West, A.B., Corinth 8, 2. Latin Inscriptions 1986–1926. (Cambridge, Mass. 1931).Google Scholar

¹ The original publication of Temple E was by Freeman, 166–236. The most important discussion since has been by Roux, 112–116 and 126–7. See also C.K. Williams, ‘The Refbunding of Corinth: some Roman Religious Attitudes.’ (Occasional Paper of the Society of Antiquaries of London, NS 10), Roman Architecture in the Greek World, (forthcoming = Williams, ‘Refounding’).

Since the first draft of my article was completed, a new commentary on Pausanias has appeared: Pausania, , Guida della Grecia, libro 2, la Corinzia e l'Argolide, edd. Musti, D. and Torelli, M. (Milan 1986).Google Scholar Also subsequent to my article, C.K. Williams has delivered a paper, ‘A Re-evaluation of Temple E and the West End of the Forum of Corinth’ at the British Museum Colloquium, ‘The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire,’ December 1986. I am grateful to him for letting me read the text of his paper (= Williams, ‘Re-evaluation’). Since his article is not yet in print, I have made only brief reference to the main points.

² Paus. 2, 4, 5; 2, 3, 1. As Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, see Freeman, 165 and 235–6; also M. Torelli, (n. 1), 222. Ward-Perkins, J.B., Roman Imperial Architecture (Harmondsworth 1981) 256–7Google Scholar, thinks it is probably to be identified as the Capitolium, but does not elaborate. As Temple of Octavia, see Dinsmoor, W.B., ‘The Largest Temple in the Peloponnesos’, Hesperia Supp. 8, 115, n. 22Google Scholar; Roux, 113; C.K. Williams (n. 1, ‘Refounding’); Wiseman, 522.

³ Lower foundation of first temple: 44 m × 23.50 m (Freeman, 174). In Freeman's opinion (178–179) it is likely that the podium of the first temple was slightly larger and wider than its successor. Dimensions on toichobate inch steps of second temple: 42.70 m × 18.20 m (179).

⁴ Relationship of the main buildings in the forum area to the original contours; see Williams, C.K., ‘Corinth 1969: Forum Area’, Hesperia 39 (1970) 32Google Scholar, fig. 10.

⁵ Robinson, H.S., AR 1978–1979, 10–11 and fig. 9.Google Scholar Relationship of the Archaic Temple and its precinct to the city centre: see Fig. 1.

⁶ Williams, C.K., ‘Corinth 1982, East of Theater’ Hesperia 52 (1983) 8 and Fig. 2.Google Scholar

⁷ Weinberg, S.S., Corinth 1. 5. The Southeast Building, The Twin Basilicas and the Mosaic House (Princeton 1960) 51.Google Scholar

⁸ Scranton, R.L., Corinth, 1, 3. Monuments in the Lower Agora and North of the Archaic Temple, (Princeton 1951) 144, fig. 2 and Pl. 66₃.Google Scholar He refers to it simply as an unidentified, curious, square base, the cuttings on the top of which have not been explained, but preclude the restoration of a statue. Preliminary notice of my findings was given in Walbank, M.E.H., ‘The Nature of Early Roman Corinth’, (abstract) AJA 90 [1986] 220–221Google Scholar, and discussed in idem, The Nature and Development of Roman Corinth to the end of the Antonine Period, (unpub. Ph.D. thesis 1986).

⁹ The temple is on the same axis as the foundation of a large, early monument prominently placed in the centre of the forum and identified by Scranton (n. 8, 139–141) as an altar. It was destroyed when the forum was paved in the second half of the ist century after Christ. I have suggested tentatively elsewhere (see n. 8) that this monument could have marked the mundus of the colony. There does seem to be a relationship between it and Temple E.

Williams (n. 1, ‘Re-evaluation’) disagrees with my view in that he sees the relationship between the forum and Temple E as one of evolution and not contemporary planning. He thinks that Temple E was an immediately post-Augustan addition to the original city plan, and that the difference in orientation between Temple E and the South Stoa and the Archaic Temple is due to the fact that Temple E was built after Temples F, G and the Fountain of Poseidon along the West Terrace. Therefore the architect had to abandon strict axiality in order to compose a monumental view from the temple to the forum between Temple G and the Fountain of Neptune. The counter argument is, of course, that if Temple E, or simply an altar site, were in existence before the small buildings on the West Terrace, then the latter would have had to be sited in such a way as not to interfere with the view from the precinct over the forum, which was important from the religious point of view. I think that the siting of the sanctuary must be seen in the wider context of the religious requirements of a Roman colony.

A good example of the careful planning of the forum in general is the siting of the Bema. Ft is not centred in front of the South Stoa, in the middle of the row of Central Shops, which would be logical. Instead it is placed slightly to the East where it a) disguises an awkward outcrop of rock, b) is the focal point for people entering the forum from the Lechaeum Road through the Propylaea, the main entrance, c) enables a speaker to command the attention of a large crowd in the forum below. This combination of circumstances cannot have happened by chance. It is a nice example of Roman flexibility in adjusting to the existing circumstances rather than simply imposing a ‘drawing-board’ plan.

