Listed 6 sub titles with search on: Information about the place for wider area of: "PALESTRINA Town LAZIO" .
Praeneste (Prainestos, Strab. Appian; Praineste, Dion Cass.: Eth. Prainestinos,
or Prainestenos, Praenestinus: Palestrina), one of the most ancient, as well as
in early times one of the most powerful and important, of the cities of Latium.
It was situated on a projecting point or spur of the Apennines, directly opposite
to the Alban Hills, and nearly due E. of Rome, from which it was distant 23 miles
(Strab. v.). Various mythical tales were current in ancient times as to its founder
and origin. Of these, that adopted by Virgil ascribed its foundation to Caeculus,
a reputed son of Vulcan (Virg. Aen. vii. 678); and this, we learn from Solinus,
was the tradition preserved by the Praenestines themselves (Solin. 2.9). Another
tradition, obviously of Greek origin, derived its name and foundation from Praenestus,
a son of Latinus, the offspring of Ulysses and Circe (Steph. B. s. v.; Solin.
l. c.). Strabo also calls it a Greek city, and tells us that it was previously
called Polustephanos (Strab. v.). Another form of the same name name is given
by Pliny (iii. 5. s. 9), who tells us its original name was Stephane. And finally,
as if to complete the series of contradictions, its name is found in the lists
of the reputed colonies of Alba, the foundation of which is ascribed to Latinus
Silvius (Vict. Orig. Gent. Rom. 17; Diod. vii. ap. Euseb. Arm.). But there seems
no doubt that the earlier traditions were those which assigned it a more ancient
and independent origin. The first mention of its name in history is in the list
of the cities of the Latin League, as given by Dionysius, and there can be no
doubt of its having formed an important member of that confederacy (Dionys, v.
61). But as early as B.C. 499, according to Livy, it quitted the cause of the
confederates and joined the Romans, an event which that historian places just
before the battle of Regillus (Liv. ii. 19). Whether its separation from the rest
of the Latins was permanent or not, we have no information; but on the next occasion
when the name of Praeneste occurs, it was still in alliance with Rome, and suffered
in consequence from the ravages of the Aequians and Volscians, B.C. 462 (Liv.
iii. 8). The capture of Rome by the Gauls seems, however, to have introduced a
change in the relations of the two cities. Shortly after that event (B.C. 383)
the Praenestines are mentioned as making hostile incursions into the territories
of the Gabians and Labicans: the Romans at first treated this breach of faith
with neglect, apparently from unwillingness to provoke so powerful an enemy; but
the next year, the Praenestines having sent an army to the support of the revolted
colonists of Velitrae, war was formally declared against them. The Praenestines
now joined their former enemies the Volscians, and, in conjunction with them,
took by storm the Roman colony of Satricum (Liv. vi. 21, 22). The next year the
Volscians were defeated in a great battle by Camillus, but no mention is made
of the Praenestines as taking part in it. The following season, however (B.C.
380), they levied a large army, and taking advantage of the domestic dissensions
at Rome, which impeded the levying of troops, they advanced to the very gates
of the city. From thence they withdrew to the banks of the Allia, where they were
attacked and defeated by T. Quintius Cincinnatus, who had been named in all haste
dictator. So complete was their rout that they not only fled in confusion to the
very gates of Praeneste, but [p. 664] Cincinnatus, following up his advantage,
reduced eight towns which were subject to Praeneste by force of arms, and compelled
the city itself to submission (Liv. vi. 26-29). There can be little doubt that
the statement of Livy which represents this as an unqualified surrender (deditio)
is one of the exaggerations so common in the early Roman history, but the inscription
noticed by him, which was placed by Cincinnatus under the statue of Jupiter Imperator,
certainly seems to have claimed the capture of Praeneste itself as well as its
dependent towns. (Fest. s. v. Trientem.)
Yet the very next year the Praenestines were again in arms, and stimulated
the other Latin cities against Rome (Liv. vi. 30). With this exception we hear
no more of them for some time; but a notice which occurs in Diodorus that they
concluded a truce with Rome in B.C. 351, shows that they were still acting an
independent part, and kept aloof from the other Latins (Diod. xvi. 45). It is,
however, certain that they took a prominent part in the great Latin War of B.C.
