FORS FORTUNA, FANUM
a temple of Fors Fortuna on the bank of the
Tiber, outside the city, ascribed to Servius Tullius (Varro,
LL vi. 17:
dies Fortis Fortunae appellatus ab Servio Tullio rege quod is fanum
Fortis Fortunae secundum Tiberim extra urbem Romam dedicavit
Iunio mense;
Dionys. iv. 27:
ναοὺς δύο κατασκευασάμενος τύχης ...τὸν δ̓ ἔτερον ἐπὶ ταῖς ἠιόσι τοῦ τεβέριος, ἥν ἀνδρείον προσηγόρευσαν, ὡς καὶ νῦν ὑπὸ ῾Ρμαίων καλεῖται, where Fortis is incorrectly taken for an adjective
and translated
ἀνδρεία, as also by Plutarch (de fort. Rom. 5):
πρῶτος μὲν γὰρ ἱδρύσατο τύχης ἱερὸν μάρκιος ῎αγκος...καὶ τάχα που τῇ Τύχῃ τὴν ἀνδρείαν παρωνόμασεν ᾗ πλαεϊστον εἰς τὸ νικᾶν Τύχης μέτεστι), who is
evidently referring to the same temple, although he attributes its erection
to Ancus Marcius. That this temple was on the right bank of the Tiber
is shown with reasonable certainty by the calendars (Fast. Amit.
ad viii Kal. Iul.:
Forti Fortunae trans Tiber(im) ad milliar(ium)
prim(um) et sext(um); Fast. Esq.: Fort(i) For(tunae) t(rans) T(iberim)
ad mil(liarium) I et VI; CIL i². p. 243, 211, 320), which, however, mention
two such temples, one at the first, and the other at the sixth, milestone
on the via Portuensis, the latter close to the grove of the Arval
Brethren.
1 Both had the same festival day, 24th June.
In 293 B.C. Sp. Carvilius let the contract for a temple of Fors Fortuna
near that of Servius (
Liv. x. 46. 14:
reliquo aere aedem Fortis Fortunae
de manubiis faciendam locavit prope aedem eius deae ab rege Servio
Tullio dedicatam). This was of course on the right bank of the river,
but Carvilius' temple is mentioned nowhere else by name, nor is the day
of its dedication known. It cannot be one of the two temples of the
calendars, for they were five miles apart (vid. sup.), and there must, there-
fore, have been three in existence in the time of Livy, to any one of which
his notice of a prodigium in 2 B.C. may refer (xxvii. 11. 3: in cella [aedis]
Fortis Fortunae).
Finally in 17 A.D. Tiberius dedicated another temple to this goddess
(Tac.
Ann. ii. 41:
fine anni.. aedes Fortis Fortunae Tiberim iuxta
in hortis quos Caesar dictator populo Romano legaverat ... dicantur).
As the Fasti Esquilini at any rate antedate 17 A.D., and as the day
of dedication was near the end of the year, not 24th June, Tiberius' temple
cannot be identified with either of the two temples of the calendars. If
our sources are so far correct, this made the fourth temple of this goddess
in Trastevere.
There are four later references to a temple of Fors Fortuna on the
right bank of the Tiber: (I) Plutarch, Brut. 20 :
καὶ τῷ δήμῳ τῶν [έραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ κήπων ἀπολελειμμένων οὗ νῦν ἐστι Τύχης ἱερὸν ; (2) id. de
Fort. Rom. 5:
τὴν δὲ πρὸς τῷ ποταμῷ Τύχην φόρτιν καλοῦσιν ...ὡς τὸ νικήτικον ἁπάντων κράτος ἔχουσαν. καὶ τόν γε ναὸν αὐτῆς ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ Καίσαρος τῷ δήμῳ καταλειγθεῖσι κήποις ᾠκοδόμησαν ἡγούμενοι κἀκεῖνον εὐτυχίᾳ γένεσθαι μέγιστον, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐμαρτύρησε; (3) Donatus
ad Ter. Phorm. 841:
Fors Fortuna . . .huius aedes trans Tiberim est;
(4) Not. Reg. XIV:
Fortis Fortunae.
(2) plainly implies that Plutarch believed that the temple in the
gardens of Caesar was built after Caesar's death, or at least after he had
achieved success; and (I) is consistent with this view. Therefore, if we
are to attach any weight to Plutarch's statements in this matter, they
must refer to the temple erected by Tiberius. (3) might refer to any one
of the four; and (4) to any but that at the sixth milestone from the city.
There remains to be considered Ovid's description of the festival
of 24th June (
Fasti vi. 773-786):
“
quam cito venerunt Fortunae Fortis honores I
post septem luces Iunius actus erit.
ite, deam laeti Fortem celebrate Quirites !
in Tiberis ripa munera regis habet.
pars pede, pars etiam celeri decurrite cumba;
nec pudeat potos inde redire domum.
ferte coronatae iuvenum convivia lintres,
multaque per medias vina bibantur aquas.
plebs colit hanc, quia, qui posuit, de plebe fuisse
fertur et ex humili sceptra tulisse loco.
convenit et servis serva quia Tullius ortus
constituit dubiae templa propinqua deae.
ecce suburbana rediens male sobrius aede
ad stellas aliquis talia verba iacit.
”
Because of the plurals, munera regis (776) and propinqua templa (784),
this passage is interpreted by some as referring to two temples of Fors
Fortuna, that is, the two mentioned in the calendars, at the first and
sixth milestones, with one of which the temple of Carvilius either is
(Mommsen, Wissowa, Peter, Gatti), or is not (Hilsen, Otto) identified.
Munera regis, however, has no force in this connection, and lines 781 and
785 seem to refer distinctly to only one temple. If line 784 (propinqua
templa) be interpreted in the ordinary way, Ovid must allude to two
temples at least, and as two five miles apart can hardly be called propinqua, we must suppose that he has in mind that at the first milestone,
the old foundation of Servius, and that built by Carvilius near it, which
the poet erroneously regards as Servian. In this case also we must
assume three temples in Ovid's time, that at the sixth milestone, of which
nothing remains at present; one at the first, presumably that generally
regarded as Servian, to which Varro and Dionysius refer, and Plutarch
in de Fort. Rom. 5; and that erected by Carvilius. Both of these last
two were close to the gardens of Caesar, and might have been within
their limits, while that of Tiberius is distinctly said to have been in the
gardens. This fact may have caused confusion in later writers, and
Plutarch's topographical statements are frequently unreliable. The
theory that Carvilius' temple may have been replaced by that of Tiberius
is not supported by the language of Tacitus. There seems, therefore, to
be no escape from assuming the existence of three temples near the
first milestone and the gardens of Caesar, unless there is error in the
sources.
One at least of these temples was in existence in the fourth century
(Not.), and in this neighbourhood many small votive offerings in bronze
have been found (
NS 1888, 229;
Mitt. 1889, 290-291). The ruins of a
concrete podium faced with peperino, with architectural fragments,
which were found in 1861, may perhaps belong to the temple of Servius
(
BC 1884, 26-27; Ann. d.
Inst. 1860, 415-418). For the discussion of
these temples, and further literature, see HJ 644-645; Becker, Top.
478-480;
Rosch. i. 1501-1502;
RE vii. 16-18; WR 256- 257; Pr. Reg.
216; CIL i². p. 320).
