the Tiber and the Arno. In this fertile district they founded 12 cities, and established a federal union of 12 states, which is the peculiar institution of the race.

Here they appear to have flourished for 7 or 8 centuries, receiving the expatriated Trojans and other similar accessions from their native shores, and keeping up a constant communication of commerce and art with the cognate Pelasgic races of Greece and other parts.

When Rome was first founded, her kings, laws, and institutions were Etruscan, and consequently of Asiatic origin, though the mass of the inhabitants were probably of the old Italian stock. About 5 centuries before Christ the Romans threw off the Etruscan yoke, and established the peculiar municipal institutions of the Indo-Germanic races. Eventually, after a contest of 2 centuries' duration, they conquered in succession the several states of the then old and decrepit Union, and based their colossal empire on the ruins of the parent nation of Etruria. Until the very latest time, however, Rome retained, both in her institutions and her arts, many peculiarities derived from her original rulers; and it is only by studying what remains of the older race that we can understand either the origin or meaning of those peculiar features.

The origin of Etruscan art is beyond all doubt Asiatic, and its original seat was some part of the countries between the Tigris and the western coast of Asia Minor. The same art, and from the same source, prevailed in Greece under the Pelasgi. In that country, as has been already explained, it ceased to exist as a separate style of art in very early times. It was there amalgamated with Egyptian and Assyrian forms under the Dorians during the 4 or 5 centuries that elapsed between the extinction of the pure Pelasgic style and the rise of true Hellenic art. The united style thus slowly ripened into that noble and chastened art which we have described in the last chapter.

In Etruria the old Asiatic style enjoyed no such advantages. It there was left without a rival or associate, to luxuriate in its own natural wildness; but it remained an exotic unsuited to the climate. It never blended itself with the art of the people among whom it was planted. Perhaps there was nothing with which it could blend itself. It thus bore no such fruit as in Greece, and could not maintain itself after the people which had introduced it had succumbed beneath the superior energy of their Italian conquerors.

TEMPLES.

As might be expected of a people of Asiatic origin, the Etruscans had no temples worthy of the name. At least no remains of any are now to be found, and those we read of were small, though probably highly ornamented, wooden fabrics, which of course perished early. On the other hand, the Etruscans were an essentially tomb-building race. Their religion took very much the character of ancestral worship, and it was this particular feature of it which left so strong an impress on the mythology of Greece and Rome. It was not an idolatry,

nor had it a distinct and privileged priesthood; consequently it was devoid of all tendency to the feelings which find their utterance in architectural splendour.

We know from Vitruvius that there were two classes of temples in Etruria the first circular, like their tombs, and dedicated to one god or demigod; the other rectangular, with 3 cells sacred to 3 deities. The appearance and arrangement of the rectangular temples is scarcely more than a mere antiquarian question. The restoration of the elevation from the description in Vitruvius is by no means easy or certain. My own belief is that it resembled that given in the annexed woodcut (No. 228), but it is not worth while here to enter into all the reasons

In fact, these

for this impression, which I have given elsewhere.' temples, as architectural objects, are so insignificant as hardly to deserve much consideration. The restored ground-plan explains their general arrangements, as commonly admitted by those who have studied. the subject.

The original Etruscan circular temple I believe to have been a mere circular cell with a porch. The Romans surrounded it with a peristyle, which probably did not exist in the original style. They magnified it afterwards into the most characteristic and splendid of all their temples, the Pantheon, whose portico is Etruscan in arrangement and design, and whose cell still more distinctly belongs to that style. The temple of Capitoline Jupiter was in all respects an Etruscan building; and most of the other temples of the Romans, though affecting a peristylar form, returned to the arrangements which had been adopted in the first instance from their neighbours and original rulers. There can be little doubt that the simpler Roman temples of circular form are derived from Etruscan originals. It would therefore be of great importance if we were able to illustrate the later buildings from existing remains of the older; but the fact is that such deductions as we may draw from the copies are our only source of information respecting the originals.

We know little of any of the civil buildings with which the cities

1 True Principles of Beauty in Art, p. 446 et seqq.

of Etruria were adorned, except the remains of their theatres and amphitheatres. The form of the latter was essentially Etruscan, and was adopted by the Romans, with whom it became their most characteristic and grandest architectural object. Of the amphitheatres of ancient Etruria only one now remains in so perfect a state as to enable us to judge of their forms. It is that at Sutri, which, however, being entirely cut in the rock, neither affords the means of judging of the mode of construction, nor enables us to determine the age. The general dimensions are 295 ft. in its greatest length, by 265 in breadth, and consequently much nearer a circle than those of the Romans usually were; but in other respects the arrangements are such as were usually found in after times.

Besides these we have numerous works of utility, but these belong more strictly to engineering than to architectural science. The city walls of the Etruscans surpass those of any other ancient nation in extent and beauty of workmanship. Their works of drainage and their bridges, as well as those of the kindred Pelasgians in Greece, still remain monuments of their industrial science and skill, which their successors never surpassed.

On the whole perhaps we are justified in asserting that the Etruscans were not an architectural people, and had no temples or palaces worthy of attention. At all events it is certain that nothing of the sort is now to be found even in ruins, and, were it not that the study of Etruscan art is a necessary introduction to that of Rome, it would hardly be worth while to try to gather together and to illustrate the few fragments and notices of it that remain.