340. In the second year of that war they sent forces to the assistance of the
Pedani, and, though defeated by the consul Aemilius, they continued the contest
the next year together with the Tiburtines; and it was the final defeat of their
combined forces by Camillus at Pedum (B.C. 338) that eventually terminated the
struggle (Liv. viii. 12-14). In the peace which ensued, the Praenestines, as well
as their neighbours of Tibur, were punished by the loss of a part of their territory,
but in other respects their position remained unchanged: they did not, like the
other cities of Latium, receive the Roman franchise, but continued to subsist
as a nominally independent state, in alliance with the powerful republic. They
furnished like the other socii their quota of troops on their own separate account,
and the Praenestine auxiliaries are mentioned in several instances as forming
a separate body. Even in the time of Polybius it was one of the places which retained
the Jus Exilii, and could afford shelter to persons banished from Rome (Pol. vi.
14).
On the arrival of Pyrrhus in Italy the fidelity of the Praenestines
seems to have been suspected, and the Romans compelled them to deliver hostages
(Zonar. viii. 3). Shortly afterwards Praeneste was the point from whence that
monarch turned back on his advance to Rome. There is no probability that he took
the town. Eutropius says merely that he advanced to Praeneste; and the expression
of Florus that he looked down upon Rome from the citadel of Praeneste is probably
only a rhetorical flourish of that inaccurate writer (Flor. ii. 18; Eutrop. ii.
12). In the Second Punic War a body of Praenestine troops distinguished themselves
by their gallant defence of Casilinum against Hannibal, and though ultimately
compelled to surrender, they were rewarded for their valour and fidelity by the
Roman senate, while the highest honours were paid them in their native city (Liv.
xxiii. 19, 20) It is remarkable that they refused to accept the offer of the Roman
franchise; and the Praenestines in general retained their independent position
till the period of the Social War, when they received the Roman franchise together
with the other allies. (Appian, B.C. i. 65)
In the civil wars of Marius and Sulla, Praeneste bore an important
part. It was occupied by Cinna when he was driven from Rome in B.C. 87 (Appian,
B.C. i. 65) and appears to have continued in the hands of the Marian party till
B.C. 82, when it afforded a shelter to the younger Marius with the remains of
his army, after his defeat by Sulla at Sacriportus. The natural strength of the
city had been greatly increased by new fortifications, so that Sulla abandoned
all idea of reducing it by force of arms, and was content to draw lines of circumvallation
round it, and trust to the slower process of a blockade, the command of which
he entrusted to Lucretius Ofella, while he himself carried on operations in the
field against the other leaders of the Marian party. Repeated attempts were made
by these generals to relieve Praeneste, but without effect; and at length, after
the great battle at the Colline Gate and the defeat of the Samnite general Pontius
Telesinus, the inhabitants opened their gates to Ofella. Marius, despairing of
safety, after a vain attempt to escape by a subterranean passage, put an end to
his own life (Appian, B.C. i. 87-94; Put. Mar. 46, Sull. 28, 29, 32; Vell. Pat.
ii. 26, 27; Liv. Epit. lxxxvii., lxxxviii.). The city itself was severely punished
; all the citizens without distinction were put to the sword, and the town given
up to plunder; its fortifications were dismantled, and a military colony settled
by Sulla in possession of its territory (Appian, l. c.; Lucan ii.194; Strab. v.;
Flor. iii. 21). The town seems to have been at this time transferred from the
hill to the plain beneath, and the temple of Fortune with its appurtenances so
extended and enlarged as to occupy a great part of the site of the ancient city.
But the citadel still remained, and the natural strength of the position
rendered Praeneste always a place of importance as a stronghold. Hence, we find
it mentioned as one of the points which Catiline was desirous to occupy, but which
had been studiously guarded by Cicero (Cic. in Cat. i. 3); and at a later period
L. Antonius retired thither in B.C. 41, on the first outbreak of his dispute with
Octavian, and from thence endeavoured to dictate terms to his rival at Rome. Fulvia,
the wife of M. Antonius took refuge there at the same time (Appian, B.C. v. 21,
23, 29). From this time we hear but little of Praeneste in history; it is probable
from the terms in which it is spoken of both by Strabo and Appian, that it never
recovered the blow inflicted on its prosperity by Sulla (Strab. l. c.; Appian,
B.C. i. 94); but the new colony established at that time rose again into a flourishing
and considerable town. Its proximity to Rome and its elevated and healthy situation
made it a favourite resort of the Romans during the summer, and the poets of the
first century of the Empire abound in allusions to it as a cool and pleasant place
of suburban retirement (Juv. iii. 190, xiv. 88; Martial, x. 30. 7; Stat. Silv.
iv. 2. 15; Plin. Ep. v. 6.45; Flor. i. 11). Among others it was much frequented
by Augustus himself, and was a favourite place of retirement of Horace (Suet.
Aug. 72; Hor. Carm. iii. 4. 23, Ep. i. 2. 1). Tiberius also recovered there from
a dangerous attack of illness (Gell. N. A. xvi. 13); and Hadrian built a villa
there, which, though not comparable to his celebrated villa at Tibur, was apparently
on an extensive scale. It was there that the emperor M. Aurelius was residing
when he lost his son Annius Verus, a child of seven years old. (Jul. Capit. M.
Ant. 21)
Praeneste appears to have always retained its colonial rank and condition.
Cicero mentions it by the title of a Colonia (Cic. in Cat. i. 3); and though neither
Pliny nor the Liber Coloniarum give it that appellation, its colonial dignity
under the Empire is abundantly attested by numerous inscriptions (Zumpt, de Colon.;
Lib. Colon. p. 236; Orell. Inscr. 1831, 3051, &c.). A. Gellius indeed has a story
that the Praenestines applied to Tiberius as a favour to be changed from a colony
into a Municipium; but if their request was really granted, as he asserts, the
change could have lasted for but a short time. (Gell. N. A. xvi. 13; Zumpt, l.
c.)
We find scarcely any mention of Praeneste towards the decline of the
Western Empire, nor does its name figure in the Gothic wars which followed: but
it appears again under the Lombard kings, and bears a conspicuous part in the
middle ages. At this period it was commonly known as the Civitas Praenestina,
and it is this form of the name -which is already found in an inscription of A.D.
408 (Orell. Inscr. 105)- that has been gradually corrupted into its modern appellation
of Palestrina.
The modern city is built almost entirely upon the site and gigantic
substructions of the temple of Fortune, which, after its restoration and enlargement
by Sulla, occupied the whole of the lower slope of the hill, the summit of which
was crowned by the ancient citadel. This hill, which is of very considerable elevation
(being not less than 2400 feet above the sea, and more than 1200 above its immediate
base), projects like a great buttress or bastion from the angle of the Apennines
towards the Alban Hills, so that it looks down upon and seems to command the whole
of the Campagna around Rome. It is this position, combined with the great strength
of the citadel arising from the elevation and steepness of the hill on which it
stands, that rendered Praeneste a position of such importance. The site of the
ancient citadel, on the summit of the hill, is now occupied by a castle of the
middle ages called Castel S. Pietro: but a considerable part of the ancient walls
still remains, constructed in a very massive style of polygonal blocks of limestone;
and two irregular lines of wall of similar construction descend from thence to
the lower town, which they evidently served to connect with the citadel above.
The lower, or modern town, rises in a somewhat pyramidal manner on successive
terraces, supported by walls or facings of polygonal masonry, nearly resembling
that of the walls of the city. There can be no doubt that these successive stages
or terraces at one time belonged to the temple of Fortune; but it is probable
that they are of much older date than the time of Sulla, and previously formed
part of the ancient city, the streets of which may have occupied these lines of
terraces in the same manner as those of the modern town do at the present day.
There are in all five successive terraces, the highest of which was crowned by
the temple of Fortune properly so called,--a circular building with a vaulted
roof, the ruins of which remained till the end of the 13th century, when they
were destroyed by Pope Boniface VIII. Below this was a hemicycle, or semicircular
building, with a portico, the plan of which may be still traced; and on one of
the inferior terraces there still remains a mosaic, celebrated as one of the most
perfect and interesting in existence. Various attempts have been made to restore
the plan and elevation of the temple, an edifice wholly unlike any other of its
kind; but they are all to a great extent conjectural. A detailed account of the
exiting remains, and of all that can be traced of the plan and arrangement, will
be found in Nibby.
The celebrity of the shrine or sanctuary of Fortune at Praeneste is
attested by many ancient writers (Ovid, Fast. vi. 61; Sil. Ital viii. 366 Lucan
ii.194; Strab. v.), and there is no doubt that it derived its origin from an early
period. Cicero, who speaks of the temple in his time as one of great antiquity
as well as splendour gives us a legend derived from the records of the Praenestines
concerning its foundation, and the institution of the oracle known as the Sortes
Praenestinae, which was closely associated with the worship of Fortune (Cic. de
Div. ii. 4. 1). So celebrated was this mode of divination that not only Romans
of distinction, but even foreign potentates, are mentioned as consulting them
(Val. Max. i. 3.1; Liv. xlv. 44; Propert. iii. 24. 3); and though Cicero treats
them with contempt, as in his day obtaining credit only with the vulgar, we are
told by Suetonius that Tiberius was deterred by religious scruples from interfering
with them, and Domitian consulted them every year. Alexander Severus also appears,
on one occasion at least, to have done the same (Suet. Tib. 63, Domit. 15; Lamprid.
Alex. Sev.: 4). Numerous inscriptions also prove that they continued to be frequently
consulted till a late period of the Empire, and it was not till after the establishment
of Christianity that the custom fell altogether into disuse. The Praenestine goddess
seems to have been specially known by the name of Fortuna Primigenia, and her
worship was closely associated with that of the infant Jupiter (Cic. de Div. l.
c.; Inscr. ut sup.). Another title under which Jupiter mas specially worshipped
at Praeneste was that of Jupiter Imperator, and the statue of the deity at Rome
which bore that appellation was considered to have been brought from Praeneste
(Liv. vi. 29).
The other ancient remains which have been discovered at Palestrina
belong to the later city or the colony of Sulla, and are situated in the plain
at some distance from the foot of the hill. Among these are the extensive ruins
of the villa or palace of the emperors, which appears to have been built by Hadrian
about A.D. 134. They resemble much in their general style those of his villa at
Tivoli, but are much inferior in preservation as well as in extent. Near them
is an old church still called Sta Maria della Villa.
It was not far from this spot that were discovered in 1773 the fragments
of a Roman calendar, supposed to be the same which was arranged by the grammarian
Verrius Flaccus, and set up by him in the forum of Praeneste (Suet. Gramm. 17).
They are commonly called the Fasti Praenestini, and have been repeatedly published,
first by Foggini (fol. Romae, 1779), with an elaborate commentary; and again as
an appendix to the edition of Suetonius by Wolf; also in Orelli . Not-withstanding
this evidence, it is improbable that the forum of Praeneste was so far from the
foot of the hill, and its site is more probably indicated by the discovery of
a number of pedestals with honorary inscriptions, at a spot near the SW. angle
of the modern city. These inscriptions range over a period from the reign of Tiberius
to the fifth century, thus tending to prove the continued importance of Praeneste
throughout the period of the Roman Empire. Other inscriptions mention the existence
of a theatre and an amphitheatre, a portico and curia, and a spoliarium; but no
remains of any of these edifices can be traced. (Gruter, Inscr.; Orelli, Inscr.
2532; Bormann, note 434.)
The celebrated grammarian Verrius Flaccus, already mentioned, was
probably a native of Praeneste, as was also the well-known author Aelianus, who,
though he wrote in Greek, was a Roman citizen by birth. (Suid. s. v. Ailianos).
The family of the Anicii also, so illustrious under the Empire, seems to have
derived its origin from Praeneste, as a Q. Anicius is mentioned by Pliny as a
magistrate of that city as early as B.C. 304 (Plin. xxxiii. 1. s. 6). It is probable
also that in Livy (xxiii. 19) we should read M. Anicius for Manicius. It is remarkable
that the Praenestines appear to have had certain dialectic peculiarities which
distinguished them from the other Latins; these are more than once alluded to
by Plautus, as well as by later grammarians. (Plaut. Trinum. iii. 1. 8, Truc.
iii. 2. 23; Quintil. Inst. i. 5. 56; Fest. s. v. Nephrendis, Id. s. v. Tongere.)
