of the beginning of a gradual metamorphosis of
the Roman religious practice. The so-called Sibylline books and their
keepers were responsible, as we shall see directly, for the introduction
at Rome of what was known as the _Graecus ritus_,--for the foundation of
temples to deities of Greek origin, and for other rites which initiated
an entirely new type of religious feeling. We need to be sure when all
this began.

In the first place, so far as I can judge, it is almost impossible to
dissociate the origin of the temple from Sibylline influence. As we have
seen, the cult was Greek, and all such Greek cults of later times were
introduced by the keepers of the Sibylline books; and further, the
records of temple foundations were among the most carefully preserved
facts in Roman annals.[532] I think it is hardly possible to suppose
that a cult which came, not from Latium or southern Etruria, like those
of Diana, Minerva, and the Capitoline deities, but from some Greek
region to the south, and probably from Sicily, could have been
introduced by Roman authorities unaided by Greek influence. If that be
so, and if we can show that the temple really belongs to this early age,
then we have a strong probability that the Sibylline influence gained a
footing at Rome at the very beginning of the republican period.[533]

There is one curious fact in connection with the temple that in my
opinion goes far to prove that the traditional date is not far out.
Pliny tells us explicitly that the two Greek artists who decorated the
temple, Damophilus and Gorgasus, inscribed their names on the walls, and
he added that the work of the former would be found on the right and
that of the latter on the left.[534] Nothing more is known about them;
but I am assured that the fact that they signed their names and added
these statements suits the character of Greek art in the archaic age 580
to 450 B.C. No signatures of artists are known earlier than about 580;
then comes a period when signatures are found, sometimes with statements
such as these. And lastly, about 450, we begin to find simple signatures
without any other words.[535] Thus the presumption is a strong one that
the temple belongs to a time earlier than 450; and if that be so, then I
think the inference holds good that the Sibyl first gained a footing at
Rome about the same time. There are indeed some reasons why we should
not put this event in the period of the kings;[536] but if we accept t