the docks for ships of war on the left bank of the Tiber. There
is no doubt of the existence of such docks in the campus Martius, opposite
the PRATA QUINCTIA
(q.v.; see Liv. iii. 26
. 8: L. Quinctius ... trans
Tiberim contra eum ipsum locum ubi nunc navalia sunt, quattuor
iugerum colebat agrum, quae prata Quinctia vocantur
; Plin. NH xviii.
20: quattuor sua iugera in Vaticano, quae prata Quintia appellantur
These indications of locality are sufficiently vague, and various sites have
been proposed. Hulsen places them below the narrowest part of the
river, in the neighbourhood of the Palazzo Farnese (HJ 485-486).
If the reference to Rome were certain, the earliest mention of them
would be in a line of Ennius (ap. Serv. ad Aen. xi. 326
: idem campus
habet textrinum navibus longis
); but they were in any case in existence
in 167 B.C. (Liv. xlv. 35
. 3; 42. 12: naves regiae ... in campo Martio
; cf. Polyb. xxxvi. 5
But the fact that we are told that in 179 B.C. M. Fuluius locavit ...
porticum extra portam Trigeminam, et aliam post navalia [et] ad fanum
Herculis, et post Spei a Tiberi ad aedem Apollinis Medici
(Liv. xl. 51
has led Hulsen (DAP 2. vi. 246-254) to argue that, as the porticus post
navalia [et] ad fanum Herculis
-the argument seems to apply whether
we omit the et of the MSS. or not-must be intermediate between the
other two porticus, those extra portam Trigeminam and post Spei, we
have an indication of the existence of other earlier Navalia further downstream just north of the porta Trigemina. But the very existence of the
last portico depends on our acceptance of Becker's correction of the
reading of the MSS., which give post Spei ad Tiberim aedemAPOLLINIS
(q.v.). Still, it would be difficult to suppose that any other
temple of Hercules was meant than that of Hercules Victor; and if we
refer the passage to the navalia in the campus Martius, the temple of
Hercules must have been one of the two near the circus Flaminius (see
, HERCULES MUSARUM
) and the porticus becomes
altogether too extensive.
It is also very natural to suppose that the navalia of the early republic
(the first mention of navalia comes in reference to 338 B.C., Liv. viii. 14
naves Antiatium partim in navalia Romae subductae
) were under the
protection of the Servian walls, and therefore situated on the Tiber
bank between the porta Carmentalis and the porta Trigemina. And the
description of the arrival from Epidaurus of the sacred serpent of
Aesculapius and especially the words ' egressis legatis
' in Val. Max. i. 8
which show that the ship had reached its destination (v. AESCULAPIUS,
) in 291 B.C., and the account of the landing of Cato the younger
on his return from Cyprus (Plut. Cat. min. 39 ; Vell. ii. 45
), which describes
his landing at the navalia and passing through the forum to deposit the
treasures of Ptolemy in the aerarium Saturni and on the Capitol, both
suit such a site.
On the other hand, it seems very doubtful whether the expression
of Procopius (BG iv. 22
) in regard to the ship of Aeneas, which was
preserved in his day at the navalia ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλει
need refer to the
All the other passages in which the navalia are mentioned-e.g.
Cic. de or. i. 62 (a restoration by Hermodorus in 99 B.C.), Paul. ex Fest.
179: Navalis porta a vicinia navalium dicta
(where a city gate is certainly
not in question), Plin. NH xxxvi. 40
-do not give us any topographical
indications, so that it is not certain to which navalia they refer.
Hulsen also thinks that a coin of Antoninus Pius (Coh. No. 7 ; cf.
Zeitschr. f. Num. 1900, 32
) represents, not a bridge, but the navalia with
the Aventine in the background (cf. Mitt. 1886, 168
; 1900, 352-354
A painting known to us only by drawings, which had been attributed to
the Aventine (Mitt. 1896, 213-226
) has been rightly referred to Puteoli by
Hulsen (HJ 322), Dubois (Pouzzoles antique 201-219) and Carcopino
(Rev. Arch. 1913, ii. 253-270; cf. PBS vii. 57-58
; CILvi. 36613).
The fragment of the forma Urbis (61) with the inscription NAVALEMFER
which Hulsen had brought in as an argument, he now prefers to omit, as
the external characteristics of the fragment make it impossible to place
it in the neighbourhood of the circus Maximus; so that it probably
belongs to the region of the horrea, south of the Aventine (HJ 145, n. 8 ;
but the necessary alterations have not been made in the plans attached
See also Richter 201-203 ; Merlin 131-133.