¹⁰ Vitr. 1, 7, 1. For the definition of a Capitolium and a useful collection of material on Capitolia, including earlier publications, see Barton, I.M., ‘Capitoline Temples in Italy and the Provinces (especially Africa)’, ANRW 2, 12, 1, (1982) 259–342Google Scholar; see also Fears, J.R., ‘Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology’, ANRW 2, 17, 1, (1981) 3–141Google Scholar; and Todd, M., ‘Forum and Capitolium in the Early Empire’ in Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the western Empire, (C.B.A. Research Report 59) edd. Grew, F. and Hobley, B. (London 1985).Google Scholar

¹¹ Poros altar, Kent 60: found in the central area of the Odeum, the original provenance is unknown, Priesthood of Jupiter Capitolinus: see p. 382–3 below.

¹² Paus. 2, 4, 5.

¹³ Williams, G.K., ‘Corinth 1983, ‘The Route to Sikyon’, Hesperia 53 (1984) 101–104.Google Scholar Pausanias' use of ὺπὲρ in the sense of ‘beyond’, was first noted by Fowler, H.N., Corinth 1, 1. Introduction, Topography and Architecture, (Cambridge, Mass. 1932) 31, n. 1.Google Scholar Both eite the relationship of the Odeum and the fountain of Glauce. Pausanias describes the Odeum as ὺπὲρ ταύτην . . . τὴν χρήνην Both monu ments have been excavated and the Odeum is not only beyond i.e. further along the road, but at a lower elevation than Glauce.

¹⁴ NCP 22 and PI. E 94–96. This explanation was adopted by Fowler, (n. 13) 85, n. 1, who refers to the temple rather curiously as the Temple of Augusta; more recently by Papahatzis, N.D., Παυσανίου Ἐλλάδος Περιηγήσ βιβλίο 2 ϰοά 3 Κοϱίνθίαϰά ϰαί Λαϰωνιϰά, (Athens 1976) 67, n. 2Google Scholar; Roux (113); Williams (n. 1, ‘Refounding’); Zervos, , Hesperia 52 (1983) 45Google Scholar; Torelli (n. 1, 222).

¹⁵ M. Amandry and H.D. Schultz have informed me (per ep.) that they are of the same opinion, it is not clear from NCP (n. 14) if the obverses were the same as those of the GENT IVLI coins; if so, they cannot date from the Augustan period for the reasons given below. In view of their uncertain existence they should not be taken into account. A coin in the British Museum collection [Weber 3774], issued in the same duovirate, does have DIVO AVG on the architrave, but it has been recut in modern times.

¹⁶ Augustus, BMC 522 and Edwards 40 (wrongly identified as Tiberius); Tiberius, BMC 518 and Edwards 43; Livia (portrait), BMC 516 and Edwards 41; (veiled head with Stephane), Edwards 42. Sec also Grant, 14–15 for a full description.

¹⁷ Amandry, M., Le monnayage des duovirs corinthiens, BCH Supplément XV (Paris 1988) 66.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Sec RE s.v. ‘Octavia’, cols. 1859–1868.

¹⁹ NCP 22 and Pl. E 96.

²⁰ Grant 108–125. He gives details of Tiberian issues showing seated figure with patera and sceptre: (Paestum) 2, no. 4; (Panormus) 5, no. 11; (Carthage?) 6, no. 15; (Hippo Diarrhytus, with legend IVL AVG) 7, no. 18; (Thapsus, with legend Thapsvm IVN AVG) 9, nos. 23 and 25; (Dium) 11, no. 33; (Cnossus) 17, no. 49; (Antioch in Pisidia) 18, no. 52. See also Grether, G., ‘Livia and the Imperial Cult’ AJP 67 (1946) 235–6Google Scholar and references. The seated figure is repeated later e.g. under Nero, with legend Salvs, , (BMCRE 1, 212, no. 87)Google Scholar; and under Galba, with legend Avgusta, Salvs (BMCRE 1, 328, no. 119).Google Scholar T.V. Buttrey (per verb.) questions whether the figure need have represented a particular statue at all.

²¹ At Thapsus (see Grant 8, no. 21) the legend, Cereri Avgvstae Thampsitani (sic), shows that this is Eivia as Cseres. Under Claudius the seated figure is holding a sceptre and ears of corn; the legend, Diva Avgvsta, makes it clear that the figure is Livia (BMCRE 1. 195. no. 224).

²² See Grelher. (n. 20) 222–252.

²³ If, that is, it was a municipal temple. As 1). Fishwiek has reminded me, if the temple was lor an imperial cult at provincial level, then the emperor's permission would certainly have heen sought. See Price, (n. 24) 66–77.

