Since the Etruscan origin of Servius Tullius has been placed beyond a doubt by the discovery of the famous tomb at Vulci, with the paintings of Cales Vibenna released from his bonds by Mastarna[700], which has thus confirmed the Etruscan tradition of the identity of Mastarna and Servius preserved by the emperor Claudius in his famous speech[701], it would seem that we may consider it as highly probable that if Servius did really institute the cult of Fortuna at Rome, that cult came with him from Etruria. This by no means compels us to look on Fortuna as an Etruscan deity only; but it seems to be a fact that there was an Etruscan goddess who was recognized by the Romans as the equivalent of their Fortuna[702]. This was Nortia, a great deity at Volsinii, as is fully proved by the remains found there[703]; and we may note that the city was near to and in close alliance with Vulci, where the tomb was found containing the paintings just alluded to. Seianus, a native of Volsinii[704], was supposed to be under the protection of this deity, and, as we have already seen, to possess an ancient statue of her.
In her temple a nail was driven every year as in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus[705], and hence some have concluded that she was a goddess of time. It cannot, however, be regarded as certain whether this nail-driving was originally symbolical only, or at all, of time; it may quite as well remind us of the famous Fortuna of Antium and the ‘clavos trabales’ of Horace’s Ode[706]. However this may be, it is a fair guess, though it must be made with hesitation, that the Fortuna of Servius was the equivalent of this Nortia, to whom the Roman plebs gave a name with which they were in some way already familiar. Mastarna continued to worship his native deity after he was settled in Rome; and the plebs continued to revere her, not because of his luck, which was indeed imperfect, but simply because she was his protectress[707]. If we try to get beyond this we lose our footing; and even this is only conjecture, though based upon evidence which is not entirely without weight.
What can be said for this view may be read in Roscher’s article in _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, p. 575, note.
Roscher’s treatment of Juno Moneta (_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 593) seems to me pure fancy; this writer is apt to twist his facts and his inferences to suit a prepossession—in this case the notion of a ἱερὸς γάμος of Jupiter and Juno.
