Praeneste: A Study for its Restoration

H. Chalton Bradshaw

doi:10.1017/S0068246200005705

Praeneste: A Study for its Restoration

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013

H. Chalton Bradshaw

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

This study forms part of my work as Rome Scholar in Architecture, 1913, and was undertaken in accordance with the Memorandum of the Faculty of Architecture of the British School at Rome.

In collecting and arranging material and in writing these notes I have been helped by my wife who, as holder of the Mary Ewart Travelling Studentship from Newnham College, Cambridge, has collaborated with me throughout. To her I owe many ideas and suggestions of archaeological importance in my scheme for restoration.

Further, I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ernest Prestwich, M.A., A.R.I.B.A. In 1911 Mr. Prestwich made a survey of the existing antiquities of Palestrina with a view to making a restoration. As he was unable to carry out this plan he very kindly put the material he had collected at my disposal. This has been very valuable to me throughout.

Type: Faculty of Architecture
Information: Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 9 , 1920 , pp. 233 - 262

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068246200005705 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © British School at Rome 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 235 note 1} For further details with regard to the history of Praeneste, see E. Fernique, Etude sur Préneste, Part I. (Histoire de la ville de Préneste). R. Van Deman Magoffin, Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste, Part II. (Municipal History); also the preface to the Inscriptions from Praeneste, C.I.L. xiv. p. 288Google Scholar.

^{page 235 note 2} Strabo, V. 3, 11: Πραινεστὸς δ᾿ ἐστὶν ὅπου τὸ τῆς Τύχης ἱερὸν ἐπίσημον χρηστηρίαζον. ὰμφότεραι δ᾿ αἱ πόλεις αὗται τῇ αὐτῇ προσιδρύμεναι τυγχάνουσιν ὀρεινῇ, διέχουσι δ᾿ ἀλλήλων ὅσον σταδίους ἑκατόν, τῆς δὲ Ῥώμης Πραινεστὸς μὲν καὶ διπλάσιον, Τίβουρα δ᾿ ἔλαττον φασὶ δ᾿ Ἑλληνίδας ἀμφοτέρας. Πραινεστὸν γοῦν Πολυστέφανον καλεῖσθαι πρότερον. ἐρυμνὴ μὲν οὖν ἑκατέρα πολὺ δ᾿ ἐρυμνοτέρα Πραινεστός ἄκραν γὰρ ἔχει τῆς μὲν πόλεως ὕπερθεν ὄρος ὑψηλόν, ὔπισθεν δ᾿ ἀπὸ συνεχοὐοης ὀρεινῆς αὐχένι διζευγμένον, ύπεραῖρον καὶ δυσὶ σταδίοις τούτου πρὸς ὀρθίαν ἀνάβασιν. πρὸς δὲ τῇ ἐρυμνότητι καὶ διώρυξι κρυπταῖς διατέτρηται πανταχόθεν μέχρι τῶν πεδίων ταῖς μὲν ὑδρείας χάριν ταῖς δ᾿ ἐξύδων λαθραίων, ὧν ἐν μιᾶ Μάριος πολιορκούμενος ἀπέθανε.

‘At Praeneste is the notable shrine of Fortune with its oracle. Both of these towns (sc. Praeneste and Tibur) are situated on the same range of mountains and are 100 stades distant from one another. Praeneste is twice as far from Rome, Tibur less. It is said that both are of Greek origin, and that Praeneste was formerly called Polystephanos (the Many-crowned). Both are strong places but Praeneste is far the stronger. For as citadel above the city it has a lofty mountain divided from the ridge by a narrow neck, above which it towers for two stades in direct ascent. Besides being naturally strong the site is pierced in all directions right down to the plain by secret tunnels, some for the sake of water and some to serve as hidden exits. In one of these, while he was besieged there, Marius died.’

^{page 235 note 3} Vergil, , Aeneid vii. 677–679Google Scholar.

^{page 235 note 4} Plutarch, Parallel, 41.

^{page 235 note 5} Steph. Byz. s.v. Πραίνϵστος.

^{page 236 note 1} This name seems particularly suitable when we consider the walls which surround the city and support the terraces rising one above the other on which it is built. Cf. Nissen, , Landeskunde, ii. p. 620Google Scholar.