²⁴ One of the most telling points to emerge from F. Millar's analysis of the relations between the emperor and the cities of the empire is the extent to which the emperor was in touch with events in the provinces and the vast numher of embassies seeking his approval for building projects and dedications. See ‘The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces ¹, JRS (1966) 156–166Google Scholar and The Emperor in the Roman World (London 1977) passim. Augustus' attitude towards divine honours for himself and his family was ambivalent. See Charlesworth, M.P., ‘The Refusal of Divine Honours, an Augustan Formula’, BSR 15, NS 2 (1939) 1–10Google Scholar; Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) 53–58Google Scholar, in which temples and shrines are listed on 249–724; Taylor, L.R., ‘The Worship of Augustus in Italy during his Lifetime’, TAPA, 51 (1920) 116–133Google Scholar; Taylor, L.R., The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, (Middletown, Conn. 1931) 142–148Google Scholar, on the situation in the East. Divine honours to Augustus and his house are listed in Appendix III, 270–277. See also Hänlein-Sehäfer, H., Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers (Rome 1985)Google Scholar, and, most recently, Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West EPRO 108, (Leiden 1987) 91 ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ DC 49, 38, 1.

²⁶ Honours to Octavia, see n. 18; Hanson, C. and Johnson, E.P., ‘On Certain Portrait Inscriptions’, AJA 50 (1946) 3890 393, 399–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, M.H., Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) 531 and no. 527, 534 and no. 533/3a.Google Scholar Octavia equated with Athena Polias, see Raubitschek, A.E., ‘Octavia's Deification at Athens’, TAPA 77 (1946) 146–150.Google Scholar

²⁷ Duoviri connected with Antony include M. Instruis Tectus, (Plut. Ant. 65, 1); M. Antonius Theophilus, his διοιχητὴς at Corinth, and Theophilus' son, Hipparchus, (Plut. Ant. 68, 3 and Pliny NH 35, 200); M. Antonius Orestes was probably enfranchised by Antony. Other Antonii are frequently found at Corinth in the early years of the colony. Antony's head appears on coins issued by the duovirs, Aebutius and Pinnius, between 39 and 36 B.C. M. Amandry has suggested that coins bearing the heads of Antony, Octavia and Octavian issued in the name of L. Sempronius Atratinus were struck at Corinth (INJ 6–7, [1982–1983] 1–5).Google Scholar This coinage was clearly intended lor payment of the fleet and it is a reasonable assumption that Antony was not only in control of Corinth but also used it as a naval base.

²⁸ For honours paid to Livia at the Caesarca, see Kent 153. Ehe Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous was rede-dicated to Livia in A.D. 45/46, three years after her deification (IG II² 3242). See Dinsmoor, W.B., ‘Rhamnountine Fantasies’, Hesperia 30 (1961) 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ It is sometimes said that, since a large proportion of Corinth's original settlers were freedmen (Stra. 8, 6. 23), the new colony must have been Greek rather than Roman in spirit. This is an unjustified assumption since they or their families could have come from anywhere in the Mediterranean world. There is no reason to think that there was any connection between the majority of the settlers and the former inhabitants of Corinth. The way in which the graves of Greek Corinth were ransacked and re-used by the early colonists is proof of their lack of interest in their predecessors (Stra., loc. cit.). Indeed, it is unlikely that the first colonists, having recently attained Roman citizenship with all its privileges, would wish to be associated with the Greek past, now represented by provincials of inferior status.

³⁰ It has been suggested to me that the Capitoline and Julian cults could have been linked in the same structure. While 1 see no objection to the existence of a shrine within the precinct, I do not think that the Capitolium of the city would ever have been identified so precisely on a coin as the temple of the Gens lulia. (See p. 385.)

³¹ The latest studv of Pausanias is Habicht, C., Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece (Berkeley 1985).Google Scholar He does not consider the problem of the l'empie of Octavia at Corinth. On Pausanias' being misinformed bv his local guides, see 144–148.

³² Feiten, F., ‘Heiligtümer oder Märkte?’, AniK (1983) 84–105Google Scholar; also Habicht, op. cit., 39–44.

³³ See Thompson, H.A. and Wycherley, R.E., The Athenian Agora 14. The Agora of Athens (Princeton 1972) 85–86.Google Scholar Even so, Pausanias' choice of reference points remains obscure. H.A. Thompson comments. ‘It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that Pausanias did not regard the two stoas as separate and distinct. He would seem rather to have been under the impression that they were part of a single establishment called the Stoa Basileios’

³⁴ Torelli (n. 1) 222.

³⁵ Freeman, 178; Haskell, P.B., ‘Temple E at Corinth: A Re-evaluation’ (Abstract) AJA 84 (1980) 210–211.Google Scholar

³⁶ Roux (113 and fig. 17) assumed that it was an Ionic podium temple on the evidence of the coins discussed above and other autonomous coins showing a podium temple in three-quarter view. (NCP, Pl. E no. 95). There is no justification for associating Temple E with the latter representation; it could well represent another temple in Corinth. Re-used wall-blocks and impressions of Doric column drums are visible in Ereeman, figs. 115–117; Doric architrave block and Ionic anta capitals, see Freeman, 205–7, nos. 113, 115 and 116. Freeman assumed that nos. 113 and 114 could not have belonged to the Roman temple. Since this article was written, Williams has observed that, on examination of technique and style, the poros Doric architectural fragments can be proved to be Roman. He arrives at a facade that, in his words, fits nicely upon a three-step crepidoma, placed on the early Roman foundation (n. 1, ‘Re-evaluation’).