TOMBS.

The tombs now found of the Etruscans may be divided into two classes: First, those cut in the rock, and resembling dwelling-houses; secondly, the circular tumuli, which latter are by far the most numerous and important class.

Each of these may be again subdivided into two kinds. The rockcut tombs include, firstly, those with only a façade on the face of the rock, and a sepulchral chamber within; secondly, those cut quite out of the rock, and standing free all round. To this class probably once belonged an immense number of tombs built in the ordinary way; but all these have totally disappeared, and consequently the class, as now under consideration, consists entirely of excavated examples.

The second class may be divided into those tumuli erected over chambers cut in the tufaceous rock which is found all over Etruria, and those which have chambers built above ground.

In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say which of these classes is the older. We know that the Egyptians buried in caves long before the Etruscans landed in Italy, and at the same time raised pyramids over rock-cut and built chambers. We know too that Abraham was buried in the cave of Machpelah in Syria. On the other hand, the tombs at Smyrna (woodcut No. 148), the treasuries of Mycenæ, the sepulchre of Alyattes, and many others, are proofs of the antiquity

of the tumuli, which moreover are found all over Europe and Asia, and appear to have existed from the earliest ages.

The comparative antiquity of the different kinds of tombs being thus doubtful, it will be sufficient for the purposes of the present work to classify them architecturally. It may be assumed, I believe, with safety, that all the modes which have been enumerated were practised by the Etruscans at a period very slightly subsequent to their migration into Italy.

Of the first class of the rock-cut tombs-those with merely a façade externally-the most remarkable group is that at Castel d'Asso. At this place there is a perpendicular cliff with hundreds of these tombs ranged along its face, like houses in a street. A similar arrangement is found in Egypt at Beni Hassan, and at Petra, and around all the more ancient cities of Asia Minor.

In Etruria they generally consist of one chamber lighted by the doorway only. Their internal arrangement appears to be an imitation of a dwelling chamber, with furniture, like the apartment itself, cut out of the rock. Externally they have little or no pretension to architectural decoration. It is true that, executed at a much later period, and under Roman domination, some tombs are found adorned with frontispieces of a debased Doric or Ionic order; but such cannot be taken as specimens of Etruscan art, but rather of that corruption of style sure to arise from a conquered people trying to imitate the arts of their rulers.

The general appearance of the second class of rock-cut tombs will be understood from

the woodcut No. 229, representing two monuments at Castel d'Asso. Unfortunately neither is complete, nor is there any complete example known to exist of this class. Perhaps the apex was added structurally; and these, like all such things in Etruria, have perished. Perhaps, if cut in the rock, the terminals were slender carved ornaments, and consequently liable to injury. They are usually restored by antiquaries in the shape of rectilinear pyramids, but there is no authority for this as far as I know. On the contrary, it is more in accordance with what we know of the style and its affinities to suppose that the termination of these monuments, even if added in masonry, was curvilinear.

229.

U

One remarkable thing about the rock-cut tombs is the form of their

mouldings, which differ from any found elsewhere in Europe. Two of these are shown in the annexed woodcut (No. 230). They are very numerous and in great variety, but do not in any instance show the slightest trace of a cornice, nor of any tendency thereto. In place of this, on the contrary, we find only a reverse moulding altogether. It is probable that similar forms will be found in Asia Minor, and something resembling them occurs at Persepolis and elsewhere. It is remarkable that this feature did not penetrate to Rome, and that no trace of its influence is found there, as might be expected.'

230. Mouldings from Tombs at Castel d'Asso.

TUMULI.

The simplest and therefore perhaps the earliest monument which can be erected, by a people who reverence their departed relatives, over the graves of the dead, is a mound of earth or a cairn of stones, and such seems to have been the form among the Tartar races of mankind from the earliest days to the present hour. It is scarcely necessary to remark how universal such monuments were among the ruder tribes of Northern Europe. The Etruscans seem to have improved upon this by surrounding the base with a podium, or supporting wall of masonry. This not only defined its limits and gave it dignity, but enabled entrances to be made in it, and otherwise converted it from a mere hillock into a monumental structure. It is usually supposed that this basement was an invariable part of all Etruscan tumuli, and when it is not found it is assumed that it has been removed, or that it is buried in the rubbish of the mound. No doubt such a stone basement may easily have been removed by the peasantry, or buried, but it is by no means clear that this was invariably the case. It seems that the enclosure was frequently a circle of stones or monumental steles, in the centre of which the tumulus stood. The monuments have hitherto been so carelessly examined and restored, that it is difficult to arrive at anything like certainty with regard to the details of their structure. Nor can we draw any certain conclusion from a comparison with other tumuli of cognate races. The description by Herodotus of the tomb of Alyattes at Sardis, that by Pausanias of those of Epytus in Arcadia, and the appearances of those at Mycena and Orchomenus, might be interpreted either way; but those at Smyrna, and a great number at least of those in Etruria, have the circle of stones as a supporting base to the mound.

1 Even in more modern times I know of no building showing a trace of these forms except the tomb of Theodoric at Ravenna. This, however, is Etruscan both in form and detail,

as will be seen farther on.

See woodcut No. 90, which might almost be taken for a representation of an Etruscan tomb.