^{page 236 note 2} Many of the finds are in the Villa Giulia Museum, Rome. Helbig³, ii. pp. 313 ff., and also Curtis, C. Densmore, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol. iii.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 3} Livy. ii. 19.

^{page 236 note 4} Livy, xxiii. 17.

^{page 236 note 5} By the Leges Julia and Plautia Papiria.

^{page 237 note 1} Pliny, H.N. 36, 25, confirms this by his mention of the ‘lithostroton’ with which Sulla adorned the pavement of the ‘delubrum’ of Fortune at Praeneste.

^{page 237 note 2} Horace, , Odes, iii. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 3} Suetonius, Aug. 72.

^{page 237 note 4} Aulus Gellius, xvi, 13.

^{page 237 note 5} Helbig³, i. 289, p. 191. The brick stamps prove the villa to have been built in the reign of Hadrian.

^{page 237 note 6} Pliny, , Epist. v. 6Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 7} Symmachus, , Epist. i. 2, iii. 50Google Scholar.

^{page 237 note 8} Cicero, , De Divinatione, ii. 41Google Scholar; see below, p. 238.

^{page 237 note 9} Valerius Maximus, i. 3. 2.

^{page 238 note 1} Livy, xlv. 44.

^{page 238 note 2} ‘Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam.’

^{page 238 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 238 note 4} Suetonius, Tiberius, 63.

^{page 238 note 5} Suetonius, Domitian, 15.

^{page 238 note 6} Lampridius, In Alex. Sev. 4.

^{page 238 note 7} For further information about Christian Praeneste see Marucchi, Guida, pp. 145 ff.

^{page 241 note 1} G. M. Trevelyan, Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic, pp. 138 ff.

^{page 241 note 2} Cicero, , De Divinatione, ii. 41, 85–86Google Scholar: ‘Numerium Suffustium Praenestinorum. monumenta declarant honestum hominem et nobilem, somnis crebris ad extremum etiam minacibus cum iuberetur certo in loco silicem caedere, perterritum visis irridentibus suis civibus id agere coepisse; itaque perfracto saxo sortis erupisse in robore insculptas priscarum litterarum notis. Is est hodie locus saeptus religiose propter Jovis pueri qui lactens cum Junone Fortunae in gremio sedens mammam appetens castissime colitur a matribus. Eodemque tempore in eo loco ubi Fortunae nunc est aedes mel ex olea fluxisse dicunt, haruspicesque dixisse summa nobilitate illas sortis futuras, eorumque iussu ex ilia olea arcam esse factam eoque conditas sortis quae hodie Fortunae mortitu tolluntur. Quid igitur in his potest esse certi quae Fortunae monitu pueri manu miscentur atque ducuntur ? … Quis robur illud cecidit, dolavit, inscripsit ?’

‘From the records of Praeneste we learn that Numerius Suffustius, a man of rank and consideration, was ordered by frequent dreams, which at the last became threatening, to break open the flint rock at a certain spot. Terrified by his visions he began to do this, though his fellow-citizens laughed at him, and when the rock was shattered lots leapt out carved in oak with the marks of ancient letters. This is the place which is now religiously enclosed near the shrine of Jupiter Puer, who as a suckling child sits with Juno in the lap of Fortune seeking her breast, and is worshipped by mothers with the purest rights. They say that at the same time honey flowed from an olive tree at the spot where now is the Temple of Fortune, and that the haruspices declared that the lots would be held in the greatest honour, and that at their command a chest was made of the olive tree in which the lots were placed and from which they are now taken when Fortune bids. What certainty can there be in these lots which are shuffled and drawn by the hand of a child ? … Who cut down that oak and worked it and carved letters upon it ?’

^{page 242 note 1} The best explanation of this cult seems to lie in the fact that Fortune as Primigenia was also called ‘Jovis Puer’ (i.e. filia). This is shown by inscriptions. This was probably later misunderstood and referred to Jupiter himself, and so gave rise to the cult of Jupiter as a babe. Cf. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, pp. 208 ff.

^{page 242 note 2} Pliny, , H.N. xxiii. 61Google Scholar. He is discussing the method of gilding by means of thin gold plates ‘bracteae’ and continues ‘crassissimae ex iis Praenestinae vocantur etiamnunc retinente nomen Fortunae inaurato ibi simulacro.’

