408 NEArOLIS. a more recent settlement than some one previously existing in the same neighbourhood ; and that this did not refer merely to the parent city of Cumae, is proved by the fact that we find mention (though only at a comparatively late period) of a place called Palaepolis or " the Old City." (Liv. viii. 22.) But the relations between the two are very obscure. No Greek author mentions Palaepolis, of tlie existence of which we should be ignorant were it not for Livy, who tells us that it was not far from the site of Xea- polis. From the passage of Strabo above cited, it seems clear that this was the original settlement of the Cumaean colonists; and that the name of Neapolis was given to the later colony of Chalci- dians and others who established themselves on a site at no great distance from the former one. A dif- fL'rent version of its history, but of much more dubious authority, is cited by Philargyrius from the historian Lutatius, according to which the Cu- maeans abandoned their first colony from an appre- hension lest it should eclipse the parent city, but were commanded by an oracle to restore it, and gave to the colony thus founded anew the name of Neapohs. (Philargyr. ad Georg. iv. 564.) The original name of Palaepolis (which obviously could not be so de- signated until after the foundation of the new city) appears to have been Parthenope (Plin. iii. 5. s. 9 ; Philargyr. I. c), a name which is used by the Roman poets as a poetical appellation of Neapolis. (Virg. Georg. iv. 564; Ovid, Met. xv. 711, &c.) Ste- phanus of Byzantium notices Parthenope as a city of Opicia (the ancient designation of Campania); but it is singular enough that both he and Strabo call it a colony of the Ehodians, without mentioning either the Chalcidians or Cumaeans. (Steph. B. s. v.; Strab. xiv. p. 654.) On the other hand, Ly- cophron alludes to the place where the Siren Par- thenope was cast on shore, by the name of Falerum (^aXripov Tvpffis, Lycophr. Alex. 717); and St e- ])hanus also says that Phalerum was a city of Opicia, the same which was afterwards called Nea- polis. (Steph. B. s. V. iai]pov.') The name of Falerum has a Tyrrlienian or Pelasgic aspect ; and it is not improbable, as suggested by Abeken {Mit- tel Italien, p. 110), that there was originally a Tyr- rhenian settlement on the spot. The legendary connection of the Siren Parthenope with the site or neighbourhood of Neapolis was well established, and universally received ; hence Dionysius designates the city as the abode of Parthenope; and Strabo tells us that even in his time her tomb was still shown there, and games celebrated in her honour. (Strab. V. p. 246^ Dionys. Per. 358; Eustath. ad he; Plin. iii. 5. s. 9.) ' The site of the origin.al settlement, or Old City (Palaepolis), is nowhere indicated, but it seems most probable that it stood on the hill of Pausilypus or Posilipo, a long ridge of moderate elevation, which separates the bay of Pozzuoli or Baiae from that of Najyles itself. The new town, on the contrary, ad- joined the river Sebethus, a small stream still called the Sebeto, and must, therefore, have occupied the same site with the more easterly portion of the modern city of Naples. (Abeken, Jlittel Italien, p. Ill; Niebuhr, vol. iii. p. 179.) The latter city seems rapidly to have risen to great prosperity, and, in great measure, eclipsed the older settlement; but it is clear from Livy that Palaepolis continued to subsist by the side of the new colony, until they both fell under the dominion of the Samnites. It does not appear that either the old or the new citv was reduced NEAPOLIS. by force of arms by the Campanian conquerors; they seem rather to have entered into a compromise with them, and admitted a body of the Campanians to the rights of citizenship, as well as to a share of the government. (Strab. v. p. 246.) But notwith- standing this, the Greek element still greatly pre- dominated; and both Palaepolis and Neapolis were, according to Livy, completely Greek cities at the time when they first came into contact with Rome, nearly a century after the conquest of Campania by the Samnites. (Liv. viii. 22.) On that occasion the Palaepolitans, who had had the temerity to provoke the hostility of Rome by in- cursions upon the neighbouring Campanians, alarmed at the declaration of war which followed (b.c. 328), admitted within their walls a garrison of 2000 troops from Nola, and 4000 Samnites; and were thus enabled to withstand the arms of the consul Publilius Philo, who occupied a post between the two cities so as to prevent all communication between them, while he laid regular siege to Palaepolis. This was protracted into the following year; but at length the Palaepolitans became weary of their Sam- nite allies, and the city was betrayed into the hands of the Romans by Charilaus and Nymphius, two of the chief citizens. (Liv. viii. 22, 23, 25, 26.) The Neapolitans would appear to have followed their ex- ample without offering any resistance; and this cir- cumstance may explain the fact that while Publilius celebrated a triumph over the Palaepolitans (Liv. viii. 26; Fast. Capit.), the Neapolitans were admitted to peace on favourable terms, and their liberties secured by a treaty (foedus NeapoUtanum, Liv. I. c.) From this time all mention of Palaepolis disaj)pears from history. Livy tells us that the chief authority, which appears to have been previously enjoyed by the older city, was now transferred to Neapolis; and it is probable that the former town sank gradually into insignificance, while the community or " popu- lus" was merged in that of Neapolis. So completely was this the case, that Dionysius, in relating the com- mencement of this very war, speaks only of the Nea- politans (Dionys. Exc. Leg. pp. 2314 — 2319); while Livy, evidently following the language of the older annalists, distinguishes them from the Palaepolitans, though he expressly tells us that they formed only one community (" duabus urbibus populus idem ha- bitabat," Liv. viii. 22). From this time Neapolis became, in fact, a mere dependency of Rome, though retaining the honour- able title of an allied state (foederaia civitas), and enjoying the protection of the powerful republic, with but a small share of the burdens usually thrown upon its dependent allies. So favourable, indeed, was the condition of the Neapolitans under their treaty that, at a later period, when all the cities of Italy obtained the Roman franchise, they, as well as the Heracleans, were long unwilling to accept the profi'ered boon. (Cic^jj-o /iaZ6. 8,24.) Hence it is no wonder that they continued throughout faithful to the Roman alliance, though more than once threatened by hostile armies. In b. c. 280, Pyrrhus approached the walls of Neapohs, with the view of making him- self master of the city, but withdrew without ac- complishing his purpose (Zonar. viii. 4) ; and in the Second Punic War, Hannibal, though he re- peatedly ravaged its territory, was deterred by the strength of its fortifications from assailing the city itself. (Liv. sxiii. 1, 14, 15. xxiv. 13.) Like the other maritime allies of Rome, the Neapolitans con- tinued to furnish ships and sailors for the Roman
