were faulty in their workmanship, were re-built by Tarquinius with stones, each a load for a cart, and squared by rule.' This is confirmed by Mr. Parker, who writes: 'It is most probable that a considerable part of the original fortifications of Rome were of earthworks and wood only, according to the custom of that age, and that stone walls were added afterwards.' It would appear that before Tarquinius built the stone wall encircling the two hills of Rome, the Palatine, the Quirinal, the Cælian, and the Aventine had each a separate arx fortified by tufa walls. Parts of these walls of fortification still exist. The tufa walls of the fortification of the Palatine arx occur on the south-west side. Another wall on the Cælian in the garden of the monks of S. Gregorio, facing the Palatine, was doubtless part of the fortification of the arx of that hill. The part of the wall of the arx on the Aventine is under the church of Santa Balbina.

The remains of the stone wall of the arx of the Palatine have been found at the north-west side; another portion has been discovered in the middle of the southwest side, where it seems to turn off at right angles, and to have been taken through the depression in the centre of the hill. The remains, which have been styled those of the Porta Mugionis, appear to me to have been the entrance gate to the arx.

The circuit of the second or stone wall of the city has been traced by Mr. Parker. The starting point of this wall was the Capitoline Hill, which it leaves on its eastern side; the wall then crossed the Via di Marforio, near its northern end. The line of the wall

continued straight from west to east, and joined on to that part of the Quirinal Hill, which was afterwards cut away to enlarge the Forum of Trajan; it there turned to the right or south, and remains for a considerable distance have been discovered, forming the eastern wall of the Forum of Augustus, as far as the Torre de Conti, which is built upon a tower of tufa at one corner of the second wall. Here the line of the wall turns again at an angle from east to west. The wall must then have passed southwards against the eastern cliff of the Velia, and forming an angle, passed under the end of the great platform on which S. Francesca Romana stands. Then along the foot of the southern end of the Palatine, and continuing on the western side, we come to some remains of it, now in a garden behind the houses, and we arrive at the well-known remains of towers under the church of S. Anastasia; it here turned and went across the valley to the Pulchrum Littus, on the bank of the Tiber, which formed part of the second fortification. It then continued against the bank of the Tiber until it arrived opposite the Capitoline Hill at its eastern side, and was thence carried across and joined on to it. The cliff on the north side of the Capitol completed the circuit of the wall.

There are several reasons for assigning these stone walls to the age of Tarquinius Priscus. From his being an Etruscan, he must have had an intimate knowledge of the advanced style of masonry to which the structure and building of walls had been brought in Etruria. Coming from Etruria to Rome at a

period when the style of building walls in Etruria had reached the highest stage of development, that is, the stage when regular horizontal walls were in use, it is only natural to conclude that he introduced all the latest improvements in wall-building, fortifications, and building of sewers; and consequently all these stone walls, cloaca, etc., ought to be attributed to his reign. Dionysius tells us expressly, as I have already mentioned, Tarquinius Priscus was the first to build the walls of the city of stone, and these walls were doubtless in the regular horizontal style, or, as Mr. Parker calls it, opus quadratum, such as was used in Etruria in his age. In Etruria, long before the foundation of Rome, the masonry of walls had passed through the successive stages of the cyclopean, the pelasgian, or polygonal, the irregular horizontal, and the regular horizontal. The latter was doubtless the style in use in the time of Tarquinius Priscus, and what he introduced into Rome. The earliest mode of building walls among the Latins, and even among the Sabellians, was confined to earth mounds, while the advance to such permanent structures as stone walls first took place in Latium under Etruscan influence. The architecture of the temples also under the Tarquin dynasty was of Etruscan origin.

The stone walls of Rome bear undoubtedly an Etruscan character; they are decidedly akin to those which are acknowledged to be Etruscan, such as those of Tarquinii, Volterra, Fiesole, etc. Further, it has been remarked that these walls indicate progressive design, and consequently required a series of

years for their accomplishment, which is consistent with the tradition of an Etruscan dynasty for about a century. The walls of the art on the Palatine bear all the stamp of the earliest of these walls. This view is further confirmed by Mr. Fergusson, who writes: In the early part of her career, Rome was an Etruscan city, under Etruscan kings and institutions, and wholly under Etruscan influence. During that period we read of temples and palaces, and of works of immense magnitude being undertaken for the embellishment of the city, and we have even now more remains of kingly than we have of consular Rome.'

In giving the name of wall of Romulus' to the wall built of regular horizontal blocks of tufa on the southwest side of the Palatine, archæologists quite forget and completely put aside the fact that the true wall of Romulus was in reality only a rampart of earth, which was raised at some little distance from the Palatine Hill, and which followed the track of the furrow marked out by the plough round the hill; along this line a fosse was dug, and the earth thrown out of it and piled up. This was the murus, or wall of Romulus, as Varro tells us. It would be inconsistent with the usual course of the development of primitive peoples that a pastoral people, such as the Romans were at the time of Romulus, should build stone walls of horizontal masonry. It was the custom of the pastoral age to raise only earthen ramparts. Further, we must bear in mind that the houses, or rather huts, of this period, even that of Romulus himself, were made of mud, with a thatched roof.

The Beginnings of Rome.

27

Under Servius Tullius, as the city had been successively enlarged by the addition of the other hills— the Aventine, which had been the pasture-ground of Rome, the Quirinal, the Viminal, the Esquiline, the Calian-the seven hills were enclosed by a stone wall, with the exception of a portion by a mound, which has been called the 'Servian Agger.' If we doubted of the existence of kings in ancient times in Rome, the presence of such gigantic works as the walls of Servius, the cloaca, would confound any scepticism on that point. As Mr. Burn writes, 'They point to a time of concentrated power and unresisting obedience, when the will of one man could direct the whole resources of the community to the accomplishment of comprehensive designs.' Indeed, it has been remarked, that after the period of the Etruscan kings, or whoever were the builders of the Servian walls, the substructures of the hill, we meet with no more buildings of similar proportions, or in a similar style.

It was the magnificent scheme, as Mommsen writes, of fortifications, ascribed to King Servius Tullius, that first surrounded the city with a single great ring-wall, and thereby created the new Rome -the Rome of history. The Servian wall, which was the foundation of a single great city, was connected with the epoch at which the city of Rome was able to contend for, and at length to achieve, the sovereignty of the Latin Confederacy.