^{page 242 note 3} Pliny, , H.N. xxxvi. 64Google Scholar: ‘Lithostrota coeptavere iam sub Sulla parvulis certe crustis. Exstat hodie quod in Fortunae delubro fecit.’ Cf. Marucchi, Atti Pont. Acc. 1910, pp. 146 ff.

^{page 242 note 4} Livy, xxiii. 19, 18: ‘Statua eius indicio fuit Praeneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, cum titulo lamnae aeneae inscripto, M. Anicium pro militibus qui Casilini in praesidio erant votum solvisse, idem titulus tribus signis in aede Fortunae positis fuit subiectus.’

^{page 242 note 5} C.I.L. xiv. 2867Google Scholar: ‘L. Sariolenus Naevius Fastus consularis ut Triviam in Iunonarium, ut in pronao aedis statuam Antonini Augusti, Apollinis, Isityches, Spei, ita et hanc Minervam Fortunae Primigeniae donum dedit cum ara.’

^{page 243 note 1} Varro, , De Lingua Latina, vi. 4Google Scholar: ‘Meridies ab eo quod medius dies. D antiqtui in hoc loco non R dixerunt ut Praeneste incisum in solario vidi.’

^{page 243 note 2} Marucchi, Annali dell' Ist. 1884, pp. 286 ff. Cf. also Guida, p. 65, Fig. 9, and Atti della Pont. Acc. 1918, pp. 226, 3., for his latest ideas on the subject. He uses this clock together with a passage from Ovid, (Fasti, vi. 59)Google Scholar to endeavour to identify the building with the Junonarium mentioned in the inscription given above (C.I.L., xiv. 2867).

^{page 243 note 3} C.I.L., xiv. 2975: ‘M. Anicius L. f. Baaso, M. Mersieius C. f. aedilis aerarium faciendum dederunt.’

^{page 243 note 4} Suetonius, De Grammaticis, 17: ‘Statuam habet (sc. Verrius Flaccus) Praeneste in inferiore (v.l. superiore) fori parte contra hemicyclium in quo fastos a se ordinatos et marmoreo pariete incisos publicarat.’

^{page 243 note 5} Petrini, , Memorie Prenestine, xxxii. p. 430Google Scholar: ‘… Item dicunt in Civitate Penestrina que totaliter supposita fuit exterminio et ruine cum Palaciis suis nobilissimis, et antiquissimis, et cum Templo magno et solemni, quod in honorem Beate Virginis dedicatum erat, edificatis per Julium Caesarem Imperatorem, cujus Civitas Penestrin. fuit antiquitusi et cum scalis de nobilissimo marmore amplis, et largis, per quas etiam equitando ascend poterat in Palacium et Templum predicta, que quidem scale erant ultra centum numero Palacium autem Caesaris edificatum ad modum unius C propter primam litteram nominis sui, et Templum Palacio inherens opere sumptuosissimo edificatum ad modum S. M. Rotunde de Urbe. Que omnia per ipsum Bonifacium et ejus tyrampnidem exposita fuerint totali exterminio et ruine, et cum omnibus aliis Palaciis et edificiis et Domibus ejusdem civitatis, et cum muris antiquissimis opere Sarracenico factis de lapidibus quadris et magnis, que sola dampna tam magna, et inextimabilia sunt, quod multa et magna bona non sufficerent ad refectionem ipsorum, nee aliqua ratione vel summa pecunia possent, ut fuerunt refici propter magnam antiquitatem, et nobilitatem operum predictorum.

‘Item in Castro Montis Penestrin., quod similiter totaliter dirui fecit, ubi erat Rocca nobilissima, et Palacia pulcherrima, et muri antiquissima opere Sarracenico, et de lapidibus nobilibus sicut muri pred. Civitatis. …’

‘… Next they mention the town of Penestrina, which was entirely laid waste with destruction and ruin., with its most noble and ancient palaces and its great and solemn temple, which was dedicated to the honour of the Blessed Virgin, all of which were built by the Emperor Julius Caesar to whom the Town of Penestrina belonged of old, and with its broad and spacious flights of noble marble steps up which a man might even ride on horseback to the temple and palace aforesaid. And the palace of Caesar, which was built in the shape of a single C because of the first letter of his name, and the temple above and adjoining the palace which was built with most noble and sumptuous workmanship in the shape of S. M. Rotunda (i.e. the Pantheon) in Rome. All of which, through this same Boniface and his tyranny, were laid waste in utter destruction and ruin: with all the other palaces also and buildings and dwelling houses of the same city, and with its ancient walls of Saracen workmanship made of great square stones. Which alone are such great and inestimable losses that many and great riches would not suffice to restore them, nor could they by any means, not even by the greatest sums of money, be rebuilt as they were, because of the great antiquity and excellence of the aforesaid works.