The territory of Praeneste was noted for the excellence of its nuts,
which are noticed by Cato (R. R. 8, 143; Plin. xvii. 13. s. 21; Naevius, ap. Macrob.
Sat. iii. 18). Hence the Praenestines themselves seem to have been nicknamed Nuculae;
though another explanation of the term is given by Festus, who derives it from
the walnuts (nuces) with which the Praenestine garrison of Casilinum is said to
have been fed (Cic. de Or. ii. 6. 2; Fest. s.v. Nuculae). Pliny also mentions
the roses of Praeneste as among the most celebrated in Italy; and its wine is
noticed by Athenaeus, though it was apparently not one of the choicest kinds.
(Plin. xxi. 4. s. 10; Athen. i. p. 26, f.)
It is evident from the narrative of Livy (vi. 29) that Praeneste in
the days of its independence, like Tibur, had a considerable territory, with at
least eight smaller towns as its dependencies; but the names of none of these
are preserved to us, and we are wholly unable to fix the limits of its territory.
The name of Via Praenestina was given to the road which, proceeding
from Rome through Gabii direct to Praeneste, from thence rejoined the Via Latina
at the station near Anagnia. It will be considered in detail in the article Via
Praenestina.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Via Paenestina (he Prainestine hodos, Strab.), was the name of one of the highroads
that issued from the Porta Esquilina at Rome, and led (as its name implies) direct
to Praeneste. The period of its construction is unknown; but it is evident that
there must have been from a very early period a highway, or line of communication
from Rome to Praeneste, long before there was a regular paved road, such as the
Via Praenestina ultimately became. The first part of it indeed, as far as the
city of Gabii, 13 miles from Rome, was originally known as the VIA GABINA, a name
which is used by Livy in the history of the early ages of the Republic (Liv. ii.
11), but would seem to have afterwards fallen into disuse, so that both Strabo
and the Itineraries give the name of Via Praenestina to the whole line (Strab.
v.; Itin. Ant.). In the latter period of the Republic, indeed, Gabii had fallen
very much into decay, while Praeneste was still an important and flourishing town,
which will sufficiently account for the one appellation having become
merged in the other. A continuation of the same road, which was also included
under the name of the Via Praenestina, was carried from the foot of the hill at
Praeneste, through the subjacent plain, till it fell into the Via Latina, just
below Anagnia.
The stations on it mentioned in the Antonine Itinerary are:
From Rome to Gabii xii. M. P.
Praeneste
xi.
Sub Anagnia
xxiv.
The Tabula gives the same distances as far as Praeneste, which are very nearly correct. Strabo reckons it 100 stadia (12 1/2 miles) from Rome to Gabii, and the same distance thence to Praeneste. The continuation from Praeneste to Sub Anagnia is given only in the Antonine Itinerary, but the distance is overstated; it does not really exceed 18 miles.
The Via Praenestina issued from the Porta Esquilina at Rome, together
with the Via Labicana (Strab. v.): it passed through the Porta Praenestina in
the later circuit of the walls, now called Porta Maggiore; and separated from
the Via Labicana immediately afterwards, striking off in a nearly direct line
towards Gabii. About 3 miles from Rome it passed the imperial villa of the Gordians,
the magnificence of which is extolled by Julius Capitolinus (Gordian. 32), and
is still in some degree attested by the imposing and picturesque ruins at a spot
called Torre dei Schiavi (Nibby, Dintorni). Nine miles from Rome the road is carried
over the valley of a small stream by a viaduct of the most massive construction,
still known as the Ponte di Nona: and 3 miles farther it passes the still existing
ruins of the city of Gabii. Thence to Praeneste the line of the road was not so
direct: this part of the Campagna being intersected by deep gullies and ravines,
which necessitated some deviations from the straight line. The road is however
clearly marked, and in many places retains its ancient pavement of basaltic lava.
