1 Earliest Rome

2.4 Roman debate on the gods
they bestowed; and indeed those names that I just mentioned make clear the power that
resides in each god.
1. Cicero does not make rhe sequence of events entirely clear here. It seems that Scaurus
had recently restoredthese two temples, both founded in the third century B.C. (the tem­
ple of Fides by Calatinus). According to tradition, there was a yet earlier temple of Fides
(perhaps on the same site) founded by King Numa (see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Roman Antiquities 11.75.2; Plutarch, Life of Numa. 16.1). See Plainer and Ashby (1929)
209, 339; Richardson (1992) 151, 251.
2. Cicero is referring here to what was by his day a joint temple of Flonos and Virtus.
Marcellus added an extra shrine of Virtus to the existing temple of Honos; the dual foun­
dation was dedicated in 205 B.C. For the controversy over this dedication, see Vol. 1,
105.
3. Velleius, another character in the dialogue, represented the Epicurean point of view -
often parodied as simple hedonism and the pursuit of pleasure.
2.3b Coin (denarius) showing Honos (Honour) and Virtus (Virtue),
70-69 B.C.
Honos and Virtus (and other idealizing abstractions) could be seen as the personification
of the special qualities of the Roman elite — Honos symbolizing
success in a political career, Virtus the valour associated with military prowess.
Their representation here no doubt served to advertise the excellence (in thenown
eyes) of the magistrates who issued the coin. The reverse of the coin (not
illustrated), showing a personification of Italy and Rome, probably celebrated
the final reconciliation of Rome with her Italian allies after the Social War
(91-87 B.C.).
See further: Crawford (1974) 413, no, 403; Turcan (1988) I no. 128; for an
earlier pairing of Honos and Virtus, see 2.3a, with n.2.
1. Ho: abbreviation of'Honos*.
2. Kalenii shortened form of Q. Fufius
K/Calenus, one of the magistrates who
issued the coin. The name of the other
issuing magistrate appears on the reverse.
/T\ : \ 3. Vitr: abbreviation of Virtus'.
Discussion of the nature of the gods, and vehement ctiticism of supposedly
naive views on the character and activities of pagan deities, were not restricted
to Christian polemicists. From at least the first century B.C., pagan Roman
writers engaged in debate on the gods' form and appearance, on their intervention
in human affairs, on their moral standing, even on their very existence.
This debate was partly influenced by the intellectual challenge of the different
35