¹ Gjerstad, E., ‘The Earliest History of Rome’, Ada Congressus Madvigiani I, 1958, 375–96Google Scholar; ‘Discussions concerning Early Rome’, Opuscula Romana, III, 1960, 69–102 (which lists his earlier contributions starting with the paper in Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 73, 1949–50, 13); Legends and Facts of Early Roman History (Scripta Minora Regiae Societatis…Lundensis), Lund, 1962. Professor Gjerstad had already contributed a fundamental paper on the republican Comitium in Opusc. Archaeol. 2, 1941, 97–158. For Gjerstad's absolute chronology cf. Bull. Paletnol. Ital. 64, 1954, 295–7.

Alföldi, A. summarized his views in Gymnasium 67, 1960, 193–6.Google Scholar Later papers: AJA 64, 1960, 137–44; Studi e Materiali Storia Rel. 32, 1961, 21–39; Antidoron E. Salin, 1962, 117–36; Röm. Mitteil. 68, 1961, 64–79.

Bloch, R., The Origins of Rome, Engl. transl. with additions, London, 1960Google Scholar, must be supplemented by various papers of which the most important seem to me the following: ‘Une tombe villanovienne près de Bolsena et la danse guerrière dans l'ltalie primitive’, Mél. École Rome 70, 1958, 7–37; ‘Rome de 509 à 475 environ avant J.C,’ REL 37, 1959, 118–31; ‘Le depart des Etrusques de Rome selon l'annalistique’, Rev. Hist. Relig. 159, 1961, 141–56 (cf. also CRAI 1961, 62–71); appendix to Tite-Live, , Histoire Romaine II, ed. Bayet, J., Paris 1962, 101–133.Google Scholar

Romanelli, P. opened the new stage of research: see Quaderni di Roma 1948, 381–395.Google Scholar

² The first lecture on the literary sources, and especially on Fabius Pictor, used materials to be published in my forthcoming Sather Lectures on The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography ch. IV, and in ‘Timeo, Fabio Pittore e il primo censimento di Servio Tullio’, Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini in memoria di A. Rostagni, Torino, 1963, 180–7. Cf. my previous papers: JRS XLVII, 1957, 104–14 (= Secondo Contributo 1960, 69–87); Riv. Stor. Ital. 71, 1959, 529–56; Rend. Acc. Lincei 8, 15, 1960, 310–20.

³ cf. my remarks in Riv. Stor. Ital. 73, 1961, 802–8, of which Cultura e Scuola, no. 2,1962, 68–74, is only an expanded version; Rend. Acc. Lincei 8, 17, 1962, 387–92, and Maia 15, 1963, 47–8, for further discussion with Gjerstad and Alföldi. In my paper in Miscellanea di Studi Alessandrini I also discuss Alföldi's views on Timaeus.

⁴ cf. my Secondo Contributo, 1960, 105–43.

⁵ Bibl. references are strictly limited and normally confined to very recent literature. Pre-war research is summarized in Ducati, P., Come nacque Roma, Rome, 1940Google Scholar, and, better, in Ciaceri, E., Le origini di Roma, Rome, 1937Google Scholar. Much of the literary sources is now conveniently collected in Lugli, G., Fontes ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romae I, 1952 ff.Google Scholar, and Ryberg, I. Scott, An Archaeological Record of Rome from the seventh to the second century B.C., London-Philadelphia, 1940Google Scholar, is still indispensable. The most recent valuable synthesis is de Francisci, P., Prim-ordia Civitatis, Rome, 1959Google Scholar (cf. the review by Bernardi, A., Studia et Documenta 27, 1961, 381–94)Google Scholar. Pallottino, M., ‘Le origini di Roma’, Archeol. Class. 12, 1960 (1961), 1–36Google Scholar, is important and gives full bibl.: cf. his paper in Studi Romani 5, 1957, 256–68. Holland, L. Adams, Janus and the Bridge, American Academy in Rome, 1961Google Scholar, touches almost all the problems of Roman origins and is invariably well informed. New discoveries were summarized by Andreae, B., Arch. Anz. 1957, 110–358Google Scholar, in an exemplary way. There is also a very useful survey by Hackens, T., Ant. Class. 30, 1961, 484–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and it is interesting to see how the doyen of the students on the origins of Rome, A. Piganiol (Essai sur les origines de Rome, 1917), has reacted to the more recent developments, Jomn. Savants, 1960, 18–28. Finally, I have to express my debt to F. Altheim's constant questioning of traditional theories, not withstanding disagreements with his methods and conclusions: see now especially his Römische Geschichte 1–11, Frankfurt, 1951–3, and Unter-suchungen zur Romischen Geschichte 1, Frankfurt, 1961. For further information cf. Altheim, F., Bibliographie seiner Schriften, zusammengestellt von E. Merkel, which includes publications up to 30th June, 1958 (Frankfurt, 1958).Google Scholar

⁶ It will be enough to refer to Besnier, R., ‘Les Archives privées, publiques et religieuses à Rome au temps des Rois’, Studi in memoria di E. Albertario, Milano, 1953, II, 1–26.Google Scholar

⁷ On Etruscan sources cf. Sordi, M., I rapporti Romano-Ceriti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio, Rome, 1960, 143.Google Scholar

⁸ On the date Brown, W. L., The Etruscan Lion, 1960, 160.Google Scholar There are some adventurous theories in Gagé, J., Mél. École Rome 74, 1962, 79–122.Google Scholar

⁹ I was not persuaded by Zinserling, G., Eirene (Praha) I, 1960, 153–86Google Scholar, but see also his other paper, ‘Republikanische Historienmalerei und Tages-politik’, in Sozialök. Verhältnisse im Alten Orient und im Klass. Altertum, Berlin, 1961, 346–54. An alternative interpretation by Alföldi, A., Der früh-römische Reiteradel, 1952, 50Google Scholar, is discussed by Meyer, Ernst, Gnomon 25, 1953, 185Google Scholar, and Altheim, F., Röm. Geschichte, II, 1953, 438.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Riv. Istit. Naz. Archeologia e Storia dell'Arte 19, 1961, 5–78. cf. Furuhagen, H., Opuscula Rotnana in, 1961, 139–55.Google Scholar

¹¹ cf. Werner, R., Gnomon, 1963, 193–4.Google Scholar Recent literature in Bickerman, E., La cronologia nel mondo antico, Florence, 1963, 68.Google Scholar Cf. Hohl, B. Niese-E., Grundriss der röm. Geschichte, 1923, 90.Google Scholar

¹² The Origins of Rome in the Historiography from Petrarch to Perizonius, diss. Leiden, 1962, and my discussion of it in Riv. Storica Italiana 75, 1963, 390–394.

¹³ Pallottino, M., Studi Etruschi 22, 1952–3, 309Google Scholar; Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 69, 1941, 101–7.