³⁷ Freeman, 176–177 and figs. 106, 108, 112 and 114; Roux, 114; also Broneer's, O. review of Pausanias en Corinthie, Gnomon 32, (1960) 301Google Scholar, who thinks that the wall is probably a terrace wall, contemporary with or earlier than the foundation of the first temple.

³⁸ Williams (n. 1, ‘Refounding’) has come, independently, to the same conclusion regarding the ‘buttress’ wall.

³⁹ Williams, (n. 13) 97.

⁴⁰ For example, the three Republican temples in the Largo Argentina: the Temple of Jupiter Stator; and the temples of the Forum Holitorium: see Hoethius, A. rev. ed. Ling, R. and Rasmussen, R., Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture (Harmondsworth 1978) 155–6 and lilts. 156 and 157.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Roman Ionic base: Shoe, L.T., ‘The Roman Ionic Base at Corinth’, Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann (New York 1964) 300–303Google Scholar; Tuscan order: Scranton, 10 and 64; poros building material: Lechaeum Road Basilica, first Propylaea (Augustan), North-West Stoa (Augustan or early Tiberian); Julian Basilica (Claudian); Odeum (late first century). Roux (115) makes the point that these buildings are all ‘civiles et utilitaires’ and, in his view, the fact that poros was used for the first Temple E argues an early date.

⁴² Freeman, 178. The information in Corinth Field Notebook no. 127, 194ff, reads as follows: ‘This general complex will be drawn up later. Impossible to describe wall without drawing and too complex for notebook; evidence here is permanent. In digging down to stereo in this 1.60 × ca 1.40 we found a Greek fill – 4th century and slightly earlier. No Roman or Byz. One tin of sherds and a few describable objects.’ The latter included the coin of Gaius. Against it is a later entry ‘found at south end of west line of stones in wall. Could date wall.’ Later in thermal publication (232) Freeman describes the coin as ‘discovered in the footing-trench of a buttress-wall’. However, the wall was not dismantled and it is clear, both from looking at the site and from reading the notebook, that the coin was not found in or under the wall but beside it, in the fill of the Greek cistern. It cannot be said, therefore, to date the construction of the wall. Roux (114) pointed out that Freeman's use of the numismatic evidence to date the first temple was questionable, but without having access to the detailed description in the notebook.

⁴³ See Olinder, B., Porticus Octavia in Circo Flaminio, (Stockholm 1974) 83–115Google Scholar, and Richardson, L. Jr ‘The Evolution of the Porticus Octaviae’, AJA 80 (1976) 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁴ It is also possible that there was a temple already in existence which the Romans restored lor their own use and that the new precinct was rebuilt round it, as at Ephesus where Augustus authorized the building of a wall round the temple of Artemis and the Augustcum in 5, B.C. (ILS 97). See Weinberg, S.S., Corinth 1.5. The Southeast Building, The Twin Basilicas. The Mosaic House (Princeton 1960) 38Google Scholar and notes, where he suggests that there was a Greek predecessor of Temple E. However, in the opinion of Williams (per ep.) the archaeological evidence indicates that construction began in the Roman period. See his paper (11. 1) ‘Re-evaluation’.

⁴⁵ See n. 41. It is also worth bearing in mind the developments in the Athenian Agora during the Augustan period. The massive Odeum of Agrippa was placed in the middle of the market square, backed up against the Middle Stoa. The overall effect was to change an essentially open area into an enclosed and colonnaded square. dominated by a large building placed on the central axis, in other words a forum with the Odeum taking the place of a temple. See Thompson, H.A., ‘The Odeion in the Athenian Agora’. Hesperia 19 (1950) 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It seems inevitable, whether they were adding to an existitig complex or starting from scratch, that the Romans should put their own immediately recognisable stamp on the development.

⁴⁶ On the meaning of ‘templum’. Varr. L.L. 7, 7–10; Gell. 14, 7,7. See also Castagnoli, F., ‘Il Tempio Romano, Questioni di Terminologia e di Tipologia’, BSR, 52 (1984) 3–20.Google Scholar For the use of ῾ναὸς ᾿ see Price, 134–5. He points out that ναὸς is generally translated as ‘temple’ but can also mean ‘shrine’. The term also covers small cult rooms within a larger structure and other untraditional buildings. ‘It is important that the imperial buildings were classified by the Greeks as naoi, but the conditions for application of the term seem to have been broad.’

⁴⁷ Kent (18–19) Puls the change in official use of the language in the Hadrianic period, but there must always have been a substantial Greek speaking population in Corinth.

