Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume II.djvu/529

 PAESTUM. from Liry (viii. 17), though the passage is not quite distinct, that it was recovered by Alexander, king of Epirus, as late as b. c. 330; but if so, it certainly soon fell again into the hands of the bar- barians. Posidonia passed with the rest of Lucania into the hands of the Romans. We find no mention of it on this occasion; but in b. c. 273, immediately after the departure of Pyrrhus from Italy, the Romans established a colony there for the security of their newiy acquired territory on this side. (Liv. Epit. siv.; Veil. Pat. i. 14; Strab. v. p. 251.) It was probably at this period that the name was changed, or corrupted, into Paestum, though the change may have already taken place at the time when the city fell into the hands of the Lucanians. But, from the time that it became a Roman colony, the name of Paestum seems to have exclusively pre- vailed ; and even its coins, which are inscribed with Greek characters, have the legend riAIS and nAISTANO. (Eckhtl, vol. i. p. 158.) We hear but little of Paestum as a Roman colony : it was one of the Cotoniae Latinae, and distinguished itself by its unshaken fidelity throughout the Second Punic War. Thus the Paestani are mentioned as sending golden paterae as a present to the Roman senate just before the battle of Cannae (Liv. xxii. 36). Again in b. c. 210 they furnished ships to the squadron with which D. Quintius repaired to the siege of Tarentum ; and the following year they were among the eighteen colonies which still pro- fessed their readiness to furnish supplies and recruits to the Roman armies, notwithstanding the long-con- tinued pressure of the war (Liv. xxvi.39, xxvii. 10.) Paestum was therefore at this period still a flourisli- iiig and considerable town, but we hear little more of it during the Roman Republic. It is incidentally mentioned by Cicero in one of his letters (^Ep. ad Att. xi. 17); and is noticed by all the geograjibers as a still subsisting municipal town. Stnibo, how- ever, observes that it was rendered unhealthy by the stagnation of a small river which flowed beneath its walls (v. p. 251); and it was probably, therefore, already a declining place. But it was still one of the eight Praefecturae of Lucania at a considerably later period ; and inscriptions attest its continued existence throughout the Roman Empire. (Strab. I. c; Plin. iii. 5. s. 10; Ptol. iii. 1. § 8; Lib. Colon, p. 209; Orell. Imcr. 135, 2492, 3078: Bull. d. Inst. Arch. 1836, p. 152.) lu some of these it bears the title of a Colonia; but it is uncertain at what period it attained that rank : it certainly cannot refer to the original Latin colony, as that must have become merged in the mimicipal condition by the effect of the Lex Julia. We learn from ecclesiastical autho- rities that it became a bishopric at least as early as the fifth centui-y: and it is probable that its final decay and destjlation was owing to the ravages of the Saracens in the tenth century. At that time the episcopal see was removed to the neighbouring town of Capaccio, in an elevated situation a few miles inland. Paestum was chiefly celebrated in ancient times for its roses, which possessed the peculiarity of flowering twice a year, and were considered as sur- passing all others in fragrance. (Virg. Georg. iv. 118; Ovid, Met. xv. 708; Propert. iv. 5. 59; Mar- tial, iv. 41. 10, vi. 80. 6; Auson. Idyll. 14. 11.) The roses that still grow wild among the ruins are eaid to retain their ancient property, and flower regularly both in May and November. VOL. U. PAESTUM. 513 The site of Paestum appears to have continued wholly uninhabited from the time when the episcopal see was removed till within a very recent period. It was not till the middle of the last century that attention was drawn to the ruins which are n(]W so celebrated. Though they can hardly be said to have been then first discovered, as they must always have been a conspicuous object from the Bay of Saltrno, and could not but have been known in their immediate neighbourhood, they were certainly unknown to the rest of Europe. Even the diligent Cluverius, writing in 1624, notices the fact that there were ruins which bore the name of Pesto. without any allusion to their character and importance. (Cluver. Ital. p. 1255.) They seem to have been first visited by a certain Count Gazola, in the service of Charles VII., King of Naples, before the middle of the last century, and were described by Antonini, in his work on tjje topography of Lucania (Naples, 1745), and noticed by Mazzocchi, who has inserted a dissertation on the history of Paestuiu in his work on the Her;icle;in Tables (pp. 499— 51 5) published in 1 754. Before the end of the century they became the subject of the special works of Magnoni and Paoli, and were visited by travellers from all parts of Europe. Among tliese, Swinburne in 1779, has left a very accurate description of the ruins ; and their archi- tectural details are given by Wilkins in his Magna Graecia (fol. Cambr. 1807). The principal ruins consist of the walls, and three temples standing within the space enclosed by them. The whole circuit of the walls can be clearly made out, and they are in many places standing to a con- siderable height ; several of the towers also remain at the angles, and vestiges of the ancient gates, which were four in number ; one of these, on the E. side of the town, is nearly perfect, and surmounted by a regularly constracted arch. The whole circuit of the walls forms an irregular polygon, about 3 miles in cir- cumference. The two principal temples stand not far from the southern gate of thecity. The finest and most ancient of these is commonly known as the temple of Neptune; but there is no authority for the name, beyond the fact that Neptune, or Poseidon, was un- questionably the tutelary deity of the ciiy which derived from him its ancient name of Posidonia. The temple was hypaethral, or had its cella open to the sky, and is 195 feet long by 79 wide: it is re- markably perfect ; not a single column is wanting, and the entablature and pediments are almost entire. The style of architecture is Doric, but its proporiions are heavier, and the style altogether more massive and solid than any other extant edifice of the kind. On this account some of the earlier antiquarians dis- puted the fact of its Greek origin, and ascribed it to the Phoenicians or Etruscans : but there is not a shadow of foundation for this ; we have no trace of any settlement on the spot before the Greek colony; and the architecture is of pure Greek style, though probably one of the most ancient specimens of the Doric order now remaining. About 100 yards from the temple of Neptune, and nearer to the south gate, is the second edifice, which on account of some pecu- liarities in its plan has been called a Basilica, but is unquestionably also a temple. It is of the kind called pseudo-dipteral; but differs from every other ancient building known in having nine columns at each end, while the interior is divided into two jiarts by a single range of columns running along the centre of the building. It was probably a temple consecrated to two different divinities, or rather, in L L