Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/834

814 ROMA. ROMA.

temple of Vesta, may have been that of Hercules, and the little temple near it, now the church of S. Maria Egiziaca, that of Pudicitia Patricia. (Handb. p. 478, seq.)

This question is, however, in some degree con- nacted with another respecting the sites of the Tem- ples of Fortuna and Mater Matuta. Canina identifies the remains of the round temple at the church of S. Maria del Sole with the temple of Mater Matuta ; whilst the little neighbouring temple, now the church of S. Maria Egiziaca, he holds to have been that of Fortuna Virilis. His chief rea- son for maintaining the latter opinion is the following passage of Dionysius, which points, he thinks, to a temple of Fortuna Virilis, built by Servius Tullius close to the banks of the Tiber, a position which would answer to that of S. Maria Egiziaca: Kal vaovs Svo icaTaaKivaffdnevos TvxV^, t^" h-^" ^"^ ayopa rr) KaAov/xivr] Boapia, rov 5' erepov iirl ToTs 'vidffi Tov Tfgepioy, V 'AvSpelaf irpoffiryd- pfvaev, &s Koi vvv vvh raiv 'Pw/xaiwv KaXilrai. (Ant. Rom. iv. 27.) It should be premised that Canina does not hold the two temples in question to have been in the Forum Boarium, but only just at its borders. ("Corrispondevano da vicino al Foro Boario," Indicaz. p. 338.) The temple of Fortuna Virilis here mentioned by Dionysius was, he con- tends, a distinct thing from the temple of Fors Fortuna, which he allows lay outside of the city on the other bank of the Tiber (p. 506). Indeed the distinction between them is shown from the circum- stance that their festivals were celebrated in diflerent months: that of Fortuna Virilis being in April, that of Fors Fortuna in June. (Comp. Ov. Fast. iv. 145, seq., with the Fasti Fraenestini in April: "Frequenter mulieres supplicant . . . Fortunae Virili humiliores." Also comp. Ov. Fast. vi. 773, seq., with the Fasti Amiternini, VIII. Kal. Jul: "Forti For- tunae Transtiber. ad Milliar. Prim, et Sext.")

Now these passages very clearly show the distinc- tion between Fortuna Virilis and Fors Fortuna; and it may be shown just as clearly that Dionysius confounded them, as Plutarch has also done. (De Fort. Rom. 5.) Servius Tullius, as Dionysius says, built a temple of Fortuna in the Forum Boarium ; but this Fortuna was not distinguished by any par- ticular epithet. Dionysius gives her none in the passage cited ; nor does any appear in passages of other authors in which her teinplo is mentioned. Thus Livy: "De manubiis duos fornices in foro Boario ante Fortunae aedem et Matris Matutae, iinura in Maximo Circo fecit" (xxxiii. 27). So also in the passages in which he describes the fire in that district (xxiv. 47, xxv. 7). One of the two temples of Fortuna built by Servius Tullius was then that on the Forum Boarium, as shown in the preceding passages from Livy and from Dionysius : tliat the other was a temple of Fors Fortuna and not of Fortuna Virilis appears from Varro: "Dies Fortis Fortunae appellatus ab Ser-vio Tullio Rege, quod is fanum Fortis Fortunae secundum Tiberim extra Urbem Romam dedicavit Junio mense" (L.L. vi. § 17, Miill.) Hence it is plain that both Diony- sius and Plutarch have made a mistake which foreigners were likely enough to fall into. Temples being generally named in the genitive case, they have taken fortis to be an adjective equivalent to ανδρειος or virilis (v. Bansen, Beschr. iii. Nachtr. p. 665; Becker, Handb. p. 478, note 998), and thus confounded two different temples. But as this temple of Fors Fortuna was " extra Urbem," it

could not have been the same as that with which Canina indentifies it, which, as Livy expressly says, was " intra portam Carmentalem " (xxv. 7). The site of the temple of Fortuna Virilis cannot be determined, and Bunsen (Z. c.) denies that there was any such temple : but it seems probable from the passage of Ovid referred to above that there was one, or at all events an altar ; and Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 74) mentions a Tvxvs "Appefos Up6v. On the other hand, there seem to have been no fewer than three temples of Fors Fortuna on the right bank of the Tiber. First, that built by Servius Tullius, described by Varro as " extra Urbem secundum Tiberim." Second, another built close to that of Servius by the consul Sp. Carvi- lius Maximus (b. c. 293) : " De reliquo acre aedem Fortis Fortunae de manubiis facicndam locavit, prope aedem ejus Deae ab rege Ser. Tullio dedi- catam." (Liv. x. 46.) Third, another dedicated under Tiberius (a. d. 16) near the Tiber in the gardens of Caesar, and hence, of course, on the right bank of the river: " Aedis Fortis Fortunae, Tiberim juxta, in hortis quos Caesar dictator po- pulo Romano legaverat." (Tac. Ann. ii. 41.) That the Horti Caesaris were on the right bank of the Tiber we know from Horace (5. i. 9. 18) and Plu- tarch. {Brut. 20.) The temple built by Servius must also have been on the right bank, as it seems to be referred to in the following passage of Donatus : " Fors Fortuna est cujus diem festum colunt( qui sine arte aliqua vivunt : hujus aedes trans Tiberim est" (ad Terent. Phorm. v. 6. 1). The same thing may be inferred from the Fasti Amitemini: "Forti Fortunae Transtiber. ad Milliar. Prim. et Sextum" (VIII. Kal. Jul.). The temple in the gardens of Caesar seems here to be alluded to as at the dis- tance of one mile from the city, whilst that of Servius, and the neighbouring one erected by Car- vilius appear to have been at a distance of six miles. But this need not excite our suspicion. There are other instances of temples lying at a considerable distance from Rome, as that of Fortuna Muliebris at the fourth milestone on the Via Latina. (Fest. p. 542; cf. Val. Max. i. 8. § 4, v. 2. § 1 ; Liv. ii. 40, &c.) It would appear, too, to have been some way down the river, as it was customary to repair thither in boats, and to employ the time of the voyage in drinking (Fast. vi. 777): —

"Pars pede, pars etiam celeri decurrite cymba Nee pudeat potos inde redire donium. Ferte coronatae juvenum convivia lintres Multaque per medias vina bibantur aquas."

We have entered at more length into this subject than its importance may perhaps seem to demand, because the elegant remains of the temple now forming the Armenian church of S. Maria Egiziaca cannot fail to attract the notice of every admirer of classical antiquity that visits Rome. We trust we have shown that it could not possibly have been the temple of Fortuna Virilis, as assumed by Canina and others. The assumption that the neighbouring round temple was that of Mater Matuta may perhaps be considered as disposed of at the same time. The only grounds for that assumption seem to be its vicinity to the supposed temple of Fortuna Virilis. Livy's description (xxxiii. 27) of the two triumphal arches erected in the Foram Boarium before the two temples appearing to indicate that they lay close together.

With regard to the probability of this little church