Praeneste

Praeneste, is, n. and f., = Πραίνεστος or Πραίνεστε,

• one of the most ancient and important cities of Latium, famed for the beauty of its roses, for its nuts, and still more for its temple of Fortune and the oracle connected with it, now Palestrina; abl., Praeneste, Cic. Planc. 26; Hor. Ep. 1, 2, 2: Praeneste sub ipsā (sc. urbe), Verg. A. 8, 561: altum Praeneste, id. ib. 7, 682: frigidum, Hor. C. 3, 4, 22: sacrum, Stat. S. 4, 4, 15.—Hence,
• II Praenestīnus, a, um, adj., of or belonging to Praeneste, Praenestine: nuces, Cato R. R. 8: urbs, the town of Praeneste, Verg. A. 7, 678: Praenestinae moenia sacra Deae, i. e. Fortunae, Ov. F. 6, 62: sortes, the oracles of Praeneste, Cic. Div. 2, 41, 86: ager, id. Agr. 2, 28: rosae, Plin. 21, 4, 10, § 16: via, from Rome to Praeneste, id. 31, 3, 25, § 42.—Subst.: Prae-nestīni, ōrum, m., the inhabitants of Praeneste, the Praenestines, Plaut. Truc. 3, 2, 23 (691); id. Trin. 3, 1, 8 (609) Brix ad loc.; Liv. 6, 21 sq.; v. Ritschl, Opusc. 2, 372.

Praeneste — Praeneste (Latium), Pleiades 423013

Praeneste, is, n., Stadt in Latium, wahrscheinlich Kolonie aus Sullas Zeit (s. Cic. Cat. 1, 8. Gell. 16, 13, 5), berühmt durch die Schönheit der dortigen Rosen u. Nüsse, bes. aber durch den Tempel der Fortuna u. das damit verbundene Orakel, j. Palestrina, Varro LL. 5, 32 u. 6, 4 (wo Abl. e). Cic. Cat. 1, 8; Planc. 63 (wo Abl. e). Prop. 2, 32, 3 (wo Abl. i): wegen seiner hohen Lage altum Pr., Verg. Aen. 7, 682, u. frigidum, Hor. carm. 3, 4, 23. – fem. b. Dicht., wie Verg. Aen. 8, 561. – Dav. Praenestīnus, a, um, pränestinisch, aus Präneste, ager, Liv.: nuces, Cato: rosae, Plin.: urbs, Stadt Präneste, Verg.: sortes, die pränestinischen Orakelsprüche, Cic. u. Suet. – subst., ein Pränestiner, Praenestinum opino (= opinor) esse, ita erat gloriosus, Plaut. fr. bei Non. 474, 32: Plur., Praenestīnī, ōrum, m., die Einw. von Präneste, die Pränestiner, Cic. u.a.

Prænestĕ, (12) is, n. (f., Virg. En. 8, 561 ), Préneste, ville du Latium : Cic. Cat. 1, 8 ; Virg. En. 7, 682 ; Hor. O. 3, 4, 22 || -īnus, a, um, de Préneste : Cic. Agr. 2, 78 || subst. m. pl., habitants de Préneste : Liv. 6, 21.

PRAENESTE

PRAENESTE (Πραίνεστος, Strab. Appian; Πραίνεστε, Dio Cass.: Eth. Πραινεστῖνος, or Πραινεστηνός, 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. 5. p. 238; Itin. Ant. p. 302; Westphal, Römische Kampagne, p. 106.) 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 (Verg. A. 7.678); 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 Πολυστέφανος (Strab. 5. p. 238). Another form of the same name name is given by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 3.5. 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. p. 185). 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, 5.61.) 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. 2.19.) 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. 3.8). 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. 6.21, 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 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. 6.26--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. p. 363.)

Yet the very next year the Praenestines were again in arms, and stimulated the other Latin cities against Rome. (Liv. 6.30.) 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. 16.45.) 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. 8.12--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 sociit heir 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. (Plb. 6.14.)

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. 8.3.) 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. 2.18; Eutrop. 2.12.) 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. 23.19, 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, App. BC 1.65.)

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, App. BC 1.65) 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, App. BC 1.87--94; Put. Mar. 46, Sull. 28, 29, 32; Vellei. 2.26, 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 (Luc. 2.194; Strab. 5. p. 239; Flor. 3.21.) 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. (Nibby, Dintorni, vol. 2. p. 481; but see Bormann, Alt. Lat. Chorogr. p. 207, note 429.)

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. 1.3); 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, App. BC 5.21, 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, App. BC 1.94); 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. (Juven. 3.190, 14.88; Martial (Mart. 10.30. 7; Stat. Silv. 4.2. 15; Plin. Ep. 5.6.45; Flor. 1.11.) Among others it was much frequented by Augustus himself, and was a favourite place of retirement of Horace. (Suet. Aug. 72; Hor. Carm. 3.4. 23, Ep. 1.2. 1.) Tiberius also recovered there from a dangerous attack of illness (Gell. N. A. 16.13); 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. 1.3); 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. p. 254; 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. 16.13; 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. (Dintorni, vol. 2. p. 494--510.)

The celebrity of the shrine or sanctuary of Fortune at Praeneste is attested by many ancient writers (Ovid, Ov. Fast. 6.61; Sil. Ital 8.366 Lucan (Luc. 2.194; Strab. 5. p. 238), 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. 2.4. 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.; Liv. 45.44; Propert. 3.24. 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. (Inscr. ap. Bormann, pp. 212, 213; Orelli, Inscr. 1756--1759.) 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. 6.29).

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 (4 vols. 8vo. Lips. 1802); also in Orelli (Inscr. vol. 2. p. 379, &c.). 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. (Nibby, vol. ii. pp. 513--515; Foggini, l. c. pp. v.--viii.) 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. p. 132; 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. Αἰλιανός). 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. Nat. 33.1. s. 6.) It is probable also that in Livy (Liv. 23.19) 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. 3.1. 8, Truc. 3.2. 23; Quintil. Inst. 1.5.56; 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. Nat. 17.13. s. 21; Naevius, ap. Macrob. Sat. 3.18). 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. 2.6. 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. Nat. 21.4. s. 10; Athen. 1. 26f.)

It is evident from the narrative of Livy (Liv. 6.29) 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

[E.H.B]

Praenesté

Now Palestrina; one of the most ancient towns of Latium, situated on a steep and lofty hill about twenty miles southeast of Rome. It was said to have been founded by Telegonus, the son of Odysseus. It was strongly fortified by nature and by art, and frequently resisted the attacks of the Romans. Together with the other Latin towns, it became subject to Rome, and was at a later period made a Roman colony. It was here that the younger Marius took refuge, and was besieged by Sulla 's troops. Praenesté possessed a celebrated temple of Fortuna, with an oracle, which is often mentioned under the name of Praenestinae sortes. (See oracula.) In consequence of its lofty situation, Praenesté was a cool and healthy residence in the great heats of summer (hence frigidum Praeneste, in Horace).

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.

Sporadic 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 à 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

R.V.D. Magoffin, A Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste (1908); C. D. Curtis, MAAR 3 (1919) 9-90, pls. 1-71; F. Fasolo & G. Gullini, Il santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina, 2 vols. (1953) MPI; P. Romanelli, Palestrina (1967) I.

L. RICHARDSON, JR.