and leaving the sons with her former husband. These marriages were, he says, very numerous, and the result was, that nearly all the Roman women in the Latin cities returned to their fathers, while only two Latin wives of Roman husbands returned to Latium.(97) Dionysius does not explain how the Roman Senate was able to enforce a decree of this kind in the Latin cities, with which only a short truce existed, and against which the war was about to be renewed. § 11 After the expiration of the year's armistice, a great battle between the Romans and the Latins was fought at the lake Regillus, in the Tusculan territory. (98) As in the battle at which Brutus and Aruns Tarquin were killed, it was distinguished by the personal part which the chiefs on each side took in it. Like the heroes in the Iliad, they appear rather as combatants than as captains. (99) According to Livy, the dethroned king Tarquin fought on the side of the Latins, and was personally engaged with Postumius, the Roman dictator, by whom he was wounded.(100) Dionysius(101) censures Licinius Macer and Gellius (97) Dion. Hal. vi. 1. Ruperti remarks on this account: Fortasse hoc figmentum est hominis Græculi Romanis adulaturi.' It seems however extremely improbable that any of the events which Dionysius relates were invented by him. In assigning causes, reasons, motives, and connexion, in dramatizing facts, and in fabricating speeches, he doubtless exercised an unlimited discretion. Dr. Schmitz, art. Dionysius, in Dr. Smith's Dict. of Anc. Biogr., remarks that it is a groundless assertion, which some critics have made, that Dionysius invented facts, and thus introduced direct forgeries into history.' See above, vol. i. p. 245, n. 4. (98) Nibby, Analisi, vol. iii. p. 9, places lake Regillus at a dried crater called Pantano Secco, four miles from Frascati. This however is a mere conjecture. Postumius the dictator is described by Dionysius as making a long harangue to his soldiers, which occupies four chapters; vi. 6—9. (99) On the personal conflicts of the generals at Regillus, see Niebuhr, Hist. vol. i. p. 557. (100) Tarquinius Superbus, quamquam jam ætate et viribus erat gravior, equum infestus admisit; Livy, ii. 19. (lor) vi. ll. He designates them as οὐδὲν ἐξητακότες οὔτε τῶν εἰκότων OUTε TV duvaTwv. In c. 4, Dionysius mentions that some writers make Oct. Mamilius, not the son-in-law of Tarquin, but the son of his son-in-law; that is, his grandson. Mamilius is represented as the son-in-law of Tarquin both by Dionysius and Livy: see Dion. Hal. iv. 45; Livy i. 49; as well as by Victor, de Vir. Ill. c. 16; and it does not appear what chronological difficulty could have suggested the expedient of placing him a generation lower. The husband of the daughter of Tarquin II. might well be present at the battle of Regillus, about the fifteenth year of the Republic. for giving the same account; he points out the improbability of a man aged ninety years taking part in such a conflict; and substitutes Sextus and Titus, his two sons. Livy says nothing of Titus on this occasion: Sextus, according to his account, had been already killed at Gabii, at the time of his father's dethronement. (102) Mamilius, the Latin general, and Titus Æbutius, the Roman master of the horse, challenge one another to personal combat, and are both wounded. Mamilius is at last killed by T. Herminius, the Roman lieutenant, who is himself mortally wounded while he is spoiling the dead body. Marcus Valerius, the brother of Publicola, likewise falls in the battle: the dictator alone, of the chiefs on either side, escapes unhurt. (108) Titus Tarquin is described by Dionysius as wounded early in the battle; while Sextus, when he sees that the Romans are victorious, seeks death amidst the ranks of the enemy. From this great defeat, the Latins, according to the same historian, only carried away 10,000 men out of 40,000 infantry and 3000 cavalry.(104) At this battle, two youthful horsemen, larger and more beautiful than mortal men, were seen by Postumius, leading on the Roman cavalry, and driving the Latins before their spears. Two (102) i. 60. (103) Ergo etiam prœlium aliquanto quam cetera gravius atque atrocius fuit. Non enim duces ad regendam modo consilio rem adfuere, sed suismet ipsis corporibus dimicantes, miscuere certamina; nec quisquam procerum ferme hac aut illâ ex acie sine vulnere, præter dictatorem Romanum, excessit; Livy, ii. 19. (104) See Dion. Hal. vi. 2—12; Livy, ii. 19-20. Different circumstances with respect to this battle, and a different master of the horse, are mentioned by Florus, i. 11: Apud Regilli lacum dimicatur diu marte vario, donec Postumius ipse dictator signum in hostes jaculatus est (novum et insigne commentum), ut inde peteretur cursu. Cossus equitum magister exuere frenos imperavit (et hoc novum), quo acrius incurrerent. This battle therefore furnishes Florus with two military origins. Frontinus, Strateg. ii. 8, § 1, probably with equal truth, attributes the origin of the custom of throwing a standard into the enemy's ranks, in order to be recovered, to Servius Tullius, in a battle with the Sabines. See Livy, iii. 70, for an early mention of the same practice. The circumstance of taking off the horses' bridles in this battle is also given by Victor, de Vir. Illustr. c. 16. Plutarch, Cor. 3, states that Coriolanus first served in this battle; and that he distinguished himself by saving the life of a wounded Roman, for which he received from the dictator a chaplet of oak. This is borrowed from the speech of Coriolanus to the Roman ambassadors, in Dion. Hal. viii. 29. horsemen, of similar appearance, brought tidings of the victory to Rome, and dismounted at the spring near the temple of Vesta, where they washed themselves after the fatigue of the day: they then disappeared, and could be nowhere found. On receiving next day the despatches of the dictator, with the account of the battle, the authorities in the city perceived that the horsemen who had appeared to Postumius, and those who had been seen in Rome were both the visible forms of the Dioscuri. Of this miraculous apparition of the divine brothers in Rome, there are (says Dionysius) many evidences. These are the temple of the Dioscuri, which was built by the city in the forum, the place where the gods were seen; the fountain near it, held sacred to them, and still called by their name; and costly sacrifices, which the people annually celebrate, by the agency of the principal knights, on the ides of Quintilis, the anniversary of the victory. Besides these, there is after the sacrifice the procession of all those who receive a horse from the public, arranged in tribes and centuries, riding in military array, as if they were returning from battle, crowned with olive branches, and habited in purple trabeæ. Starting from a temple of Mars outside the city, they pass through the forum, in front of the temple of the Dioscuri, sometimes to the number of 5000, wearing the badges of honour received from the generals in battle; they form a splendid sight, and one worthy of the greatness of the Roman empire. Such are the things said and done by the Romans, in relation to the alleged appearance of the Dioscuri; and hence we may learn how the men of that time were beloved by the gods, with many other things of importance.'(105) (105) vi. 13. The appearance of Castor and Pollux at the battle is mentioned by Cic. Nat. Deor. ii. 2: in nostrâ acie Castor et Pollux ex equis pugnare visi sunt; and their appearance both at the battle and at Rome, in Tusc. Disp. i. 12. Plutarch, Coriol. 3, mentions both appearances, as well as the temple and fountain, and he states that the ides of July (Quintilis) are, for this reason, sacred to the Dioscuri. Florus, i. 11, says that Castor and Pollux appeared on white horses at the battle, and that the dictator vowed them a temple. Victor, de Vir. Ill. c. 16, attempts to soften the marvel by saying that the dictator having seen two young men on white horses at the battle, and not being able to find them, in order to confer military honours on them, assumed them to be Castor and Pollux, and built § 12 On the morrow of the battle, a Volscian army arrives to assist the Latins, and the general attempts to deceive Postumius; but the latter detects the stratagem, and the Volscians withdraw. (106) Shortly afterwards, envoys from the Latin cities come to Rome, protesting that the Latins had been misled by selfish demagogues, and supplicating, in the most earnest and humble manner, that they may be received as allies and subjects of the Romans. Hereupon a debate takes place in the Senate Larcius advises a simple renewal of the treaty with the Latins, as it existed before the war. Servius Sulpicius recommends the confiscation of half their territory, and its occupation by Roman colonists: a still severer course is counselled by Sp. Cassius: he wishes that their towns should be razed to the ground, and that the population should be treated like that of Alba.