 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 13, 2005. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Fons
editThis page gives "Fons" as an alternative name. Could this be a case distinction, i.e., one is nominative and the other is accusative or dative or something? Michael Hardy 19:42 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Photo
edit
ResolvedI really don't know if the photo is appropriate. That having been said, it made me laugh too hard that I can't remove it myself. --Brasswatchman 20:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Er, it's of Fonzie (The "Fonz"). Definitely not appropriate. -- Avocado 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Temple of
editI need some additional evidence that there was a Temple of Fontus/Fons (what Latin word for "temple", for instance, was used in ancient sources?). I'm putting the following statement on hold pending confirmation. Since this source is not available online, I'd like to see a more extended quote of what D. says:
His temple was located outside the city walls, near the Porta Fontinalis. Cited as G. dumezil La religion romaine archaique Paris 1974 2nd; It. tr. Milano 1977 p. 334.
Richardson makes no mention of a Temple of Fontus/Fons in his entry on the Porta Fontinalis. Every reference to a fons can't go in this article; the article is trying to isolate the personified deity. RIchardson (pp. 152–153) says there was an altar, not a whole temple building or precinct, to Fons/Fontus near the tomb of Numa; he cites Cicero, De legibus 2.56, which specifies ara Fontis. An ara to one god can be located with a templum dedicated to another deity, that is, within a larger temple complex. It doesn't mean Fons had an aedes, for instance, an actual building, much less a templum. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here is what D. says, p.339 (not 334, sorry): "Fons, divinised and honoured with an ara on the Ianiculum (Cic. Leg. 2, 56), in 231 was endowed with/received a temple (tempio in It.) outside the walls, certainly before the Porta Fontinalis, and around the same time he must have been introducted into the genealogy of the "first kings" of Latium, as a son of Ianus: the affinity "spring-beginning" suggested such an affiliation". Unfortunately D. does not cite his authority, probably Livy? I did not check Platner etc., maybe they are informative.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll keep my eyes open too. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)