¹⁴ Pallottino, M., Studi Etruschi 13, 1939, 455.Google Scholar

¹⁵ It will be enough to refer to Ernout, A., Bull. Soc. Linguistique 30, 1930, 82–124Google Scholar, reprinted in Philologica 1946, 21–51; id., Aspects du vocabulaire latin, 1954. cf. the criticism of W. Schulze's theory on the Latin name-system by Bonfante, G. in Mélanges J. Marouzeau, 1948, 43–59.Google Scholar General works by A. Meillet (5th ed., 1948); G. Devoto (2nd ed., 1944), L. R. Palmer (1954), E. Pulgram (1958), V. Pisani (1962) and F. Altheim's strangely conceived Geschichte der lateirdschen Sprachen, 1951 are here presupposed. See also Battisti, C., Sostrati e para-strati nell' Italia preistorica, Florence, 1959, 102–70Google Scholar and Meyer, Ernst, Röm. Staat und Staatsgedanke, 1961, 467.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Devoto, G., Studi Etruschi 6, 1932, 243–60Google Scholar, has, however, found wide support: cf. Walde-Hofmann, , Lat. Etym. Wört. s.v. ‘populus’ (1949).Google Scholar On ‘plebs’ see Szemerényi, O., Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwiss. 15, 1962, 184.Google Scholar Cf. Battisti, C., St. Etruschi 27, 1959. 385–414Google Scholar; G. Radke, P-W s.v. Populonia.

¹⁷ Bruno, M. G., ‘I Sabini e la loro lingua’, Rend. Ist. Lombardo 95, 1961, 501–41Google Scholar; 96, 1962, 413–42, 565–640. But note also Bottiglioni, G., Studi Etruschi 17, 1943, 315–26 (with bibl.).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Devoto, G., Athenaeum 31, 1953, 335–43Google Scholar; cf. Scardigli, P. G., Parola del Passato 78, 1961, 181–9.Google Scholar cf. Devoto, G., St. Etruschi 26, 1958, 17–25.Google Scholar On Lavinium, Degrassi, A., Inscr. Lat. Lib. Reipublicae II, 1963, 1271 a.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Kirsopp Michels is approved by Gjerstad, Legends and Facts 10, but cf. Latte, K., Röm. Religionsg., 1960, 84Google Scholar, n. 4. On the name Gruber, J., Glotta 39, 1960–1961, 273–6Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Latomus 15, 1956, 133–36Google Scholar = Opusc. III, 339.

²⁰ cf. also Morel, J.-P., Mél. École Rome 74, 1962, p. 31Google Scholar, n. 5. We cannot speak with confidence about the ‘Capitolium Vetus’ (Varro, LL 5, 158): even if it was on the Quirinal (Mart. 5, 22; 7, 73), we do not know its date and origin (Hackens, T., Bull. Inst. Hist. Belge Rome 33, 1961, 69–88).Google Scholar

²¹ Wissowa, G., Gesamm. Abh., 1904, 230–52Google Scholar, not refuted by De Sanctis, G., St. dei Romani I, 185.Google Scholar On Holland's, L. A. theory, TAPh. Ass. 84, 1953, 16–34Google Scholar, see Gjerstad, , Legends and Facts 23, n. 1Google Scholar, which also applies to Poucet, J., Bull. Inst. Hist. Belge Rome 32, 1960, 25–73.Google Scholar Poucet in a very thorough study returns, to my mind not persuasively, to a ‘septimontium’ of eight ‘montes’. See also Pallottino, M., Arch. Class. 12, 1960, 31.Google Scholar I refer to Wissowa for ‘montani’ and ‘pagani’, but cf. also the art. Montani (W. Schur) and Paganalia (G. Rohde) in P-W. We should know more about Early Rome if we knew what Nonae Caprotinae and Poplifugia were about, but see the excellent analysis by S. Weinstock in P-W s.v. Nonae Caprotinae. Other opinions in Colini, A. M., Mem. Acc. Pont. 3, 7, 1944, 20Google Scholar; von Gerkan, A., Rh. Mus. 96, 1953, 20–30.Google Scholar

²² According to Gjerstad, Legends and Facts 22, the fact that the procession did not form a continuous circuit around the city ‘but four separate circuits… around the boundaries of the pre-urban settlements’ indicates a pre-urban origin of the festival. This seems to me a doubtful argument, though it can claim the authoritative support of Rose, H. J., The Roman Questions of Plutarch, 1924, 98–101.Google Scholar The document itself (Rohde, G., Kultsatzungen der röm. Pontifices, 1936, 59Google Scholar; K. Latte, RR 412) and its content (G. Wissowa, Ges. Abh., 221–3) point, prima facie, to a date not earlier than Servius Tullius: cf. Varro, , LL 5, 45Google Scholar; 7, 44; Festus p. 14 L.; Livy I, 21, 5; Dionys. I, 38; Ovid, , Fasti 3, 791Google Scholar; 5, 621 (with the commentary by J. G. Frazer and by F. Bömer); Aulus Gellius 10, 15, 30. I cannot follow L. A. Holland, Janus and the Bridge, 313–31.

²³ The exclusion of the Capitol is a moot point. Contra e.g. Sanctis, De, St. d. Rom. I, 390Google Scholar, n. 3; H. Müller-Karpe, Vom Anfang Roms, 39; Pallottino, M., Arch. Class. 12, 1960, 24.Google Scholar But see also Altheim, F., Hist. Rom. Relig. 1938, 129–31Google Scholar; Basanoff, V., Studi V. Arangio-Ruiz 2, 1953, 323–32.Google Scholar The question is bound up with that of the Pomerium. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht III, 379Google Scholar, n. 2, ‘auf dem strenggenommen vom Pomerium ausgeschlossenen Capitol.’ I cannot go into this question. To the new literature in Walde-Hofmann, LEW s.v. Pomerium, add the article by v. Blumenthal in P-W, Gall, J. Le, Annales de l'Est 22, 1959, 41–54Google Scholar, and above all Grimal, P., Mél. École Rome 71, 1959, 43–64.Google Scholar

²⁴ cf. my note ‘Ambarvales Hostiae’, Maia 15, 1063, 47–8, and Lugli, G.'s remarks in Rend. Acc. Lincei 8, 6, 1951, 371–3.Google Scholar Also Kilgour, A., Mnemos. 3, 6, 1938, 225–40.Google Scholar

²⁵ Hermes 90, 1962, 196, n. I.

²⁶ The evidence about Ostia is examined judicially by Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia, 1960, 479.Google Scholar Further references in Hackens, T., Antiq. Class. 31, 1962, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ ‘Ager Romanus Antiquus’, Hermes 90, 1962, 204. The anecdote on Fabius' estate ‘in Pupinia’ which is wrongly placed in Val. Max. 4, 8, I (De Sanctis, St. d. Rom. III 2, 51, n. 81) may belong here (cf. Livy 26, II, 6). Alföldi's dating of the origin of the Fabia tribe after 450 (p. 207) is also full of difficulties. It implies that the tribe was established when, according to the Fasti, the Fabii had lost their previous power, F. Münzer, Röm. Adelsparteien 53.

²⁸ See now the papers by Peroni, R. and Gjerstad, E. in Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 77, 1959–60Google Scholar (but published in 1963), 1–108, on the S. Omobono excavations. Gjerstad says ‘già ora si può constatare che l'epoca pre-urbana di Roma si è prolungata di 700 anni, fino al 1500–1400 a.C’ cf. also Gjerstad, , Acta Archaeol. 32, 1961, 215–18.Google Scholar

²⁹ cf. also Romanelli, P., Bull. Paletnol. Ital. 64, 1954, 257–60Google Scholar, and the reviews of Gjerstad by El'nickij, L. A., Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, 1960, no. 1, 150–8Google Scholar, and by Romanelli, P., Gnomon 31, 1959, 434–9.Google Scholar The collective volume of the Swedish Institute, Etruscan Culture, Land and People, New York and Malmö, 1962Google Scholar, is indispensable (with a chapter by Gjerstad on ‘The Etruscans and Rome in archaic times’, pp. 145–61).

³⁰ On this see Carettoni, G., Bull. Paletnol. Ital. 64, 1954–5, 261Google Scholar, and Early Rome III, 72. cf. Puglisi, S. M., Bull. Paletnol. Ital. 63, 1951–1952, 45–59Google Scholar; 64, 1954–55, 299–322.

³¹ Early Rome III 54–6, dates Hut A in the later part of Period II (700–625 B.C.), but adds that ‘Hut A does not represent the earliest remains of habitation on this spot’. Puglisi, S. M., Mon. Ant. 41, 1951, 97Google Scholar, seemed to date the ‘villaggio capannicolo sul Palatino’ in the eighth century B.C., and this date is usually given by the Italian archaeologists (Carettoni, G., JRS L, 1960, 200Google Scholar; Romanelli, P., Acta Congressus Madvigiani I, 393Google Scholar). It may ultimately be correct. The excavation of the Temple of Magna Mater has produced no new decisive elements for the archaic period (Romanelli, P., Mon. Ant. 46, 1963, 202–330).Google Scholar

³² According to Gjerstad, , Bull. Comm. Arch. Comunale 77, 99–102Google Scholar, ‘il primo tempio … ed il pavimento del Foro Boario appartenente a quel tempio si possono assegnare all'inizio del V sec. a. Cr.’, but an open-air sanctuary preceded the Temple and is to be dated about 570 B.C. The literary evidence is collected by Lyngby, H., Die Tempel der Fortuna und der Mater Matuta am Forum Boarium in Rom, Berlin, 1939Google Scholar; cf. also his monograph in Acta Institute Romani Regni Sueciae 7, 1954: Beiträge zur Topographie des Forum Boarium-Gebietes.

³³ On the Vase, Duenos, Early Rome III, 161Google Scholar, is to be supplemented by Gjerstad's paper in Septentrionalia et Orientalia: Studia Dedicata, B. Karlgren, Stockholm, 1959, 133–43.Google Scholar cf. Peruzzi, E., La Parola del Passato 13, 1958, 328–46.Google Scholar

³⁴ cf. Paribeni, E., Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 76, 1956–1958, 3–21Google Scholar; Bartoli, A., ‘I pozzi dell' area sacra di Vesta,’ Mon. Ant. 45, 1961, 1–144Google Scholar, and in general Romanelli, P., Bull. Fac. Lettres Strasbourg 38, 1959–1960, 235–43.Google Scholar

³⁵ The standard work remains A. Andrén, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples (1940): see furthermore Åkerström, Å., Opusc. Romana I, 1954, 191–231Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Acta Instit. Rom. Norvegiae I, 1962, 35–40 (on Jupiter temple).Google Scholar

³⁶ cf. also Paribeni, E., Boll. Musei Comunali Roma 6, 1959, 41–8Google Scholar, for a Greek vase of about 500 B.C.; Carettoni, G. and Fabbrini, L., Rend. Lincei 8, 16, 1961, 55–60Google Scholar, for the findings of about the same date under the Basilica Iulia; and in general Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 77, 1959–60, on S. Omobono.

³⁷ cf. Giglioli, G. Q., Bull. Museo Impero 12, 1941, 3–16Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Die Trojanischen Urahnen der Romer, Basel, 1957Google Scholar (reviewed in JRS XLIX, 1959, 170, by S. Weinstock); Schauenburg, K., Gymnasium 67, 1960, 176–91Google Scholar; Carratelli, G. y, La Parola del Passato 82, 1962, 20–3Google Scholar (with further bibl. on p. 22). I cannot understand Gagé, J., Mél. École Rome 73, 1961, 69–138Google Scholar; Rev. Hist. 229, 1963, 305–34; Degrassi, , Inscr. Lat. Lib. Reip. II, 1271.Google Scholar

³⁸ Gjerstad, E., Studies D. M. Robinson I, 1951, 412–22Google Scholar; id., Opusc. Romana I, 1954, 50–65, and 3, 1960, 69–78. One Attic Red-Figure sherd found in the second stratum of the agger on the Quirinal is the basis for the date.

³⁹ Evidence collected in Lugli, , Fontes I, 26Google Scholar; 73. (On Ennis 157 Vahlen, Timpanaro, S., Maia 3, 1950, 26.Google Scholar) ‘Roma quadrata’ must not, however, be taken too seriously: Castagnoli, F., Studies D. M. Robinson I, 1951, 389–99Google Scholar; Perkins, J. Ward, Acta Congressus Madvigiani 4, 109.Google Scholar See the telling evidence of Cosa, Brown, F. E., Cosa II, 1960, 9–18.Google Scholar Müller, W., Die Heilige Stadt, Stuttgart, 1962, 1–52Google Scholar (with bibl.), discusses the question in a wide context of cosmological speculations; cf. also G. Dumézil, Rituels indo-européens à Rome, 27–43. P. Grimal's notion of the Forum as the earliest centre of Rome cannot, I think, be defended (Lettres d'humanité 4, 1945, 15–121; Mélanges 71, 1959, 59), but see Ferri, S., Opuscula, Florence, 1962, 600–603.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ von Duhn's, F. pages in Italische Gräberkunde I, 1924, 428 ff.Google Scholar, have not lost their fascination, but Banti, L., St. Ital. Fil. Class. 7, 1929, 171–98Google Scholar, was quick to see their weakness. Nor was Devoto, G., Gli Antichi Italici, now 2nd ed. 1951Google Scholar (with bibl.), more convincing. I do not know what, archaeologically, makes a Sabine in Rome. See Pallottino's good remarks in Archeol. Class. 12, 1960, 31, and also Gjerstad in Etruscan Culture, 159, n. 3. But contra Puglisi, S. M., La civiltà appenninica, Florence, 1959, 99.Google Scholar

⁴¹ R. Bloch would, I think, put the end of the Etruscan rule about 475. Gjerstad challenged this in Etruscan Culture, 161, n. 73.

⁴² The best discussion of Hanell's theories I know of is by Meyer, Ernst, ‘Zur Frühgeschichte Roms’, Mus. Helv. 9, 1952, 176–81Google Scholar, but there are convincing objections in the reviews by Adcock, F. E. in JRS XXXVIII, 1948, 105–9Google Scholar, and Taylor, L. R., AJ Phil. 72, 1951) 69–72.Google Scholar Meyer rightly emphasizes the import ance of Dionys. 7, 5. Gagé, J., ‘La poutre sacrée des Horatii’, Hommages à W. Deonna, 1957, 226–37Google Scholar, I am unable to understand.

⁴³ Rh. Museum 100, 1957, 82–97; Von antikr Architektur und Topographie, Stuttgart, 1959, 133–8; Rh. Museum 104, 1961, 132–48; Arch. Anz. 1963, 104–18.

⁴⁴ Gjerstad's conclusions were doubted by Castagnoli, F., Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 74, 1951–1952, 49–51Google Scholar, and more recently by G. Colonna, ibid. 77, 1959–60 (1962), 125–43. cf. F. Castagnoli, ibid. 77, p. 148, n. 10. Though not directly relevant I should like also to mention the paper by Pallottino, M., ‘Gli Etruschi neir Italia del Nord’, Hommages à A. Grenier, 1962, 1207–16Google Scholar, which shows the difficulties of a historical analysis of archaeological evidence. Kromer, K., Mitt. d. Praehist. Kommission der Oesterr. Akad. 6, 1952–1953, 119–44Google Scholar, is too schematic.

⁴⁵ Gjerstad, , Opusc. Rom. III, 93Google Scholar; Legends and Facts, 50 attributes much importance to the statement by Varro ap. Pliny, NH 35, 157Google Scholar, that Vulca was invited to Rome by Tarquinius Priscus, not by Tarquinius Superbus. I do not pretend to guess how Varro would have known that it was Tarquinius Priscus, but Pliny's text does not say that Tarquinius Priscus ordered Vulca to make … the terracotta quadrigae for the roof, which is essential to Gjerstad's argument. For a recent discussion of this difficult passage see A. Rumpf in P-W s.v. Vulca. I find myself also unable to accept Gjerstad's chronological argument which is part of his penetrating study of the early Roman calendar (Acta Archaeol. 32, 1961, 193–214; cf. Legends and Facts, 57). According to Iunius Gracchanus, Tarquinius (Priscus) introduced the twelve-months calendar (Censor. 20, 4) and Servius Tullius the intercalary system (Macrob. 1, 13, 20). This is a construction on the pattern of the progressive increase in the number of the ‘equites’ during the monarchy and can hardly claim authority. Varro (ap. Macrob.) in discussing various opinions on the introduction of intercalation quoted ‘antiquissimam legem … incisam in columna aerea a L. Pinario et Furio consulibus [472 B.C.] cui mensis intercalaris adscribitur’. I do not see how one can deduce from this that Servius Tullius was reigning in 472 B.C. I shall quote only one more example of the arguments which I feel unable to accept: Gjerstad in Etruscan Culture, 160, n. 31, ‘That the Active Romulus was added to an earlier list of kings is indicated by the fact that Numa is represented as the second founder of the city (Livy 1, 19, 1: novam urbem de integro condere parat). This indicates that he was originally mentioned as the founder of Rome, but when this role was later assigned to Romulus, Numa had to be downgraded to a second founder.’ Here Alföldi, A., Mus. Helvet. 8, 1951, 203Google Scholar, is essential.

⁴⁶ For the earlier discussions it will be enough to refer to Montelius, O., Die vorklassische Chronologie Italiens, 1912, 170–2Google Scholar, and Karo, G., Athen. Mitteil. 45, 1920, 106–56Google Scholar; cf. the centenary volume Civiltà del Ferro, Bologna, 1960. Pre-war research on Villanova is reviewed by Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G., Handbuch der Archäol. II, 1954, 364Google Scholar; more recent work is critically summarized by R. Pittioni in P-W, Suppl. IX, especially 261 if. (1962). M. Pallottino's discussion of Müller-Karpe, H., ‘Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen’ (1959) in Studi Etruschi 28, 1960, 11–47Google Scholar, is important and gives a bibliography. See also Chevallier, R., Latomus 21, 1962, 99–123.Google Scholar I am also indebted for information to Radmilli, A. M. (ed.), Piccola Guida della Preistoria Italiana, Firenze, 1962.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Gjerstad has replied to Müller-Karpe, in Gnomon 33, 1961, 378Google Scholar, and at greater length in Opuscula Romana V, 1962, 1–74. Gjerstad explicitly involves in his condemnation Peroni's ‘absurd results’. Peroni has been attacked also by P. G. Gierow, ibid. III, 1961, 103–122, and has replied in Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 77, 1959 (1963), 19–32. Peroni also published an important monograph ‘Per una definizione dell' aspetto culturale subappenninico come fase cronologica a sè stante’ in Mem. Acc. Lined 8, 9, 1959. cf. also Gierow, P. G., Opusc. Rom. IV, 1962, 83–100.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ On a strange suggestion in the same sense by Mazzarino, S., Studi Romani 8, 1960, 385Google Scholar, cf. Pallottino, M., Archeol. Class. 12, 1960, 15Google Scholar, n. 2.

⁴⁹ First published by Schiaparelli, E., Mon. Ant. 8, 1898, 89–100.Google Scholar cf. Dohan, E. Hall, Italic Tomb-Groups, Philadelphia, 1942, 106–9Google Scholar; Janssen, J. M. A., Varia Historica … aan Prof. Doct. A. W. Byvanck, Assen 1954, 17–29Google Scholar (with bibl.). It is good to know that Gjerstad is preparing a new study of the Bockhoris tomb (Opusc. Rom. v, 60, n. 7). See also Dunbabin, T. J., Arch. Ephem. 1953–1954 (1958), 253.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Brown, W. L., The Etruscan Lion, 1960, 12Google Scholar, and Pallottino, M., Antiquity 36, 1962, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Ultimately the new theories by Gjerstad, Bloch and Alföldi will stand or fall by their ability to make satisfactory history for the period 500–450 B.C. I attribute some general importance to the fact that the pre-Caesarian calendar is at least contemporary with, but probably earlier than, the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Nilsson, M. P., Opuscula Selecta II, 1952, 979–87Google Scholar; Brelich, A., Vesta, 1949, 19–24Google Scholar; Latte, , RR 1960, I and 36Google Scholar; Johnson, Van L., TAPh. Ass. 91, 1960, 109–20Google Scholar; id., AJPhil. 84, 1963, 28–35). This calendar presupposes both a well-ordered political organization and a long evolution. My impression is that it can hardly be the result of less than seventy years of the life of Rome as a city. This is a different matter from ‘the enormous change from primitivism to monumentality’ in buildings which, contrary to Gjerstad (Legends and Facts 55), I take to have happened between 600 and 500 B.C. Notice that Gjerstad assigns the Regifugium to the pre-urban period (before the foundation of Rome about 575 B.C.) which I do not consider plausible (Acta Congr. Madvig. I, 390). Gjerstad writes: ‘I believe that there were pre-urban kings, but these, who are and will remain anonymous, should not be confounded with the kings of the unified city whose names are known to us, from Numa Pompilius to Tarquinius Superbus.’ What, then, is the real difference between the pre-urban and the urban stage? And why should the Romans have lost the memory of names earlier than 575?

⁵² But see Wissowa's wise remarks on Fidius, Dius, Religion und Kultus 2nd ed., 1912, 129.Google Scholar And also Gjerstad's, excellent paper ‘The Temple of Saturn in Rome’, Hommages à A. Grenier, 1962, 757–62.Google Scholar

⁵³ Studi e Materiali 32, 1961, 21; van Berchem, D., Mus. Helv. 17, 1960, 30–32.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ On the interpretation of the Lapis niger add to the bibl. given by Degrassi, A., Inscr. Lat. Liberae Reipublicae I, 1957, 5Google Scholar, and K. Latte, RR 3, n. 4: Dumézil, G., Rech. Sciences Rel. 39–40, 1951–1952 (Mélanges Lebreton), 17–29Google Scholar; Lejeune, M., REA 54, 1952, 342Google Scholar; Dumézil, G., REL 36, 1958, 109–11Google Scholar; Marchetti-Longhi, G., Arch. Class. II, 1959, 50–69Google Scholar, and Degrassi, Inscr. quoted II, Addenda p. 379.

⁵⁵ Meyer, Ernst, Röm. Staat u. Staatsgedanke 2nd ed., 1961Google Scholar, provides an invaluable guide to Roman constitutional problems. The best introduction to historical method is contained in P. Fraccaro's discussion of Beloch's Römische Geschichte in Riv. Fil. Class. 56, 1928, 551–69; 57, 1929, 267–76, and in his paper ‘La storia romana arcaica’, Opuscula I, 1–24 (cf. JRS XLVII, 1957, 59). Equally exemplary Ed. Meyer, , Zur älteren römischen Geschichte, in Kleine Schriften II, 1924, 286–307.Google Scholar Ernst Meyer, Röm. Staat and Fraccaro's ‘Storia romana arcaica’ are here presupposed throughout. Cf. the excellent survey by Kunkel, W., Zeitschr. Sav. Stift., Rom. Abt., 85, 1955, 288–325Google Scholar; 86, 1956, 307–25; 90, 1960, 345–82.

⁵⁶ The evidence in P-W s.v. curia by Huelsen, Chr., Altheim, F., Epochen der Römischen Geschichte I, 1934, 70–86Google Scholar, is important, cf. also Pareti, L., Si. di Roma I, 1952, 287Google Scholar and passim: Pareti's personal interpretation of the monarchic period deserves attention. P. de Francisci, Primordia civitatis, 572–91, is discussed by Coli, U., Studi Senesi 71, 1959, 375–423Google Scholar, especially 400–5; De Martino, F., Storia della Costituzione Romana I, reprint 1958, 120–31Google Scholar; Westrup, C. W., Rev. Int. Droits Ant. 3, 1, 1954, 462–73Google Scholar; Kunkel, W., ‘Zum römischen Königtum’, Ius et lex. Festgabe … M. Gutzwiller, Basel, 1959, 1–22.Google Scholar Catalano, P., Contributi allo studio del diritto inaugurate I, Torino, 1960, 391–585Google Scholar (almost an encyclopaedia on the subject of Roman monarchy), cf. also the interesting considerations by Gerschel, L., ‘La conquête du nombre’, Annales 17, 1962, 691–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 708–10.

⁵⁷ Walde-Hofmann, LEW s.v. curia. Covehriu is attested in the Volscian table of Velletri with the meaning either of ‘contio’, ‘conventus’ (Vetter, E., Handbuch der Italischen Dialekte I, 1953, 156Google Scholar) or of ‘curia’ (Altheim, F., Unters. zur Römischen Geschichte I, 1961, 85)Google Scholar; cf. also Untermann, J., Indog. Forsch. 62, 1955, 123–35Google Scholar, and Dumézil, G., REL 31, 1953, 175–90.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The evidence is collected in Platner-Ashby, Topogr. Dictionary of Ancient Rome, 1929, s.v. See especially Festus, s.v. Novae curiae (where I accept Veliensis for Vellensis), p. 182 L.; Tac. Ann. 12, 24, 3; Ovid, , Fasti 3, 140.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Studi Etruschi 19, 1946–7, 377–81.

⁶⁰ CIL XIV, 2114, 2120, 2126 = Dessau, ILS 6201, 6199, 6202. For Tibur cf. Serv., Aen. I, 17, and K. Latte, RR 106, note. One would like to know who were the ‘meos curiae vernulas’ of Tibur. For the equivalent of Curiae in Etruscan cities, see Festus s.v. rituales, p. 358 L.; Servius, , Aen. 10, 202.Google Scholar cf. also Basanoff, V., Rev. Hist. Rel. 123–4, 1941, 110–41.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The evidence in P-W s.v. curio (Kübler). I do not accept the ‘decurio’ and the ‘decuria’ of Dionys. 2, 7, as historical realities. I am also unable to follow Mommsen, , Staatsrecht III, 104Google Scholar, n. 6, but see Wiesner, J., Klio 36, 1943, 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Festus p. 47 L. s.v. ‘centuriata comitia’. On the ‘curio minor’ (CIL II, 1262; VI, 2169 = Dessau, ILS 1320); cf. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht III, 101Google Scholar, n. 4.

⁶² Livy 27, 8, 1. cf. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht II ³, 27Google Scholar, n. 4.

⁶³ Dion. 2, 50, 3; Festus p. 56 L.; perhaps also Festus p. 302 L. The age and origin of the Roman cult of Iuno Curitis is doubtful (S. Weinstock, P-W s.v. Tibur, 832; K. Latte, RR 168. cf. Walde-Hofmann, LEW s.v. Quirites, and K. Latte, RR 59, n. 1 and 113). Koch, C., Religio, 1960, 17–39Google Scholar; Schilling, R., ‘Janus’, Mél. École Rome 72, 1960, 119 ff.Google Scholar (with bibl.), and Brelich, A., ‘Quirinus’, Studi e Materiali 31, 1962, 63–119Google Scholar, do not seem to me conclusive; cf. also Paoli, J., Studi U. E. Paoli, 1956, 525–38Google Scholar; Burkert, W., Historia II, 1962, 356–76Google Scholar, and Classen, C. J., Philologus 106, 1962, 174–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁴ Wissowa in P-W s.v. Fordicidia and Fornacalia. On Fordicidia cf. Weinstock, S., Glotta 22, 1934, 142–8Google Scholar; Dumézil, G., Rituels indo-européens à Rome, 1954, 11–26.Google Scholar On Fornacalia, Delatte, L., Antiq. Class. 5, 1936, 391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar, did not persuade me but must be consulted on the controversial interpretation of Pliny, NH 18, 8.Google Scholar With hesitation I accept Fowler, W. Warde, Roman Festivals, 1899, 304.Google Scholar I cannot follow here and elsewhere Brelich's, A. interesting suggestions, Tre variaziom romane sul tema delle origini, Rome, 1955, 113 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ovid, , Fasti 2, 519 ff.Google Scholar (with F. Bömer's commentary); Varro, , LL 6, 13Google Scholar; Festus p. 304 and 418 L.; Plut., QR 89.