‘Next they mention the Citadel of the Mount of Penestrina, which he likewise caused to be destroyed, where was a noble fort and beautiful palaces and most ancient walls of Saracen workmanship and of noble stones like the walls of the aforesaid city. …’

^{page 248 note 1} C.I.L. xvi. 2196, Magoffin, p. 53.

^{page 248 note 2} C.I.L. xiv. 3010, 3014, Magoffin, p. 52.

^{page 248 note 3} C.I.L. xiv. 3014.

^{page 249 note 1} Cf. the city walls of Norba.

^{page 251 note 1} Huyot, Mon. Ant. Pl. 189. See also his report in the Bibliothèque de l'école des Beaux Arts.

^{page 252 note 1} Magoffin, p. 32.

^{page 253 note 1} Vaglieri, Bull. Comm. 1909, pp. 231 and 232, Figs. 8 and 9.

^{page 254 note 1} C.I.L. xiv. 2975. See above, p. 239, n. 3. The inscription belongs to a date earlier than Sulla, probably to the second century, p.c. Cf. Marucchi, Guida, p. 45 and Fig. 5.

^{page 254 note 2} Vitruvius, v. 21: ‘Aerarium career curia foro sunt coniungenda.’

^{page 255 note 1} On this point Marucchi and Delbrück are the most important.

^{page 255 note 2} Vaglieri, Bull. Comm. 1909, pp. 230 ff. Vaglieri believes that if the temple is to be found in this part of the town it is the building incorporated in the Cathedral.

^{page 255 note 3} Vaglieri, Bull. Comm. 1909, p. 267, n. 113, mentions that Professor Hülsen thought it was probably a library.

^{page 255 note 4} As mentioned in the bibliography, Tétaz has made a careful study of this building and its details.

^{page 255 note 5} Marucchi, Atti della Pont. Acc. 1910, pp. 146 ff.; a discussion of the Nile mosaic and of mosaic pavement found in the upper temple which Marucchi believes to be the ‘lithostroton’ of Sulla.

^{page 255 note 6} Marucchi, Bull. Comm. 1907, pp. 302 ff.

^{page 256 note 1} Delbrück, i. pp. 67 ff.; ii. p. 41.

^{page 256 note 2} Vaglieri, Bull. Comm. 1909, pp. 233 ff.

^{page 256 note 3} This is also Dr. Ashby's opinion.

^{page 258 note 1} Cf. Temple of Concord at Girgenti.

^{page 258 note 2} Marucchi, Atti della Pont. Acc. 1918, pp. 226 ff. Contains the most detailed discussion of the problem of the central building, with photographs of the traces of the ‘solarium.’ A very clear drawing of the ‘solarium’ is also given in his Guida, Fig. 9.

^{page 258 note 3} Marucchi, Atti della Pont. Acc. 1910, p. 157

^{page 259 note 1} See above, p. 239, n. 5.

^{page 260 note 1} Not. Scavi.

^{page 260 note 2} Strabo, v. 3. 11. See above, p. 231, n. 2.

^{page 260 note 3} Magoffin, p. 41.

^{page 260 note 4} This is also the opinion of Mr. C. Densmore Curtis, who kindly examined the brickwork with us.

^{page 260 note 5} Analisi, p. 503; C.I.L. xiv. 2911 was found near here

^{page 260 note 6} Mr. Curtis agreed with us in this.

^{page 261 note 1} Calza, , Mon. dei Lincei, xxiii. 1915Google Scholar. La Preminenza dell' ‘Insula’ nella Edilizia Romana.

^{page 262 note 1} Rostovtzeff, ‘Die Hellenistisch-Romanische Architekturlandschaft’ (Röm. Mitt 1911, 1–2). Photographs passim.

Article contents

Praeneste: A Study for its Restoration

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests