by her warlike policy, was perpetually exposing herself to serious reverses, to vindictive attacks, and to formidable combinations of injured neighbours: she was frequently staking all her fortunes on the cast of a single die. In order to give her the best chance of success at critical emergencies of this kind, (161) it was desirable that all the national forces should be collected and wielded by a single strong hand: without a dictator, she would probably have succumbed to a powerful foe in some moment of weakness. The danger of such an appointment consisted in the fear lest the dictator should convert his temporary into a perpetual office, should refuse to lay down his authority at the expiration of his appointed term, and should constitute himself a despot. The sense of public duty, and the force of constitutional opinion, and respect for the laws, sufficed in Rome to save the Republic from this danger, until the times when the existence of large standing armies, and the vast acquisitions of territory, had disorganized the ancient system of government.(162) The name dictator is evidently the active substantive from dicto, and alludes to the peremptory power of the office :(163) it was probably

(161) Thus Appian, B.C., i. 3, says that the dictator was appointed ἐπὶ ταῖς φοβερωτάταις χρείαις. Other passages which assign this character to the dictatorship are collected by Becker, ib. p. 154. Polybius, iii. 87, calls the dictator an αὐτοκράτωρ στρατηγός; making the military character of the office its prominent feature. Plutarch, Camill. 18, speaking of the conduct of the Romans before the Battle of the Allia, says: kαÍTOL TρÓTEоÓV γε καὶ πρὸς ἐλάττονας ἀγῶνας εἵλοντο πολλάκις μονάρχους, οὓς δικτάτωρας καλοῦσιν, οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες ὅσον ἐστὶν εἰς ἐπισφαλῆ καιρὸν ὄφελος μια χρωμένους γνώμῃ πρὸς ἀνυπεύθυνον ἀρχὴν ἐν χερσὶ τὴν δίκην ἔχουσαν εὐτακτεῖν. Volumnius is described by Livy, x. 21, as pointing out to an assembly of the people, in 296 B.C., the necessity of taking effective measures against a dangerous confederacy of Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians, and Gauls, and as declaring that if they are not prepared to elect the best general as consul, he will himself instantly name a dictator.

(162) On the advantages of the Roman institution of a dictator, see Machiavel, Disc. i. 34, and on the difference between the dictatorship and the decemvirate, ib. 35.

(163) See Becker, ib. p. 161-2. The Greek word dikтάTwp, being borrowed from the Latin, and not like "raro for consuls, translated, makes dixTáTapos, like the Latin, not diтáтopos, according to the Greek analogy, in the genitive case. The word diкTaTwрevw is used by Dio Cass. xliii. 1, and the word dikтaтwpeía, for dictatura, by Dion. Hal. vi. 22. The dictator was sometimes called magister populi, and this title was assigned to him in the sacred books, Cic. Rep. i. 40, and other passages

an institution not peculiar to Rome, but common to other of the hardy military republics of Latium and Southern Italy.(164) The appointment by the single consul was doubtless owing, not to the accidental cause mentioned by Dionysius, but to the military character of the office, and to the necessity of a sudden and uncontrolled choice for meeting an unforeseen danger. It is by no means improbable that the mode of appointment may have varied in early times: but all the accounts which have descended to us describe the appointment as made by a single consul or consular tribune. That a dictator appointed for formal and ceremonial purposes (165) should have abdicated as soon as his special functions were performed, is not extraordinary; but that so many dictators should have spontaneously laid down absolute power, even at the moment of victory, and often before their term of office was expired, is a remarkable proof of the empire of law over the minds of the Romans, and of their fixed constitutional habits, even in early times. (166) If the Athenians

in Becker, ib. p. 163. Becker considers this to have been the original name of the office. Licinius Macer however conceived the officer to have been named dictator from the beginning; Dion. Hal. v. 74.

(164) A dictator of the Latins was mentioned by Cato, Krause, p. 106. Macer supposed the Romans to have borrowed the name of the office from the Albans. The king elected in war by the magistrates among the Lucanians bore a close resemblance to the Roman dictator, both in the character of the office and the mode of election: Strabo, vi. 2, § 13.