⁶⁶ Ovid, , Fasti 4, 629 ff.Google Scholar; Varro, , LL 6, 15.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Thirty lictors: Cic., De lege agr. 2, 31. Comitia calata: A. Gell. 15, 27. Botsford, G. W., The Roman Assemblies, 1909, 152–200Google Scholar, provides information on earlier views. Siber in P-W s.v. Plebs (1951), 128–33, is the most recent general survey known to me. Latte's, K. attractive theory on the lex curiata, Nachr. Gesell. Göttingen, 1934, 59Google Scholar, cannot be considered proved (though accepted for instance by Fritz, K. v., Studies D. Robinson II, 896)Google Scholar, but the Republican origin of the lex curiata supported by Von Lübtow, U., Zeitschr. Savigny-Stiftung, Rom. Abt., 69, 1952, 154–71Google Scholar) and Friezer, E., Mnemosyne 12, 1959, 301–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is quite improbable; cf. the very able discussion by Staveley, E. S., Historia 5, 1956, 85–90Google Scholar (to Staveley's paper I should like to refer for all the problems discussed here). I shall confine myself to one remark. If the (patrician) senators could only choose the ‘interrex’, not the ‘rex’, this means that the ultimate appointment of the kings rested with the ‘curiae’: the lex curiata, whatever its interpretation, confirms this. cf. Tibiletti, G., Studia Ghisleriana 2, 1, 1950, 359–77Google Scholar, and Paoli, J., Rev. Et. Anc. 56, 1954, 12–49.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The Farnesianus reads in Festus s.v. ‘Praeteriti senatores’ curiati in senatu: the alternative emendation is iurati in senatum. I take curiatim to be more probable (on the history of the two emendations Willems, P., Le Sénat de la République Romaine I, 1878, 169–71).Google Scholar The lex Ovinia is most usually dated before 312 B.C. (Mommsen, , Staatsr. II, 418Google Scholar; O'Brien Moore, P-W, Suppl. VI, 686). On Curiae and Senate see also G. Bloch, Les origines du Sénat remain, 1883; Sinaïski, V., La Cité Quiritaire, Riga, 1923Google Scholar, a fanciful, but acute and original book, and V. Arangio Ruiz, Le genti e la città, 1914, with the subsequent discussion registered in de Francisci, P., Storia del diritto romano I, 1925 (reprint, 1943), 99 ff.Google Scholar; Cornelius, F., Unters. zur früheren Römischen Geschichte, 1940, 89Google Scholar; U. von Lübtow, Das Römische Volk, 1955. cf. Nemirovskij, A. J., Vestnik Dr. Ist., 1961, fasc. 1, 178–83.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The connection is already in Ennius (ap. Varr., LL 5, 55), but apparently only for Tities and Ramnes. Luceres represented a problem (cf. Livy 1, 13, 8); they were connected with Lucumo in Iunius Gracchanus (ap. Varr. quoted) and Cicero, Rep. 2, 14. Volnius (ap. Varr.) believed in the Etruscan origin of the three names. For other evidence and discussion P-W s.v. Luceres (Berve) and Ramnes (Rosenberg). cf. Lambert, J. N., Studi P. De Francisci I, 1956, 337–60Google Scholar, and P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis, 539. The Etruscan form of the names (Schulze, W., ‘Latein. Eigennamen’, Abh. Göttingen, 1904, 218; 263)Google Scholar can hardly be disputed; but we do not yet know whether the names were etruscanized under Etruscan rule or were originally Etruscan.

⁷⁰ Cicero, , Rep. 2, 14Google Scholar; Livy 1, 13, 6; Festus (Paulus) 42 L., etc. Dionys. 3, 9, 6 and 3, 10, 4 presents no difficulty.

⁷¹ First ‘curio maximus’ known to us: Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus who is said to have died in 463 B.C. (Livy 3, 7, 6, on which Münzer, P-W 4 A, 747). cf. Livy 27, 8, 1, and generally Kübler in P-W s.v. curio. The existence of a ‘curio maximus’ as the head of the Curiae implies a certain dualism between king and Curiae (populus), which is obvious also in the case of ‘regifugium’—‘poplifugia’. But the social and political implications of such a dualism escape us entirely. Basanoff, V., Regifugium, Paris, 1943Google Scholar, is not sound, cf. also the interesting paper by Schilling, R. on Romulus, , REL 38, 1960, 182–99.Google Scholar

⁷² See Kübler in P-W s.v. decuria Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ³ I, 656Google Scholar; III, 529 and 852. cf. Livy 1, 17; Dionys. 2, 57; Serv., Aen. 6, 808; Cic., Verr. 2, 2, 32, 79, etc. For the relation between the ‘decuriae’ of the Roman Senate and the ‘decuriones’ in ‘municipia’ cf. Marquardt, , Staatsverw. I ², 184.Google Scholar

⁷³ Mayer, P., The Lineage Principle in Gusii Society, London, 1949.Google Scholar cf., however, the critical remarks in Man, December 1950, no. 264.

⁷⁴ It will be enough to refer to Mair, L., Primitive Government, London, 1962Google Scholar, ch. 5, ‘The Immigrant Rulers.’

⁷⁵ Government and Politics in Tribal Societies, London, 1956, 28.

⁷⁶ For a longer list of Dumézil's, works see his L'idéologie tripartie, 1958, 92.Google Scholar Among his recent pronouncements notice his discussion of Francisci's, de Primordia in Rev. Beige Phil. 39, 1961, 62–7Google Scholar, and his reflections in REL 39, 1961, 87–93; also Rev. Hist. Rel. 154, 1958, 1–9; 157, 1960, 141–154; Latomus 13, 1954, 129–139; 17, 1958, 429–446.

⁷⁷ The point is developed at length in Jupiter Mars Quirinus, Ital. ed., 90–107, 230–63 (391–405: Dumézil's views on the Curiae and further references on Quirinus). See also L'idéologic tripartie, 13.

⁷⁸ My views on Dumézil (which I hope to develop in an article in Rivista Storica Italiana) are not far from those of Piganiol, A., Histoire de Rome, ed. 1954, 529–30.Google Scholar cf. Rose, H. J., JRS XXXVII, 1947, 183–6Google Scholar; Brelich, A., Studi Mat. St. Relig. 28, 1957, 113–23Google Scholar; Latte, K., Acta Congressus Madvigiani I, 1958, 216Google Scholar; Brough, J., Bull. School Oriental and African Studies 22, 1959, 69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gonda, J., Mnemosyne 4, 13, 1960, 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kuiper, F. B. J., Numen 8, 1961, 34–45Google Scholar, for criticism of Dumézil's views by specialists in different fields. It is only fair to add that Dumézil has many and authoritative followers especially in France, has deeply influenced Bayet's, J. more recent work (cf. already Rev. Hist. Relig. 126, 1943, 159–66Google Scholar) and is supported by one of the greatest living philologists, Benveniste, E. (cf. Rev. Hist. Rel. 129, 1945, 5–16 etc.Google Scholar).

