the Livian consular list out of excerpts from the Epitome rather than out of the full work.

Hydatius furnishes further information. It is known that the Hydatian consular list was copied about 470 A.D. from the source of the Fasti Capitolini and of the Chronograph a. 354, but with the addition of a few statements and changes in names from the Epitome of Livy, probably indirectly (see further below). We note that in the early period of the republic Hydatius got his two years of decemviral rule and thirty-one years of military tribunes from his Fasti source probably by counting,2 while in the second period he has four years of anarchy instead of five of the Fasti, and must have had three years of military tribunes following, as Cassiodorus and Eutropius (the Mss omit the number), for he inserts eighteen years for the longer period of military tribunes, so as to equal the twenty-five years of non-consular space in his Fasti source. (This space is certain from the Chronograph a. 354, who gives twenty-five pairs of consuls.) The wrong numbers 4 and 3 are thus the occasion for the wrong reckoning here. It is not likely that Hydatius borrowed these numbers from Eutropius directly, nor yet that he used the Epitome of Livy directly for the few errors (discussed below) due to that work. Neither would such a view explain why Hydatius should get the same incorrect numbers from Eutropius as Cassiodorus did. It seems necessary to assume an earlier consular list drawn from the Epitome with some additional historical statements, and the chronology warped by use of Eutropius. In the period before 362 a.u.c. this work omitted even the mention of military tribunes. Hydatius could correct this by reference to his main source, the Fasti Consulares. Cassiodorus, having no such aid, had recourse to Eutropius, and inserted forty years of decemvirs to make his total right. With this explanation we may again

1 For the sake of brevity, I use Hydatius for Pseudo-Hydatius. The consular list of the Chronicon Paschale was translated, though with many errors, from an earlier, better version of Hydatius; cf. Mommsen, C.I.L. I, 1, p. 82 ff.

2 We are sure of thirty years for the Fasti, while to the year 316 a.u.c. Hydatius by mistake assigns two years of military tribunes.

hold that Cassiodorus wrote in good faith and perhaps had some ability, even if he had no great acquaintance with history. As we have seen that a proper combination of previously known sources explains all the numbers in Cassiodorus, we may now take up Reinhold's proofs of the Lost Chronicon.

(1) The years of anarchy: Livy, 6, 35, 10, and Per. Liv. 6 (add Lydus, de Mag. 1, 35; 38) give five years. The Chronograph a. 354 indicates five years also, which is thus assured for the original Fasti.1 We can lay no weight on Lydus. He used some easily accessible source, perhaps the Epitome or even the Periochae. The presence of five as the number of years in the Periochae indicates that it was in the Epitome also, though this may be a correction from the entire Livy or a Ms mistake; V and IV interchange easily. The authorities for four years of anarchy are Eutropius, 2, 3, 1; Festus, 2; Cassiodorus, 362; add Hydatius, Dio-Zonaras, 7, 24, 9, and Vopiscus, Tac. 1. I have shown above that Festus, Cassiodorus, and Hydatius drew directly or indirectly from Eutropius. The presence of the number in Vopiscus indicates only a common, well-known source. We have left Cassius Dio and Eutropius. Both used the Epitome, Dio seldom, Eutropius often. Both had other sources. A positive decision is thus impossible. The agreement of the last three authors seems to point to the Epitome as source; but if so, it is to the original Epitome and not to a later Chronicon.

(2) Length of decemviral rule is three years according to Livy, 3, 38-54, Per. Liv. 3, and probably Orosius, 2, 13, 2-5; add Cicero, de Rep. 2, 62, and Dionysius Hal. 10, 59-11, 2. Livy therefore drew the number 3 from the later annalists, and the Epitome retained it. For two years the authorities are Eutropius, 1, 18, and Festus, 2, 3; add Florus, 1, 17 (24, 1); Hieronymus a. 1565; Diodorus, 12, 24; Tacitus, Ann. I, I; Fasti Capitolini; Chronograph a. 354; and Hydatius. Festus and Hieronymus drew from Eutropius, the Chronograph and Hydatius from the Fasti source, to which the Annales Maximi, Diodorus, and Tacitus are in some way related. Florus and Eutropius alone are left to indicate that the Epitome of 1 Cf. Mommsen, C.I.L. I, 1, Fasti.

Livy gave only two years, and even these are not quite certain, as Eutropius was sometimes influenced by Florus, who certainly had another source besides the Epitome. Even if the two years did appear in the Epitome, it is only an easy Ms error for three.

(3) The omission of the earlier period of military tribunes was first made by Eutropius and copied indirectly by Cassiodorus, as I have shown above.

