MAGNA MATER, AEDES

* (templum, Cic., Ov., Val. Max., Auct. de vir. ill.):

the famous temple on the Palatine erected after 204 B.C. when the Roman embassy brought from Pessinus the pointed black stone (acus) which represented the goddess (Liv. xxix. 37. 2; xxxvi. 36; de vir; ill. 46. 3; Prudent. Mart. Rom. 206; Serv. ad Aen. vii. 188). It was dedicated on 11th April, 191 B.C., by the praetor M. Junius Brutus, on which occasion the ludi Megalenses were instituted (Liv. loc. cit.; Fast. Praen. ap. CIL i". p. 235, 314-315, cf. p. 251=vi. 32498; Fast. Ant. ap. NS 1921, 91) and celebrated in front of the temple (Cic. de har. resp. 24; cf. for site Ov. Fast. ii. 55; Mart. vii. 73. 3). It was burned in 111 B.C., when the statue of Quinta Cloelia within it was uninjured, restored by a Metellus, probably the consul of 110 B.C., burned again and restored by Augustus in 3 A.D. (Val. Max. i. 8. II; Obseq. 99; Ov. Fast. iv. 347-348; Mon. Anc. iv. 8), and was standing unharmed in the fourth century (Not. Reg. X). It is referred to incidentally under date of 38 B.C. (Cass. Dio xlviii. 43. 4), by Juvenal (ix. 23) as a place of assignation, and in the third century (Hist. Aug. Claud. 4; Aurel. I). The stone needle itself is described by a late writer (Arnob. adv. gentes vii. 49) as small and set in a silver statue of the goddess (cf. Herodianus ab exc. d. Marci i. II; Arnob. v. 5). It was perhaps removed by Elagabalus to his temple (q.v.) on the Palatine (Hist. Aug. Elag. 3; cf. LR 134-138; but cf. BC 1883, 211; HJ 53-54, n. 44).

At the top of the Scalae Caci, on the west corner of the Palatine, are the ruins of an ancient temple near which have been found inscriptions relating to Magna Mater (CIL vi. 496, 1040, 3702= 30967; NS 1896, 186; cf. CIL xii. 405), a portion of a colossal female figure seated on a throne, and a fragment of a base with the paws of lions, the regular attendants of the goddess. These ruins consist of a massive podium made of irregular pieces of tufa and peperino laid in thick mortar, and fragments of columns and entablature. The walls of the podium are 3.84 metres thick (those of the cella were somewhat thinner) on the sides and 5.50 in the rear, [p. 325] but this unusual thickness is due to the fact that the rear wall is double, with an air space, 1.80 metre wide, between the two parts. This wall was faced on the outside with stucco, not with opus quadratum. The total length of the temple was 33.18 metres and its width 17.10. It was prostyle hexastyle, of the Corinthian order, and was approached by a flight of steps extending entirely across the front. From the rear wall of the cella projects the base of a pedestal on which the stone needle probably stood. The concrete of the podium belongs to the time of Augustus (AJA 1912, 393), and since the remaining architectural fragments are of peperino, it is evident that the restoration of that period was carried out with the material of the original structure.¹ The character of these remains and the inscriptions and objects found here make it extremely probable, to say the least, that this is the temple of Magna Mater, an identification that is strongly supported by the evidence of a coin of the elder Faustina (Cohen, Faust. sen. 55). This represents a temple of the Corinthian order, with curved roof, and a flight of steps on which is a statue of Cybele with a turreted crown enthroned between lions. The temple is also represented in a relief in the Villa Medici, formerly attributed to the Ara Pacis (SScR 69). (For the complete description of the ruins and argument for identification, see Mitt. 1895, 1-28; 1906, 277; for the coins, ib. 1908, 368-374; in general, HJ 51-4; Rosch. ii. 1666-1667; Gilb. iii. 104-107; Graillot, Cybele (Bibl. Ec. Franc. 107, 320-326; SScR 247-249).)

¹  There is considerable divergence of opinion as to the date of the podium; TF 98 attributes it to 110 B.C., and believes that the architectural members were given a new coat of stucco under Augustus. Fiechter (ap. Toeb. 5) assigns the whole to the middle of the first century B.C.; but it does not seem at all necessary to suppose that Augustus would not have used peperino coated with stucco (cf. HJ 53; ASA 23; HFP 61, 62).

This text is based on the following book(s):
A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Samuel Ball Platner. Thomas Ashby. London: Humphrey Milford. Oxford University Press. 1929.