most probable that the destruction of Alba was the work of the Latins, who rose against her supremacy; whether in this case the Romans received the Albans among themselves, and thus became their benefactors instead of destroyers, must ever remain a matter of uncertainty.  That Alban families were transplanted to Rome cannot be doubted, any more than that the Prisci Latini from that time constituted a compact state; if we consider that Alba was situated in the midst of the Latin districts, that the Alban mount was their common sanctuary, and that the grove of Ferentina was the place of assembly for all the Latins, it must appear more probable that Rome did not destroy Alba, but that it perished in an insurrection of the Latin towns, and that the Romans strengthened themselves by receiving the Albans into their city.

Whether the Albans were the first that settled on the Caelian hill, or whether it was previously occupied, cannot be decided.  The account which places the foundation of the town on the Caelius in the reign of Romulus suggests that a town existed there before the reception of the Albans; but what is the authenticity of this account?  A third tradition represents it as an Etruscan settlement of Caeles Vibenna.  This much is certain, that the destruction of Alba greatly contributed to increase the power of Rome.  There can be no doubt that a third town, which seems to have been very populous, now existed on the Caelius and on a portion of the Esquiliae:  such a settlement close to other towns was made for the sake of mutual protection.  Between the two more ancient towns there continued to be a marsh or swamp, and Rome was protected on the south by stagnant water; but between Rome and the third town there was a dry plain.  Rome also had a considerable suburb toward the Aventine, protected by a wall and a ditch, as is implied in the story of Remus.  He is a personification of the plebs, leaping across the ditch from the side of the Aventine, though we ought to be very cautious in regard to allegory.

The most ancient town on the Palatine was Rome; the Sabine town also must have had a name, and I have no doubt that, according to common analogy, it was Quirium, the name of its citizens being Quirites.  This I look upon as certain.  I have almost as little doubt that the town on the Caelian was called Lucerum, because when it was united with Rome, its citizens were called, Lucertes (Luceres).  The ancients derive this name from Lucumo, king of the Tuscans, or from Lucerus, king of Ardea; the latter derivation probably meaning that the race was Tyrrheno-Latin, because Ardea was the capital of that race.  Rome was thus enlarged by a third element, which, however, did not stand on a footing of equality with the two others, but was in a state of dependence similar to that of Ireland relatively to Great Britain down to the year 1782.  But although the Luceres were obliged to recognize the supremacy of the two older