(4) For the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, Eutropius, 1, 8, 3, and Festus, 2, give twenty-four years; add Diodorus (in Eusebius). Livy, 1, 60, Per. Liv. I b, and others give twentyfive years. Festus used Eutropius, but we have no indication that Eutropius in turn ever used Diodorus or Eusebius. On the other hand, both Diodorus and Eutropius contain material from the annalists. This question is, however, inseparable from that of the total years of royal rule, 244 in Livy, etc., but 243 in Eutropius, Festus, Hieronymus (a variant), Lydus, de Mag. 1, 29, Orosius, 2, 4, 13, and Augustine, de Civ. Dei, 3, 15. This is a stately array, but Festus and Hieronymus certainly borrowed from Eutropius, as did Orosius probably. For Augustine, however, this explanation is not admissible, as Ay, p. 11, has shown,2 and certainly not for Lydus, who obtained this number, as his others, from some easily accessible source. The evidence seems to point to the number 243, and so perhaps to twenty-four for the Epitome. If so, it was an attempt to change the Livian 244 years of royal rule to the 243 of the Fasti by reducing the rule of Tarquinius Superbus to twenty-four years in accord with the annalistic version found in Diodorus.3

1 It appears both in Syncellus, p. 450, 1, and in the Armenian version; cf. Schoene, Eusebii Chron. I, p. 291. These numbers are unnecessarily emended. All seem right, including the total, except for Ancus, where read XXVII for XXXIII. Or if we emend to XXVIII, the reign of Tullus must be restored to the regular thirty-two years.

2 Cf. Reinhold's ungrounded assertion to the contrary, Woch. f. klass. Phil. XXII (1905), p. 576.

3 Cf. Mommsen, Röm. Chron. p. 142, that both the source of the Fasti and Cato must have assumed 243 years for the royal period, doubtless by omitting the year of interregnum after Romulus.

Periocha I b does not give the total length of royal rule, though I a, found in the same Mss, gives 255 years.1 This number finds its only parallel in Scaliger's Barbarus, 24 a, though it is there plainly a Ms error (the total should be 251, according to the numbers for the separate reigns). The mistake is original in that place, for it is inconceivable that a writer should borrow a false number, when he only needed to add seven numbers before him, and besides had added correctly on another page of the same work (42 a). Whether the number 255 was a simple insertion in Per. I a, from the Barbarus, or crowded out the correct number, it is impossible to say; it is surely an interpolation. As the Ms authority of Per. I b and I a is the same, this interpolation may cause us to doubt the Ms accuracy of twenty-five years for Tarquin in 1 b. If we do not, we must suppose the twenty-five a correction of the author from his knowledge of the entire Livy, as twenty-four seems more likely for the Epitome. In any case the agreement of Eutropius, Augustine, and Lydus does not seem to point to Reinhold's Lost Chronicon. In fact, all hope of defending that according to the original conception vanished with the proof that Cassiodorus and Festus were indebted to Eutropius for their chronology.2

I omit Reinhold's proof, founded on passages on the capture of Rome by the Gauls, as I have nothing to add to my handling in the U. of M. Studies, I, p. 183; there are so many authors showing similar peculiarities that it is necessary to assume Ms variations in the original Epitome of Livy. Neither is it necessary to discuss in full his three remaining proofs, as they are based solely on a comparison of Festus and Eutropius, in passages where Festus had combined statements from the Epitome with those of Eutropius. To illustrate the method, however, I will take the first set of Reinhold's passages, printing them in full:

1 Kornemann, p. 86, inclines to change to 243; Wagner, Phil. XLV, p. 518, to 244.

2 Cf. also Mommsen, Mon. Germ. Hist. auct. ant. II, p. xxviii, that Cassiodorus used Eutropius; and Wölfflin, Archiv, XIII, p. 73 ff., for Eutropius as source of Festus.

The portions of Festus and Orosius parallel to Eutropius are in italics, the portions directly indebted to the Epitome in small capitals. The thought taken from Florus by Festus is in heavy face type. One phrase in Festus is left doubtful, but the preceding and following words are from the Epitome, hence probably these also. The mistake of Eutropius, L. Ventidius, is avoided. The passage is an extremely good illustration of Festus's method of work. He combines his sources very loosely, brief phrases from one being inserted in or added to a version from another.

It remains to consider the proofs for this Lost Chronicon, which are supposed to be found in the Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy. I treat first those offered by Moore, who, on p. 255, expressed doubt as to the accuracy of Reinhold's results, precisely on their weak point, viz. the inclusion of Eutropius