About the Septimontium itself we have just enough information to divine its nature, but without details. The word is used by Varro both in a topographical and a religious sense: ‘Ubi nunc est Roma, erat olim Septimontium; nominatum ab tot montibus, quos postea urbs muris comprehendit[1158].’ Here he implies that the old name for Rome was Septimontium; but this is only a guess based on the name of the festival: ‘Dies Septimontium nominatur ab his septem montibus, in quis sita urbs est; feriae _non populi sed montanorum_ modo, ut Paganalia, quae sunt aliquoius pagi[1159].’ The _montes_ here meant are the three divisions of the Palatine, viz. Palatium, Cermalus, Velia; the three of the Esquiline, viz. Mons Oppius, Mons Cispius, and the Fagutal, together with the lower ground of the Subura[1160]. I believe that Mommsen is right in thinking that these were never political divisions—in other words, that they were not originally distinct communities[1161], but probably religious divisions of a city which began on the Palatine, and gradually took in new ground on the Esquiline. The same process can be traced at Falerii, and at Narce a few miles above it; what we seem to see is not the accretion of villages—not συνοικισμός—but the extension of a city from one strong position to another[1162]. This is especially clear at Narce, where it is distinctly proved by the pottery found in the excavations, that the hill (Monte li Santi) subsequently added to the original city was not co-eval with the latter as a settlement; i. e. that it was the absorption by an older settlement of a probably uninhabited position which here took place, and not the synoecizing of distinct political communities[1163]. In the later Rome the _montani_ of the seven districts, together with the _pagani_, or inhabitants of what had originally been the farm-country around Rome, formed the united city[1164]. It is most interesting to find that the earliest divisions, i. e. of the _montes_, were imitated in the foundation of some colonies—we should find them probably in many if we had the necessary information[1165]. All we know of the cult of the _montani_ on this day is as follows: (1) There was a sacrifice on the Palatium (which seems to have been the first in dignity of the _montes_) by the Flamen Palatualis[1166]; but we do not know to what deity, and can only guess that it was Pales, or Palatua[1167]. (2) On this day no carts or other vehicles drawn by beasts of burden were allowed in the city, as we learn from Plutarch, who asks the reason of this, and gives some quaint answers[1168]. But the explanations are useless to us, and we cannot even guess whence Plutarch drew his knowledge of the fact, unless it was from personal observation. Let us remember, however, that this was a feast of _montani_: is it not likely that this was a survival from a time when the farm-waggons of the _pagani_ really never ascended to the ‘hills’? PRID. ID. DEC. (DEC. 12). EN.