It is carried nearly straight as far as a point about 5 miles beyond Gabii, where
it passes through a deep cutting in the tufo rock, which has given to the spot
the name of Cavamonte: shortly afterwards it turns abruptly to the right, leaving
the village of Gallicano (the probable site of Pedum) on the left, and thence
follows the line of a long narrow ridge between two ravines, till it approaches
the city of Praeneste. The highroad doubtless passed only through the lower part
of that city. Portions of the ancient pavement may be seen shortly after quitting
the southern gate (Porta del Sole), and show that the old road followed the same
direction as the modern one, which leads through Cavi and Paliano, to an inn on
the highroad below Anagni, apparently on the very same site as the station Sub
Anagnia (or Compitum Anagninum, as it is called in another route) of the Itinerary.
This text is from: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854) (ed. William Smith, LLD). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Praeneste (Palestrina) Italy.
An ancient Latin town on the inland highway from Etruria to Poseidonia, ca. 36 km E of Rome, set on the steep slope of Monte Ginestro, an outcrop of the Apennines commanding the entrance to the Hernican valley. It possessed wealth early, as the finds from the necropolis S of the city at La Columbella show. Here just after the middle of the 19th c. were found a number of fossa tombs with extraordinarily rich furniture. The most famous of these are the Bernardini and Barberini tombs of the orientalizing period (third quarter of the 7th c. B.C.), the material from which is now in the Museo della Villa Giulia. But there were also other important finds, including the famous Praenestine gold fibula inscribed along its catch-plate in archaic Latin, showing that in the second half of the 7th c. this was Praeneste's tongue. The wealth of the Bernardini tomb shows a completely Etruscanized taste. The finds included personal jewelry, among it a large pectoral fibula of gold (0.17 x 0.06 m) covered with 131 tiny figures in the round of lions, horses, chimaeras, and harpies, all decorated with granulation; other large pins of different design, including a gold serpentine fibula and silver comb fibulas; a dagger with a sheath of silver and a hilt decorated with gold, silver, and amber. There was also table ware, including a gold bowl with embossed animals in single file in Egyptian style, other bowls more elaborately decorated in silver, a small silver cauldron decorated with similar embossing mounted with six silver snakes rising from rosettes, a gold skyphos of great beauty mounted with tiny sphinxes decorated with granulation, a great bronze cauldron mounted with six gryphon protomes, together with a decorated base for this, and numerous bronze vessels and mounts, some of which show lively wit and imagination. Other luxuries include glass and carved ivories. The Barberini tomb was equally rich and contained a similar pectoral fibula in gold and a similar great bronze cauldron; it also produced a bronze throne and a great bronze tray mounted on wheels, as well as numerous very fine carved ivories, including a cup supported by four caryatids, and a charming wooden box in the form of a fawn. The use of some of the ivories may remain in doubt, but not the wealth to which they attest. A silver situla from the Castellani tomb is another unusual piece of treasure.
Sp oradic finds of fine terracotta temple revetments show the continuance
of wealth and artistry in the 6th and early 5th c., but we have no buildings to
associate with these, and there is then a gap that lasts from the early 5th c.
to ca. mid 4th. Sometime in the 4th c. the city walls must have been constructed,
fortifications in great polygonal blocks of the local limestone fitted together
with varying degrees of precision but usually with some attempt to make the main
beds nearly level, while there is virtually no coursing. These present differences
of style in different stretches, and some try to distinguish different periods
of construction. The walls are long (ca. 4.8 km), with rectangular towerlike bastions
at irregular intervals. That they are built without knowledge of the arch suggests
an early date, but the fact that they include the arx above the town (Castel S.
Pietro) and the town itself in a single system that must climb the steep cliff
face boldly suggests a late date. A mid 4th c. date best accommodates their peculiarities
and is consistent with the reappearance of wealth in Praenestine burials, but
the walls still need thorough investigation. Along the S front they are replaced
by later walls of tufa.
From Livy (2.19.2) we know that Praeneste, one of the original members
of the Latin League, went over just before the battle of Lake Regillus in 499
B.C. to alliance with Rome. But after the invasion of the Gauls it revolted from
Rome and was at war with Rome down to the final dissolution of the Latin League
in 338 B.C. Thereafter it kept its independence and rights of asylum and coinage
and was governed by four magistrates, two praetors, and two aediles, responsible
to its senate. It furnished Rome with a military contingent, when needed, the
cohors praenestina, commanded by one of the praetors (Livy 23.19.17-18).