⁴⁸ e.g. Jos. BJ 7.158; DC 65.15.1; also Anderson, J.C. JrThe Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (Brussels 1984)Google Scholar 110. Pausanias (6, 9, 3) calls it an ὶερὸν

⁴⁹ Julia's honours in the East appear, however, to stem from her position as M. Agrippa's wife and the mother of Augustus' heirs as much as the fact that she was Augustus' daughter. See Hanson and Johnson, art. cit. (n. 26).

⁵⁰ Plut., Ant. 68.3; 73.2.

⁵¹ Edwards 28 and 30.

⁵² Stra. 8, 6, 20–21; see Baladié, R., Le Péloponnèse de Strabon (Paris 1980) 249–250.Google Scholar

⁵³ For the tribes known to date, see Wiseman 497–8. Some of them, such as Livia, Agrippia, Vinicia and Domitia. may have been added or renamed after Actium; perhaps also Atia, named after the mother of Augustus and niece of Julius Caesar. There is, so far, no tribe named after Octavia.

⁵⁴ Broneer, O., (Isthmia 2. Topography and Architecture (Princeton 1973) 67–68)Google Scholar thinks that the Caesarea were instituted in honour of Julius Caesar, but the evidence collected by West (64–65) indicates otherwise at Corinth. We do not have the complete programme of the Caesarea, but it certainly begins with Augustus and not with Julius Caesar, as do the Caesarea established later at Gytheum. Broneer also thinks that the Corinthian Caesarea were celebrated at Sicyon, together with the Isthmian games, prior to the return of the latter to Isthmia under the control of Corinth. However, since the Caesarea seem to have been exclusively thymelic, there would have been no difficulty in holding them at Corinth.

⁵⁵ On methods of financing building in the provinces, see MacMullen, R., ‘Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces’, HSCP 64 (1959) 207–235Google Scholar, although much of his evidence is later in date. A grant from the aerarium Saturni or a remission of taxes might well have provided Corinth with the necessary funds.

⁵⁶ See Roddaz, J.-M., Marcus Agrippa (Paris 1984) 419–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for details of Agrippa's movements and activities in the East. Tribus Agrippia, West 110; Patronus, West 16. From 28–21 B.C. Agrippa was married to the daughter of Octavia.

⁵⁷ Lex Ursonensis 70 and 71 (ILS 6087). The duovirs are required during their term of office to give munus ludosue scaenicos to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva for the greater part of four days: similarly the aediles while in office are expected to give shows for the greater part of three days to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Colonia Genetiva Iulia Ursonensis was a Julian foundation of the same date as Corinth and its foundation charter appears to be typical of those issued to colonies at this time.

⁵⁸ Gell. 16, 13, 9.

⁵⁹ Paus. 2, 4, 5.

⁶⁰ See, for example, the bilingual text of a dedication by the Lycians of a statue of Roma to Jupiter Capitolinus and the Roman people commemorating the restoration of their freedom (CIL I² 725). It is dated to the early second century B.C. All the known instances of Ζεὺς Καπετὼλιος are listed in RE Suppl. 15 (1978) s.v. ‘Zeus’, cols. 1045–1461.

⁶¹ See Mellor, R., θΕΑ ΡΩΜΗ, The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Göttingen 1975) 121, 128–133, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also Fears, op. cit. (n. 10) 23–24 on Jupiter as guardian of oaths.

⁶² See Cook, A.B., Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion Vol. 2, (repr. New York, 1965)Google Scholar, App. B, 869, on the etymological relationship of Zeus and Jupiter, and the association of both with the weather; also Burkert, W., Greek Religion, tr. Ralfan, J. (Oxford 1985) 125–126.Google Scholar N.D. Papahatzis op. cit. (n. 14) is the only modern commentator on Pausanias who points out the essential function of Zeus Koryphaios.

⁶³ This raises the possibility that the sanctuary of Zeus Kapetolios or Koryphaios could be W.B. Dinsmoor's ‘Largest Temple in the Pcloponnesos’, art. cit., (n. 2). This suggestion was made by B.H. Hill to Dinsmoor, but rejected by him on the grounds that Pausanias would probably have remarked on the size of the temple if he had actually seen it. Pausanias is not entirely reliable in this respect, though. For instance, he describes the large, hexastyle Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia as not very big. That the early sixth century B.C. temple was standing in Roman times is implied by the Roman stucco covering the original face of one of the epistyle blocks (Dinsmoor, op. cit. [n. 2] 114, n. 21). See also Wiseman, J., ‘Excavations in Corinth, the Gymnasium Area’, Hesperia 38 (1969) 96.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Kent 196; Bugh, G.R., ‘An Emendation in the Prosopography of Roman Corinth’, Hesperia 48 (1979) 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ Kent 198.

⁶⁶ Kent 195. In addition to inscriptions already men tioned, theocolus lovis Capitolini is restored in Kent 194; theocolus alone can be restored in Kent 203. With the exception of Kent 195, a large but still portable, marble fragment which was found in a Byzantine grave on the podium of Temple E, all the other fragments were found in the southeast forum, the South Basilica or the southwest forum, which is where the majority of honorific statues of the period were erected, often posthumously by the family.

