PUTEOLI. Seal.). The date assigned to tliis Samian colony by Eusebius is as late as b. c. 521. No mention occurs of Dicaearchia in history previous to the conquest of Cumae by the Campanians: from its serving as the port of Cumae it could probably never have taken any active or independent part; but there seems no doubt that it must have become a populous and flourishing town. The name of Dicaearchia continued to be applied to it by Greek writers long after it had assumed the new appellation of Puteoli. (Diod. iv. 22, v. 1.3, &c.) The period of this change is uncertain. It is generally said that the Romans bestowed on it the new nan:e when they established their colony there; but there seems good reason to believe that it was considerably more ancient. The name of Puteoli is applied to the city by Livy during the Second Punic War (Liv. sxiv. 7), and there is much probability that the coins with the Oscan inscription •' Phistlus," sometimes Graecised into Phistelia, belong to Puteoli during the period previous to the Roman colony. (Millingen, Numism. de VAnc. Italie, p. 201 ; Fried- lander, Oskieche Miinzen, p. 29.) According to the Roman writers the name of Puteoli was derived cither from the stench arising from the numerous sulphureous springs in the neighbourhood, or (with more probability) from the wells (putei) or sources of a volcanic nature with which it abounded. (Varro, L. L. V. 2.5; Fest. s. v. Puteoli; Plin. x.Nxi. 2 ; Strab. v. p. 245; Steph. B. s. l'. UorioXoi) The first mention of Puteoli in history is during the Second Punic War, when it was fortified by Q. Fabius by order of the senate, and protected by a strong garrison to secure it from the attempts of Hannibal, B. c. 215. That general, indeed, in the following season ujade an attempt, though without success, to make himself master of the city, the possession of its port being an object of tl;e greatest importance to him. (Liv. xsiv. 7, 12, 1.3.) Livy speaks of Puteoli as having first become frequented as a port in consequence of the war; and though this is not strictly correct, as we know that it was fre- quented long before under the name of Dicaearchia, it is probable that it then first rose to the high de- gree of commercial importance which it subsequently retained under the Romans. Thus in B.C. 212 it became the principal port where the supplies of corn from Etruria and Sardinia were landed for the use of the Roman army that was besieging Capua (Liv. XXV. 22); and the next year it was from thence that Claudius Nero embarked with two legions for Spain. (Id. xxvi. 17.) Towards the close of the war also (b. c. 203) it was at Puteoli that the Carthaginian ambassadors landed, on their way to Rome. (Id. XXX. 22.) It was doubtle.ss the growing importance of Puteoli as a commercial emporium that led the Romans to establish a colony there in B.C. 194 (Liv. xxxiv. 45; Veil. Pat. i. 15): the date is confirmed by a remarkable inscription of B. c. 105 (Mommsen, 7?wcr. li. N. 2458), and it seems to have become befoie the close of the Re- public, as it continued under the Empire, one of the most considerable places of trade in Italy. From its being the first really good port on the south of Rome (for Antium could never deserve that epithet) it became in a manner the port of the imperial city, although distant from it not less than 150 miles. Not only did travellers coming from the East to Rome frequently land at Puteoli and proceed from tlienre by land to the city, as in the well-known instances of St. Paul {Act. Apost. xxviii. 13) and PUTEOLI. 679 Cicero on his return to Rome from his quaestor- ship in Sicily (Cic. pro Plane. 26), but the same course was pursued with the greater part of the merchandise brought from the East, especially with the costly wares sent from Alexandria, and even the sup])lies of corn from the same quar- ter. (Strab. xvii. p. 793; Suet. A%ig. 98; Se- nec. E21. 77.) Strabo speaks of Puteoli as one of tlie most important trading cities of his time (v. p. 245), and it is evident from the expressions of Seneca (J. c.) that this had not fallen off in the days of Nero. The trade with Alexandria indeed, im- portant as it was, was only one branch of its exten- sive commerce. Among other things the iron of llva, after being smelted at Populonium, was brought to Puteoli (Diod. v. 13): and the city carried on also a great trade with the Turdetanians in the south of Spain, as well as with Africa. (Strab. iih p. 145.) We learn also from an inscription still ex- tant, that its trade with Tyre was of such importance that the Tyrians had a regular factory there (Boeckh, C. I. no. 5853); and another inscription mentions a number of merchants from Berytus as resident there. (Mommsen, /. R. N. 2488.) Indeed there seems no doubt that it was under the Roman Empire one of the greatest — if not the greatest — emporiums of foreign trade in all Italy For this advantage it was in a great measure indebted to the excellence of its port, which, besides being naturally well sheltered, was further protected by an extensive mole or pier thrown out into the bay and supported on stone piles with arches between them. Hence Seneca speaks of the population of Puteoli assembling on this mole (in pilis) to watch for the arrival of the ships from Alexandria. (Sen. Ep. 77.) Puteoli had peculiar facilities for the construction of this and similar works, from the excellent quality of its volcanic sand, which formed a mortar or cement of the greatest hardness and durability, and wholly proof against the influence of the sea-water. (Strab. v. p. 245; Plin. sxxv. 13. s. 47.) This kind of cement is still known by the name of Pozzolana. It was from the extremity of the mole of Puteoli that Caligula carried his celebrated bridge across the bay to the opposite shores at Baiae. (Suet. Cat. 19, 32; Dion Cass. lix. 17; Jo.seph. Ant. xix. 1. § 1.) It is scarcely necessary to observe that this bridge was merely a temporary structure [BaiaeJ, and the remains still visible at Pozzvoli which are popularly known as the Bridge of Caligula are in fact the piles or piers of the mole of Puteoli. The construction of this mole is generally ascribed to Augustus, without sufficient authority; but it is probable that it dates from at least as early a period : and we learn that there were in his time extensive docks (navalia) at Puteoli, in which the huge ships that had been emplryed in bringing the obelisks from Egypt were preserved, — a sufiicient proof of the magnitude of these establishments. (Plin. xxxvi. 9. s. 14.) Another proof of the imjjoi-tance of Puteoli is the fact that Claudius established there, as well as at Ostia, a cohort of troops to guard the city against fire, in tiie same manner as was done at Rome (Suet. Claiul. 25). In A. D. 95 Domitian constructed a new line of road leading direct to Puteoli from Sinuessa, where it quitted the Appian Way. (Dion Cass. Ixvii. 14; Stat. Silv. iv. 3.) Previous to that time its comnmnication with Rome nmst have been by way of Cajma, to which a branch road (not given in the Itineraries) led direct from Puteoli. X X 4