In excavations in the Columbella necropolis that began in the 18th
c. and continued into the early 20th c. a great number of burials of the 4th c.
and early Hellenistic period came to light. These were usually in sarcophagi of
peperino or tufa, their places marked by cippi consisting of a block of limestone
inscribed with the name of the deceased surmounted by either a rather crude portrait
bust or a smooth, sharply pointed egg-shape usually poised on a base of acanthus
leaves; the latter is characteristic of Praeneste. In the graves were found a
great many bronze cistae, decorated boxes containing toilet articles and feminine
adornments, and at first it was thought Praeneste was a center of the manufacture
of these. But the handsomest of them, the Ficoroni cista in the Museo della Villa
Giulia, bears an inscription stating that it was made at Rome. In general the
cistae, when they are inscribed, are inscribed in Latin, while the mirrors they
may contain are inscribed in Etruscan. The decoration of the cistae consists of
engraving (or embossing with a point in dotted patterns, an early technique) and
the addition of cast mounts and chains. The main scene on the body tends to be
mythological, framed by formal borders; the mounts are usually without narrative
content. Thus on the Ficoroni cista the main scene is the aftermath of the boxing
match between Pollux and Amykos from the Argonaut story, some 19 figures. It is
framed at the base with an engraved band of confronted sphinxes and palmettes
and at the crown with a double interlace of lilies and palmettes, standing and
hanging. The cover is decorated in two rings: the outer, a hunt; the inner, lions
and gryphons. The handle of the cover is a youthful Dionysos standing between
two young ithyphallic satyrs. The feet are lions' paws set on frogs with relief
attachment plaques showing groups of three figures, one of whom is Hercules. The
older cistae (mid 4th c.) tend to be oval, broader than deep, and with a handle
of a single figure in an acrobatic arch. There are also some in which the bronze
wall was worked a jour over a wooden lining (such a lining was probably always
present). Among other objects in these burials one may note bronze implements
(strigils, tweezers) and alabastra of glass paste.
The great glory of Praeneste was the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia,
a sanctuary that grew up around the sortes praenestinae, a collection of slips
of oak marked with words in an archaic alphabet kept in an olive wood box. When
someone wished to consult the sortes, a young boy (sortilegus) drew one or more
of these at random from their box in a ceremony we understand only poorly. The
sortes were held in awe and honor, and the inscriptions of grateful devotees chart
the cult's enormous success. It is uncertain whether the goddess' name comes from
her being the eldest child of Jupiter, as some inscriptions have it, or from her
having nursed Jupiter (Cic. Div. 2.41.85). The coins found in the excavation of
the sanctuary show that it still flourished into the 4th c. A.D. The chief festival
fell on April 10-11.
The sanctuary consists of two complexes, commonly known as upper and
lower. The axis of the two is unified, but there is no direct connection between
them, and they seem to express rather different architectural ideas, points that
have led some to presume that the lower sanctuary was rather simply the forum
of Praeneste. The lower sanctuary consists of three principal members, the “grotto
of the sortes,” to W, a large rectangular edifice in the middle, and an apsidal
building to E. Walls of tufa before the grotto of the sortes and under the cathedral
of Palestrina show that this area has been extensively rebuilt. The grotto is
in part natural, in part artificial, an ample nymphaeum paved with a splendid
colored mosaic of fish and other marine subjects; from what can be made out of
the plan of the whole, this should have been the focus of a large hall balancing
the apsidal building. To E of it a rectangular building enclosing a Corinthian
colonnade is best completed as a basilica, despite some uncertainty; a basement
story on the S with a Doric colonnade carried the S aisle down to the level of
the street outside. To the E of this and communicating with it is the apsidal
hall, its apse, like the grotto, cut into the rock and rusticated, also presumably
a nymphaeum; it was originally paved with the famous Barberini mosaic of Nilotic
subjects, now in the museum. The hall preceding it is ringed with a deep podium
trimmed with a diminutive Doric frieze along the crown, above which rise engaged
columns alternating with great windows that must have given this hall a very grand
effect. It has been supposed that the podium was for statuary or ex-voto offerings,
but certainty is impossible here. In the basement of this hall, accessible only
from the exterior, is a vaulted chamber identified by an inscription of the aediles
as an aerarium.