⁷⁹ El sistema gentilicio decimal de los Indo-Europeos occideniales y los origenes de Roma, Madrid, 1948, 124. But cf. Devoto, G., Origini indoeuropee, Firenze, 1962.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Together with the old classics (among which F. Buecheler's Umbrica, 1883, has still a place of its own), I have used the following recent editions: G. Devoto, 3rd ed., Rome, 1962, and his ed. minor with an Italian transl., Florence, 1948; Vetter, E. in Handbuch der Italischen Dialekte I, 1953, 170Google Scholar; Pisani, V., Le lingue dell'Italia antica oltre il latino, Torino, 1953, 121Google Scholar; Bottiglioni, G., Manuale dei dialetti italici, Bologna, 1954, 259Google Scholar; Poultney, J. W., ‘The Bronze Tables of Iguvium’, Am. Phil. Ass. Mon., 1959.Google Scholar cf. also Ernout, A., Le dialectombrien, Paris, 1961.Google Scholar Survey of research 1940–59 by Untermann, J., Kratylos 5, 1960, 113–25Google Scholar: cf. Olzscha, K., Glotta 41, 1963, 70 ff.Google Scholar G. Radke, P-W Suppl. IX, s.v. Umbri.

⁸¹ On Gagé, J., Huit recherches sur les origines italiques et romaines, Paris, 1950Google Scholar, it will be enough to refer to Fraccaro, P., Gnomon 25, 1953, 14–18.Google Scholar But I found very useful Pighi, G. B., ‘Umbrica’, Mem. Accad. Bologna 4, 5, 1953Google Scholar; ‘De Atiediorum cletra’, Studi G. Funaioli, 1955, 373–7; ‘I nomi delle divinità iguvine’, Riv. Fil. Class. 32, 1954, 225–61.

⁸² The translation quoted in the text is by J. W. Poultney. For discussion cf. Coli, U., Il diritto pubblico degli Umbri e le tavole eugubine, Milano, 1958, 46.Google Scholar

⁸³ On this point I agree with U. Coli, Il diritto pubblico degli Umbri, 37–50: cf. also J. H. Waszink in his important discussion of Coli, , Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 29, 1961, 346.Google Scholar For the opposite view cf. most recently Camporeale, G., La terminologia magistratuale nelle lingue osco-umbre, Florence (Atti Accademia Colombaria), 1957, 80.Google Scholar In general cf. Rosenzweig, I., Ritual and Cults of Pre-Roman Iguvium, London, 1937Google Scholar; Devoto, G., Gli Antichi Italici 2nd ed., 1951, 247–80Google Scholar; Scardigli, P. G., ‘Studi sulla III^a e IV^a Tav. di Gubbio’, Studi Etr. 25, 1957, 267–301Google Scholar, and 26, 1958, 155–84, and C. Gioffredi's discussion of Coli, in Labeo 4, 1958, 351–8.Google Scholar One may compare Mazzarino, S., ‘Le droit des Etrusques’, Iura 12, 1961, 24–39.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Earlier discussions in Taubler, E., ‘Die umbrisch-sabellischen und die römischen Tribus’, Sitzungsb. Ak. Heidelberg, 1929–1930, 4Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., Bull. Comm. Arch. Com. 60, 1933, 228.Google Scholar Recent discussions: Lambert, J. N., Studi P. de Francisci I, 1956, 339–60Google Scholar; P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis 537; U. Coli, Diritto pubblico degli Umbri 69; Ernst Meyer, Römischer Staat, 461; Luzzatto, G. I., Dalla tribù allo Stato: Atti del Corwegno Internazionale, Accad. dei Lincei 1962, 193–234Google Scholar, with full bibl. cf. ibid. p. 191, my remark on Syll. ³ 167.

⁸⁵ Vb 13–15 is translated by Poultney (the translation is fairly uncontroversial; cf. the illuminating commentary by Buecheler, Umbrica p. 41): ‘The (decuvia) Casilas is required to give to the Atiedian Brothers each year six pounds of choice spelt from the Ager Casilus of Picus Martius, and dinner for the two men who come to fetch the spelt or else (to give) six asses.’ cf. Festus s.v. ‘sex Vestae sacerdotes’, p. 468 L.

⁸⁶ Vetter, E., Handbuch der Ital. Dialekte I, 70.Google Scholar Contra Heurgon, J., Étude sur les inscriptions osques de Capoue dites Iuvilas, Paris, 1942, 72Google Scholar: ‘à Capouela population, lors de certaines fetes qui recevaient de là leur nom, se groupait en quincuries.’ I cannot follow Coli, Diritto pubblico degli Umbri, 51–68. cf. also Vetter, E., Jahresh. Oesterr. Archäol. Inst. 39, 1952, Beiblatt, 98–102.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ von Blumenthal, A., Die iguvinischen Tafeln 1931, 38–40Google Scholar, substantially followed by Pisani, Lingue dell'Italia antica, 197, and now, changing his earlier interpretation, by Devoto, , Studi Etruschi 22, 1952, 169–73.Google Scholar For the difficulties see Poultney, Bronze Tables 192. Another suggestion by G. Radke, P-W Suppl. IX, 1806, s.v. Umbri. Memorable the interpretation by Schulze, W., ‘Lat. Eigenn.’, Abh. Göttingen, 1904, 543–7.Google Scholar cf. now also A. Ernout, Dialect ombrien 63.

⁸⁸ A useful list of such cults in Westrup, C. W., Rev. Int. Droits Antiq. 3, 1, 1954, 446.Google Scholar For the Fabii Münzer in P-W s.v. Fabius, 1740. On the Potitii cf. now the revolutionary thesis by van Berchem, D., ‘Hercule Melqart à l'Ara Maxima’, Rend. Pontif. Acc. Arch. 32, 1959–1960, 61–8Google Scholar, supported by A. Piganiol, Hommages à A. Grenier, 1261–1264.

⁸⁹ S. Weinstock in P-W s.v. Titii Sodales. cf. Mommsen, , Ges. Schriften IV, 34 (1886).Google Scholar The evidence on the Luperci in Marbach, P-W s.v.

⁹⁰ JRS XXXV, 1945, 30–48.

⁹¹ Hülsen, C., Rend. Pant. Acc. Rom. Archeol. n.s. 2, 1923–1924, 83–6.Google Scholar cf. in general B. Kübler in P-W s.v. Patres.

⁹² For the controversy on these points see bibl. in P. Catalano, Contributi allo studio del diritto inaugurale 455, but Cicero, De domo 14, 38Google Scholar, and Livy 6, 41, 6–10, are unambiguous evidence.

⁹³ The same patres who monopolized the right to appoint an interrex may also have acquired the right to be succeeded automatically or almost automatically by their sons in the Senate—thence the name ‘patricii’ (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. I, 228 n.). Alföldi has shown that the members of the aristocracy were originally members of the equestrian centuries and dressed like knights, Der frühromische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenabzeichen, 1952 (cf., however, the important remark by Meyer, Ernst, Gnomon 25, 1953, 186Google Scholar, and the criticisms by Altheim, F., Röm. Gesch. II, 1953, 429–443).Google Scholar

The position of the ‘equites’ in early Rome needs further research: Wiesner, J., Klio 36, 1943, 45–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the speculative Gagé, J., Rev. Hist. Droit Franç. Étr. 4, 33, 1955, 20–50Google Scholar; 165–94. For the early traditions of the ‘equites’ see also Weinstock, S., St. Mat. St. Rel. 13, 1937, 10–24.Google Scholar Ernst Meyer's acute suggestion that procum patricium must be understood as p. et p. (Röm. Staat, 491, n. 80) is not likely, cf. Hor., AP 342 ‘celsi … Ramnes’.