(165) Concerning the dictators of this class, see Becker, ib. p. 175. (166) Dr. Arnold, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 143, appears to me to be mistaken in supposing that the dictator was liable, like the consuls, to be arraigned, after the expiration of his office, for any acts of tyranny which he might have committed during its continuance.' The power of the dictator was originally absolute, and not subject to appeal; and such, (notwithstanding the passage of Festus, optima lex, p. 198,) it probably always remained (see Becker, ib. p. 166-70). Considering the shortness of the term of office, this irresponsibility would have been nugatory, if it had not been continuous. The security to the public was derived from the limited duration of the office; not from any subsequent legal remedy against the officer. Dionysius speaks of the dictator as αὐτοκράτορι καὶ ἀνυπευθύνῳ χρώμενος ἐξουσίᾳ, vii. 56. Coriolanus is indeed described by Dionysius as having been made orparnyдs avтокρáȧTwp of the Volscians, viii. 11, which corresponds to the Roman dictator. When Tullus Attius wishes afterwards to accuse Coriolanus before a Volscian assembly, he calls upon him to resign his office and render an account of his generalship: KENEVE T ἀποθέμενον αὐτὸν τὴν ἀρχὴν λόγον υπέχειν τῆς στρατηγίας; vii. 57. These words imply that the abdication of the office is a condition precedent to rendering an account; but the whole narrative is probably fictitious.

had reposed sufficient confidence in any of their leading statesmen or generals, to induce them to invest him with dictatorial power at periods of national danger, it is possible that they might have maintained their Republic, first against Lacedæmon, and afterwards against Philip, and that this bright luminary of Greece might thus have been preserved for a longer time from extinction. The first dictator, Larcius, is described by Dionysius as behaving with remarkable moderation, as abstaining from all stretches of power, and as resigning his office before the six months had expired :(167) thus serving as an ideal type of the conduct of subsequent dictators, who lived in an age of contemporary registration, and of whom authentic historical accounts were preserved.

The battle of the Lake Regillus, with its personal combats of the chieftains, and the marvellous appearance of the twin sons of Jupiter, resembles rather a battle in the Iliad, or in the romances of chivalry, than a conflict between two armies, on which great political interests depend. This character is well displayed in Mr. Macaulay's ballad on this subject, where the incident of the divine brethren, in particular, is introduced with great poetical effect. In memory of this event, the mark of a horse's foot, supposed to be that of Castor's horse, was shown, in later times, on the rock near Regillus. (168) Small circular marks on the sandstone, in parts of Herefordshire, are now called the prints of St. Elizabeth's horse, with an explanatory legend; and Grimm mentions similar geological legends of marks upon rocks. (169) The belief as to the appearance of Castor and Pollux at battles is doubtless of Grecian origin: thus they are said to have enabled the Locrians to conquer the Crotoniats in a great battle, and the news of the victory reached Lacedæmon on the same day.(170) The story of the twin gods bringing the news of

(167) Compare the interesting remarks of Dionysius, v. 77, upon the constitutional character of the Roman dictatorship.

(168) Cic. de Nat. D. iii. 5.

(169) Deutsche Mythologie, p. 574, ed. 1.; above, vol. i. p. 350, n. 215. (170) See Zenob. ii. 17, and the note in the Göttingen edition. Another version of the story is given in Strabo, vi. 1, § 10, where Locri and Rhe

VOL. II.