The upper sanctuary consists of a sequence of steep, shallow terraces
rising to a great colonnaded square, above which stood the temple proper, the
apex of the design. The first terraces are two of fine polygonal masonry separated
by one of opus quadratum, possibly a survival from an earlier period. The upper
polygonal terrace, relatively high, is cut at its ends by broad stairways that
lead up to the base of a double ramp that sweeps across the whole complex. Throughout
this part of the sanctuary the visitor is presented with a series of surprises,
the height of the terraces preventing his forming any notion of what awaits him
at the successive levels. To increase this effect the Doric colonnades along the
great ramps turn to the hill and present a blank wall to the view to the S. At
the top of the ramps a generous terrace spreads to either side. This is lined
with a fine Corinthian colonnade with a high attic, in effect a second story,
and develops into a hemicycle halfway along each arm. That to the E framed a tholos,
that to the W an altar. The tholos is not centered on its hemicycle, and it covered
a dry well that has been supposed to be the place where the sortes were believed
to have been found.
From this level a monumental stair follows the main axis, rising through
a terrace of vaults with a facade of arches alternating with rectangular doors,
all framed by an engaged order, architecture similar to that of the tabularium
in Rome, to emerge in a great ceremonial square surrounded on three sides by porticos
in which the columns support vaulted and coffered roofing. At the back of this,
lifted a story above it, a hemicyclical stair of broad shallow steps rose to a
final hemicyclical colonnade that screened the tholos of the temple proper at
the same time it made a grandiose entrance to it.
The whole building is generally consistent in fabric and style, with
walls faced with fine opus incertum of the local limestone and carved members
of travertine and peperino. On the basis of a building inscription that mentions
the senate of Praeneste, the excavators wished to date the upper sanctuary toward
the middle of the 2d c. B.C. and the lower to the time of the Sullan colony. This
has been strongly opposed, especially by architectural historians, who see a difference
between the two parts of little more than a decade at most and incline to ascribe
the whole temple to the time of Sulla's colony. For Praeneste, after many decades
of prosperity as an independent municipium, refused to take sides in the social
war with the Italian towns against Rome, but in the Marian war it had the misfortune
to give shelter to the younger Marius and his army after their defeat by Sulla.
There he stood siege for many months, but after the battle of the Colline Gate
the Praenestines surrendered, and Marius killed himself. The sack of Praeneste
was extraordinarily savage (App. BCiv. 1.94), and it is generally supposed that
this gave the opportunity for replanning and rebuilding the temple of the goddess
to whom Sulla was so devoted. And at this time the city became a colony.
Besides the buildings noted, one should mention extensive works of
terracing in opus quadratum along the S front of the city that replaced the old
city walls, an impressive series of vaulted rooms in opus incertum in continuance
of the line of these (Gli Arconi), and a large imperial cistern of brick-faced
concrete. All these works follow the orientation of the buildings of the sanctuaries
higher up, but it is not clear what the purpose of all of these may have been,
or even whether they formed part of the sanctuary. But it seems not unlikely that
by the Sullan period the forum of Praeneste and all its appurtenances had been
moved to the foot of the hill. Inscriptions mention numerous public buildings,
including baths, an amphitheater, and a ludus gladiatorius, but these have not
yet been located. There are remains of numerous villas in the neighborhood, the
most impressive being the Hadrianic ruins near the cemetery (Villa Adriana) from
which in 1793 Gavin Hamilton extracted the Braschi Antinous now in the Vatican
(Sala Rotonda).
The Palazzo Barberini built on the hemicycle at the top of the temple
of Fortuna has been converted to use as a museum, and an excellent collection
of material from the site is displayed there.
L. Richardson, jr, ed.
This text is from: The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites,
Princeton University Press 1976. Cited Jan 2006 from
Perseus Project URL below, which contains 21 image(s), bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