⁶⁷ Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris 1968–1977) 429.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ RE s.v. θεοχὸλος cols. 1998–9; Kent 207.

⁶⁹ On present evidence Zeus was by no means a prominent deity in pre-Roman Corinth. In E. Will's discussion of the cults (Korinthiaka [Paris 1955] 236, n. 7) Zeus is relegated to a final footnote.

⁷⁰ Broneer, O., ‘Hero Cults in the Corinthian Agora’, Hesperia 11 (1942) 128–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, C.K., Pre-Roman Cults in the Area of the Forum of Ancient Corinth (diss. University of Pennsylvania 1978) 19–27.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See n. 69.

⁷² On the continued existence of the Achaean Confederacy, see Gruen, E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984) 525 and notes.Google Scholar

⁷³ Both pontifex and augur are attested at Corinth, e.g. West 67, 68, 86, 81, 122, 132, Kent 154 and 156. The appointment of augures and pontifices was included in a colony's constitution: see Lex Ursonensis 67 and Cicero, de leg. ag. 2, 35, 96.

⁷⁴ NCP 12 and Pl. B 21.

⁷⁵ Price, M.J. and Trell, B.L., Coins and Their Cities (London 1977) 82 and fig. 142Google Scholar; figs. 112 and 113, and comments, 61 and 82; NCP 15 and Pl. C 46 and 47.

⁷⁶ An obvious comparison can be made with a coin issued by the Mint of Asia, in A.D. 82, (BMCRE 231), but the legend – CA PI Restit makes it clear that it refers to the rebuilding of the Capitoline temple. There is no such indication on the Corinthian coin.

⁷⁷ The West Shops are unpublished. An Augustan date was originally proposed by Williams, C.K. (‘Corinth 1976: Forum Southwest’, Hesperia 46 (1977) 62).Google Scholar Later excavation suggested that the West Shops could be as late as the long rectangular building in the south-west forum which is dated to the Neronian, period (Hesperia 45 [1976] 126)Google Scholar, but Williams now considers that the material from the construction fill is best dated within the first quarter of the 1st century A.D., perhaps going into the second quarter (see n. 1, ‘Re-evaluation’).

⁷⁸ See J.B. Ward-Perkins, op. cit. (n. 2) 177, fig. 106. The Capitolium here was remodelled in A.D. 73/74, when the four Republican temples were replaced by an imposing new podium temple, but the plan of the precinct goes back to the Republican period.

⁷⁹ Tuchelt, K., ‘Zum Problem ‘Kaisareion-Sebasteion’, 1st. Mitt. 31 (1981) 167–86Google Scholar; S.R.F. Price, op. cit. (n. 24) 133–169.

⁸⁰ See Weinberg, op. cit. (n. 44) 53–54. Vitruvius describes such an aedes to Augustus in the basilica he designed at Fano, (5, 1, 7–8). For dates and discussion of Roman imperial portraiture at Corinth, see de Grazia, C.E., Excavations of the ASCS at Corinth: the Roman Portrait Sculpture (diss. Columbia University, 1973)Google Scholar. Johnson, F.P., Corinth 9. Sculpture 1806–1923 (Cambridge, Mass. 1931) no. 134 (Augustus)Google Scholar; no. 136 (Gaius), no. 135 (Lucius); also Ridgway, B.S., ‘Sculpture from Corinth’, Hesperia 50 (1981) 432–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ West 120; original provenance unknown. It was first seen by Spon and Wheler (Voyage d'Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grece et du Levant, 1678), built into a Turkish house a short distance to the north of the Archaic Temple.

⁸² Kent 53; Scranton, op. cit. (n. 8) 142–3.

⁸³ e.g. (divus Augustus) Kent 51, 52, 72; (domus Augusta or divina) West 68 and 73, referring almost certainly to the provincial imperial cult; (lares domus divinae) Kent 62; (divus Iulius) Kent 50. West 68 also refers to a flamen divi Iulii.

⁸⁴ Julius Caesar, S2771, regarded as Tibcrian by de Grazia (Cat. 7); Octavia, S–1977–13, but see Ridgway, art. cit. 434, who suggests that a much later Constantinian date is also possible.

⁸⁵ Trajan, S–72–22, Ridgway, art. cit. 435; Antoninus Pius S–1798, AJA 39 (1935) 68 and Pl. 19 B; Scranton, 70 and Pl. 273. De Grazia also mentions a possible head of Faustina found in the excavation dump west of Anaploga, which is likely to have come from the south-west forum, Catalogue 33. Dedications: to Faustina, I–2522, Martin, T.R., ‘Inscriptions at Corinth’, Hesperia 46 (1977) 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 7; to Commodus, 1–74–10, 187, nos. 7 and 8.