E

the victory on the same day to Rome, and washing their horses at the fountain of Juturna, was likewise told of the battle of Pydna, at which Perseus was defeated by P. Æmilius ;(171) and the intelligence of the great victory of Marius over the Cimbri at the Campus Raudius, near Verona, is also reported to have been divulged at Rome by the same divine informants. (172) These two battles are as historical, and as certainly took place, as the battles of Pavia, Blenheim, and Austerlitz. The connexion of the marvellous story of Castor and Pollux with the battle of Regillus does not therefore prove that the battle itself is a fiction; the intrusion of marvellous incidents does not discredit the main story, where it rests upon clear contemporary evidence.(173)

Livy represents Tarquinius Superbus as having fought at Regillus; and this, although Dionysius substitutes his sons Titus and Sextus for him, was doubtless the received account. Both historians however describe him as flying to Cuma for refuge after the battle, and dying there, shortly after

gium (and not Croton) are the two contending states, and the news is carried to Olympia, not Lacedæmon. The story is told in explanation of the proverb, ἀληθέστερα τῶν ἐπὶ Σάγρᾳ, and has no claim to be considered historical. For a story of two Messenians named Gonippus and Panormus, who simulated the twin gods, see Pausan. iv. 27, § 1.

(171) Cic. N. D. ii. 2; Florus, ii. 12; Val. Max. i. 8, § 1; Plin. N. H. vii. 22. The true account of the arrival at Rome of the news of the battle of Pydna, is given in Livy, xlv. 1, and (from him) by Plut. Emil. Paull. 24. (172) Florus, iii. 3; Plin. ib.

(173) Niebuhr says of the Battle of Regillus: This battle, as thrust into history, stands without the slightest result or connexion. The victory is complete yet, after several years of inaction, a federal treaty sets its seal to the perfect independence and equality of the Latins; the very point to decide which the battle was fought; Hist. vol. i. p. 556. The battle of Regillus is represented both by Dionysius and Livy, as fought for the purpose of restoring Tarquin to his throne, and of forcing him back upon the Romans. Dionysius calls the war against the Latins à rupavvikos πόλεμοςὁ πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους συστὰς πόλεμος; ν. 70, vi. 17, 21. One important result of the battle is conceived to be, that this attempt is frustrated, and that Tarquin is driven into exile at Cumæ, where he dies. The Latins are likewise described by Dionysius as sending envoys to Rome, in order to beg to be restored to their condition of subjects. See above, p. 32. There is no difficulty in connecting the Battle of Regillus with the received narrative; but it cannot be reconciled with the account of the treaty with Porsena in Pliny.

wards, under the protection of Aristodemus the despot. They only differ by one year as to the time of this event, placing it either in 496 or 495 B.C., about fourteen years after the expulsion of the kings. If however we suppose him, according to the ordinary account, to have been the son of Tarquinius Priscus and Tanaquil, he would have been at least 110 years old at the time of his death: an age improbable in itself and quite inconsistent with the received accounts of his life. (174) The death of Tarquin at Cuma is considered by Niebuhr as a certain historical fact; and we shall find the presence of members of the Tarquinian party in that city alluded to in the subsequent history. Even however with respect to this event, the accounts were not uniform; for some histories represented him as ending his days with his wife at Tusculum. (175)

§ 14 The foregoing analysis shows that the received history of the first fourteen years of the commonwealth has, like that of the regal period, a legendary character; and that the details and circumstances of the events are variously narrated, and appear to have been derived from an uncertain and fluctuating tradition. Still it might be possible that the main facts should rest on authentic contemporary registration: the nucleus of the history might be sound, though it might be invested with a fictitious covering. In order to determine how far there is any trace of the existence of a uniform series of events which, though meagre and scanty, might have served as a sure support to the oral traditions, we will place in juxtaposition the principal occurrences, as they are arranged under the successive consulships by Dionysius and Livy, from the first to the fourteenth year of the Republic:

(174) See above, ch. xi. § 25, 38. In vi. 11, Dionysius says that Tarquinius Superbus must have been 90 years old at the battle of Regillus; this supposes him to be the grandson of Tarquinius Priscus ; but if he is assumed to be the son, and to have been 27 years old at his father's death, he would have been born in 606 B.C., and would have been 110 years old in 496 B.C. Compare Dion. Hal. iv. 7. Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. n. 1229, reckons his age at 120 years.

(175) Eutrop. i. 11. Above, p. 21, n. 70.