⁹⁴ On economic life during the monarchic period see Tamborini, F., Athenaeum 8, 1930, 299–328Google Scholar and 452–87; Combet-Farnoux, B., Mél. Éc. Rome 69, 1957, 7–44Google Scholar; Giunter, R. (Günther), Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, 1959, fasc. 1, 52–83.Google Scholar Memorable is G. Pasquali, ‘La grande Roma dei Tarquinii’ (1936), now in Terze Pagine Stravaganti, Florence, 1942, 1–24. On the alleged friendship with Massalia (Iustin. 43, 3; Strabo 4, 180), see Nenci, G., Rivista Studi Liguri 24, 1958Google Scholar, and Benoît, F., CRAI 1961, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ Blakeway, A., JRS XXV, 1935, 129–49.Google Scholar Blakeway must be quoted here to remind ourselves that his research made unreal even the best juridical definition of Roman monarchy such as that offered by Coli, U., Regnum, Rome, 1951.Google Scholar More is to be learnt from several articles by Bernardi, A., among which Athenaeum 31, 1953, 273–87Google Scholar; Rio. Storica Ital. 66, 954. 5–20. cf. also Pallottino, M., La Parola del Passato 47, 1956, 81–8Google Scholar; Bayet, J., Si. Etruschi 24, 1955, 3–17.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ G. Radke, P-W s.v. Vibenna (VII A, 2454–7). cf. Pareti, L., Studi Etruschi 5, 1931, 154–61Google Scholar; S. Mazzarino, Dalla monarchia allo stato repubblicano, 1945; von Lübtow, U., Das Römische Volk, 1955, 166–231Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., La vie quotidienne chez les Étrusques, 1961, 63–8.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ This is perhaps not irrelevant if one tries to assess Fabius Pictor's honesty as a historian: to the best of our knowledge he did not attribute any role to his family in the monarchic period, though he must have known (from the Luperci Fabiani) that the Fabii were as old as Romulus.

⁹⁸ Münzer, P-W s.v. Claudius, 2663. cf. Mommsen, , Röm. Forsch. I, 293Google Scholar; A. Alföldi, Antidoron E. Salin, 127 (with whom I do not agree).

⁹⁹ McCartney, E. S., ‘The military indebtedness of early Rome to Etruria’, MAAR I, 1917, 121–67Google Scholar; Meyer, E., Kleine Sckriften II, 231Google Scholar; Altheim, F., Röm. Geschichte II, 1953, 157–69.Google Scholar Smith, H. R. W., ‘Votive Religion at Caere’, Univ. California Public. Class. Arch. 4, 1, 1959, 13Google Scholar, speaks of ‘Roman army etruscanized by Servius Tullius’.

¹⁰⁰ This is a point which I should like to see discussed in the books about Etruria. Did the decline of monarchy precipitate a far more serious crisis of the hoplitic organization in Etruria than in Rome? On the decline itself Heurgon, J., Historia 6, 1957, 63–97Google Scholar; Lambrechts, R., Essai sur les magistratures des républiques étrusques, 1959, 22.Google Scholar cf. Vacano, O.-W. v., Die Etrusker in der Welt der Antike, 1957, 154–6Google Scholar, and Camporeale, G., Parola del Passato 13, 1958, 5–25Google Scholar, which I do not find convincing. On the Etruscans in Rome F. Schachermeyr, P–W s.v. Tarquinius (1932), is still the starting point for further research.

¹⁰¹ So for instance Nemirovskij, A. I., Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, 1959, fasc. 2, 153–65Google Scholar, now summarized in Bibl. Class. Orient. 8, 1963, 171–6. For an authoritative statement of the case for a date around 450 B.C., Nilsson, M. P., JRS XIX, 1929, 1–11.Google Scholar cf. Schönbauer, E., Historia 2, 1953, 21–49Google Scholar; Coli, U., Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 21, 1955, 181–222.Google Scholar The Roman tradition, for what it is worth, presupposes the presence of the phalanx at the well remembered battle of Lake Regillus: Dionys. 6, 10, 2. Other literature in Taylor, L. R., AJPhil. 78, 1957, 337–54.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Opuscula II, 287–306 (the two papers of 1931 and 1934). Cf. Scullard, H. H., A History of the Roman World 753–146 B.C., 3rd ed., 1961, 423–427.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Festus s.v. infra classem p. 100 L.; Gellius, , NA 6, 13Google Scholar, ‘Classici dicebantur non omnes qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, etc.’ My earlier hypothesis on these passages (1938) is justly criticized by P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis, 691–98. But the passages themselves cannot be dismissed, as Hugh Last did, JRS, 1945, 43. cf. Bernardi, A., Athenaeum 30, 1952, 3–38Google Scholar, and Ernst Meyer, Röm. Staat, 52, who gives the literature in full. I shall only mention Friezer, E., De ordening van Servius Tullius, diss. Amsterdam, 1957Google Scholar, and the discussion of it by van't Dack, E., Rev. Beige Phil. Hist. 36, 1958, 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁴ cf. for instance Sjöqvist, E., ‘Pnyx and Comitium’, Studies D. M. Robinson I, 1951, 400–11.Google Scholar There are interesting, if not persuasive, observations in Pisani, V., ‘Roma e Sparta’, Saggi di linguistica storica, Torino, 1959, 220–31.Google Scholar In general, Böethius, A., The Golden House of Nero, 1960, 11–25.Google Scholar On the Twelve Tables, Wieacker, F., Vom Römischen Recht 2 ed., 1961, 46.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ovid, , Fasti 6, 569Google Scholar (with J. G. Frazer's note); Val. Max. I, 8, 11; Pliny, , NH 8, 194 and 197Google Scholar; Plut., Quaest. Rom. 74, and De fort. Rom. 10. cf. Guarducci, M., ‘La fortuna di Servio Tullio in un' antichissima sors’, Rend. Pont. Acc. Rom. Arch. 25–6, 1949–1951, 23–32Google Scholar, and Mariotti, E. Peruzzi-Sc., La Parola del Passato 14, 1959, 212–20.Google Scholar I cannot accept anything in Gagé, J., Matronalia, 1963, 24–39Google Scholar, and ‘La mort de Servius Tullius et le char de Tullia’, Rev. Belge Phil. Hist. 41, 1963, 25–62; but there are some very good points in Dumézil, G., Hommages à J. Bidez et à Fr. Cumont, 1949, 77–84.Google Scholar Cf. Guarducci, M., La Parola del Passato 15, 1960, 50–53Google Scholar; Degrassi, A., Inscriptions II, 1963, 1070.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Notice Frezza, P., ‘Intorno alia leggenda dei Fabii al Cremera’, Studi C. Ferrini, Pavia-Milano 1946, 295–306Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., Latomus 18, 1959, 713–723.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Pallottino, M., ‘Fatti e leggende (moderne) sulla più antica storia di Roma’, Studi Etruschi 31, 1963Google Scholar, reached me when this article was in proof. It must be consulted especially for Pallottino's evaluation of the materials of S. Omobono. I am grateful to him, E. Gabba and F. Castagnoli for information.