⁸⁶ S 1751. The best-known statue of Claudius as Jupiter is that in the Vatican Museum, illustrated in Bieber, M. (Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art) (New York 1977) fig. 92Google Scholar, together with another version in the Villa Borghese, fig. 93. Compare also Claudius as Jupiter at Olympia. A recently published relief from Aphrodisias, (AR 1984–1985, 91, fig. 25)Google Scholar shows Augustus in a similar pose with the imperial eagle by his side.

⁸⁷ vacat.

⁸⁸ Freeman, 168.

⁸⁹ Kent 333; as Kent points out, the rest of the inscription probably contained the father's name in full, in which case there would not be room for the name of the deity to whom the temple was dedicated.

⁹⁰ The South Basilica was originally dated in the Claudian period, but there is now reason to think that it is Domitianic.

⁹¹ See Kent 82. There is good evidence that coins showing a particular building or restoration were sometimes issued when the work was projected, and before it was completed or even begun. See Prayon, F., ‘Projektierte Bauen auf römischen Munzen’, Praestant Interna: Festchrift für Ulrich Hausman, ed. Loringhoff, B. von Freytaget al (Tubingen 1982), 319–330.Google Scholar Also Fishwick, D., ‘Coins as Evidence: Some Phantom Temples’, CV 23, NS 3 (1984) 266–270.Google Scholar

⁹² B.S. Ridgway says (per ep.) that she feels fairly confident that the sculptures should be dated late Hadrianic or very early Antonine. M.C. Sturgeon who has recently been studying Corinthian sculpture also thinks they are late Hadrianic or, more probably, early Antonine. Opinions do vary, and a Trajanic date has also been suggested. Earthquake damage: see Williams, C.K. and Zervos, O.H., ‘Corinth 1986: Temple E and East of Theater’, Hesperia 56 (1987) 3–27.Google Scholar

⁹³ See Harrison, E.B., ‘Two Pheidian Heads: Nike and Amazon, ‘The Eye of Greece: Studies in the Art of Athens (Cambridge 1982)Google Scholar edd. D. Kurtz and B. Sparkes, 61.

⁹⁴ Roma, Johnson, 21, no. 11. Identified as such by C.K. Williams (n. 1 ‘Refounding’). Also mentioned by Robinson, H.S., ‘A Monument of Roma at Corinth’, Hesperia 43 (1974) 470–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 482, n. 15, as ‘probably a pedimental figure’. There is only one other sculptural version of Roma known at Corinth; a monument on the Lechaeum Road was in the form of Roma seated on a throne representing the seven hills of Rome (H.S. Robinson, ibid.). A turreted head appears frequently on the coinage, sometimes being referred to as Tyche, although the legend Roma makes the identification clear. A rare coin of Geta (Imhoof-Blumer, F., Monnaies grecques [Paris 1883] 162, no. 25Google Scholar) of the Corinthian mint is described as having on the reverse Roma seated on a rock, right hand resting on a spear and parazonium in the left. Representations of Roma are collected and discussed in Vermeule, C.C., The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, Mass. rev. ed. 1974).Google Scholar Vermeule points out that, under the influence of the cult statue in Hadrian's temple of Venus and Rome, the fully-draped Minerva type of Roma superseded almost entirely the Amazonian type in a sculptural context. This cannot be used as a means of dating the Corinthian Roma, however, since the temple was not completed until very late in the reign of Hadrian, or early in that of Antoninus Pius, and time must be allowed for the influence of the cult image to make itself felt.

⁹⁵ Tyche, Freeman, 216, no. 5: Goddess, 215, no. 4; Freeman suggested it was Aphrodite, but E.B. Harrison (per ep.) thinks Artemis is more likely. Youthful head, 216, no. 6, joined to a torso, 220, no. 11, by Capps, E.J. Jr (AJA 54 [1950] 266Google Scholar).

⁹⁶ Fragment of colossal, lelt foot (Inv. 1531), Freeman, 213, no. 1, found south of podium. A number of fragments have been found at different times, in trenches dug in the north-west corner of the precinct in 1933, and more in 1963 and 1965 in the annexe (Hesperia 30 [1967] 1–12). There are about thirty fragments of one or more colossal, draped, marble figures; also, at least twenty pieces from a cuirass statue, possibly more than one, over life-size, and probably representing imperial figures. Some of the pieces of drapery have red paint under gold. It has been suggested that a large, concrete base against the exterior north wall of the annexe may have supported a colossal marble statue (BCH 90 [1196b] 751–753 and fig. 2), but it is a curious place, at the corner of a small building, right on a gravel road, for an important statue. It would not, in any case, have held all the figures suggested by the fragments. It is far more likely that they came from the precinct of Temple E. Also found in the excavation of 1933, a head of Dionysus (Inv. 1669).

⁹⁷ Weinberg, S.S., ‘Excavations at Corinth, 1938–1939’, AJA 43 (1939) 595–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁸ Anderson, J.K. (‘Corinth: Temple E Northwest Preliminary Report, 1965’, Hesperia 36 [1967] 9–10)CrossRefGoogle Scholar thinks that the annexe was built later than the precinct, but H.S. Robinson, who carried out the earlier investigations (Klio 46 [1965] 292 and fig. 15), says that the atrium floor rested directly on the quarry fill, and construction probably followed shortly after it was dumped, soon after A.D. 30.

⁹⁹ Diva Augusta, Kent 55; Faustina and Marcus Aurelius, Kent 109 and 110.

¹⁰⁰ See n. 85.

¹⁰¹ Anderson (loc. cit.) die find a robbed-out trench c. 3 m wide but adds ‘it does not appear to lie parallel to the central colonnade of peribolos and further deep excavation over the whole area is needed to clear up the question of the north wall’.

¹⁰² One of the test trenches dug in 1930 before the building of the Shear House, which now occupies the site, revealed the foundation of a large Roman building, which was then thought to be ‘probably a stoa’. (Broneer, O., Corinth 10. The Odeum [Cambridge, Mass. 1932] 77Google Scholar). Broneer also suggests that an Ionic column capital of stuccoed poros (fig. 48) may have come from the building. In the same trench were found fragments of a marble statue of Athena which, given the history of Corinth, is almost certainly Roman. There may have been a building or sanctuary opening off the northern portico of the Temple E precinct, but it must be stressed that this is only speculation.

¹⁰³ Another possible comparison may be made with the Asklepieion at Messene where a number of small cult rooms, as well as the Sebasteion, open off the colonnade round the Temple of Asklepios. See n. 32.

¹⁰⁴ Geagan, D.J., ‘A Letter of Trajan to a Synod at Isthmia’, Hesperia 44 (1975) 396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁵ On Hadrian's beneficence to Greece in general, see Day, J., An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination (New York 1942) 183–196Google Scholar; also Spawforth, A.J. and Walker, S., ‘The World of the Panhellenion: I. Athens and Eleusis’, JRS 75 (1985) 78–104Google Scholar; and ‘The World of the Panhellenion: II. Three Dorian Cities’, JRS 76 (1986) 88–105.

¹⁰⁶ Hunter 135 and Fox, H.B. Earle, ‘Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthus’, JIAN, 6, (1903) 13.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Kent 102.

¹⁰⁸ Paus. 2, 5, 5 (baths and aqueduct); I, 44, 6 (Scironian road). The existence of the tribal name Aelia is likely, but not certain, see Wiseman, 497–8; cuirass statue, Broneer, op. cit. (n. 107) 125–133, no. 6.

¹⁰⁹ Peirene, Kent 170; Propylaea, NCP 22 and Pl. F 98; Lechaeum Road Basilica, West 21 and Stillwell, R., Corinth, 1, 1. Introduction, Topography and Architecture (Cambridge, Mass. 1932) 204–211Google Scholar; Theatre (either Hadrianic or early Antonine), Sturgeon, M.C., Corinth 9, 2. The Reliefs from the Theater (Princeton 1977)Google Scholar; Baths of Eurycles, Spawforth, A.J.S., ‘Balbilla, the Euryclids and Memorials for a Greek Magnate’, BSA 73 (1978) 257–260.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ NCP, 143 and Pl. FF 66; identified as Temple E and the forum of Corinth by Price and Trell, op. cit., (n. 75) 85 and fig. 148. I am grateful to M.J. Price for pointing out this parallel. He writes further, ‘This cannot be coincidence and their (the statues’) purpose must be to orientate the view, i.e. “forum from the east”. With this established, the representation of Temple E becomes important in stressing that it was not directly aligned with the axis of the form (correct on the die not on the image).’ This identification is not accepted by Williams, art. cit., (n. 1, ‘Refounding’) partly on the grounds that the temple is shown as tetrastyle prostyle, not peristyle hexastyle as the archaeological remains suggest. This is unimportant given the numismatic conventions. A good example at Corinth of the variety of representations of the same temple is the temple of Venus on Acrocorinth which is shown as hexastyle, tetrastyle, distyle, prostyle and peripteral, see NCP, 26–27 and Pl. G 126–133. Williams sees the colonnades or porticoes, not as the forum, but as the temple precinct put in front of the temple, but this goes against the other numismatic convention of ‘behind’ = ‘above’.

¹¹¹ Philo, de leg. ad Gaium 22, 150–151; on planting in public buildings, see Lloyd, R.B., ‘Three Monumental Gardens on the Marble Plan’, AJA 86 (1982) 91–100 and Pl. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; trees in forum at Cosa, Brown, F.E., Cosa: the Making of a Roman Town (Ann Arbor 1980) 24–25.Google Scholar

¹¹² Kent 504.

¹¹³ Although some heads and other parts of the Temple E sculptures are reasonably well-preserved, and may well have been thrown down by earthquake, other figures were reduced to chips. Freeman (227) refers to several hundred such fragments, varying in size from a fraction of a centimetre to ten centimetres. Such destruction would not be out of place in the general climate of the late fourth century, particularly in a city with an active Christian community. See MacMullen, R., Christianizing the Roman Empire (New Haven and London 1984) 90–101 and notes.Google Scholar