(107) The Senate decide in favour of the proposition of them a temple. Frontinus, Strat. i. 11, § 8, goes one step farther-for he describes it as a pious fraud of Postumius. A. Postumius prælio, quo cum Latinis conflixit, oblatâ specie duorum in equis juvenum, animos suorum erexit, Pollucem et Castorem adesse dicens, ac sic prælium restituit.' The victory of the Romans at the battle of Regillus is attributed to the assistance of Castor and Pollux, by Val. Max. i. 8, § 1. Compare Ovid, Fast. i. 707; Minuc. Felix, c. 7; Latinus Pacatus, in Paneg. c. 39. Plutarch, Emil. Paul. 25, adds another marvel belonging to this legend; namely, that when the divine brothers announced the news of the victory, they laid their hands on the beard of one man who appeared to doubt the report, and, in confirmation of its truth, changed its colour from black to red: whence he received the name of Ahenobarbus. This story is intended to account for the name of the important family of the Ahenobarbi, to which the Emperor Nero belonged. Suet. Ner. i. tells the story, but in general terms, and without referring it to the battle of Regillus. It may be observed that Castor and Pollux are supposed to appear at Rome before there was time for a mortal horseman to bring the news of the victory from the field of battle. Concerning the temple of the Dioscuri, which was called the temple of Castor, see Becker, vol. i. p. 222, 298. Livy, who dislikes supernatural incidents, makes no mention of the appearance of the divine brothers, and merely says that the dictator vowed a temple to Castor, ii. 20, the dedication of which he mentions in a subsequent year; c. 42. A joke of M. Bibulus, the colleague of Julius Cæsar in the edileship, refers to this temple. He said that his case resembled that of Pollux; for that as the temple of the two divine brothers was called only the temple of Castor, so the edileship, at their joint expense, was called the edileship of Cæsar; Suet. Cæsar, 10; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 8. (106) Dion. Hal. vi. 14-17. Livy, ii. 22, mentions the intention of the Volscians to send succours to the Latins, and of the haste of the dictator to engage with the Latins before the Volscian army could arrive. (107) Concerning the treatment of Alba, see above, c. xi. § 16. Larcius, making certain conditions with respect to the release of prisoners, the restoration of fugitives, and the expulsion of the Tarquinian exiles. Tarquin himself, being excluded from the neighbouring states, flies to Cumæ, where he obtains an asylum from Aristodemus Malacus, and in a short time dies there at an advanced age. After his death nothing more is heard of the attempts of the Tarquinian family to recover the throne of Rome. These later events are given according to the narrative of Dionysius. (108) Livy says nothing of the Latin embassy; and he separates the death of Tarquin from the battle of Regillus by four years, (109) according to the account which he follows, and by one year according to the other account. The battle of Regillus is placed by Dionysius in the consulship of Postumius and Virginius, 496 B.C., whereas it is placed by Livy three years earlier, in the consulship of Æbutius and Veturius, 499 B.C. Livy however mentions that according to some of his authorities, the battle fell in the consulship of Postumius and Virginius: adding that Postumius abdicated his consulship and was made dictator, because the fidelity of his colleague was suspected; by which is probably meant that he was supposed to be a partisan of the Tarquins. (110) A different reason for the appointment of Postumius is assigned by Dionysius, and no suspicion is cast by him upon the loyalty of Virginius. (111) § 13 The entire narrative of the first period of the consular government, during the contest with the exiled party, down to the death of Tarquin, is so destitute of external attestation, and presents so many internal difficulties of incoherence and impro (108) Dion. Hal. vi. 18-21. In vii. 2, he mentions the Roman exiles at Cumæ who escaped with king Tarquin, ἐκ τῆς τελευταίας μάχης. This τελευταία μάχη is the battle of Regillus. (109) Cicero appears, like Livy, to conceive Tarquin as passing some time in exile at Cuma. Is quum restitui in regnum nec Veientium nec Latinorum armis potuisset, Cumas contulisse se dicitur, inque eâ urbe senio et ægritudine esse confectus;' Tusc. Quæst. ii. 12. (110) Hoc demum anno ad Regillum lacum pugnatum, apud quosdam invenio; A. Postumium, quia collega dubiæ fidei fuerit, se consulatu abdicasse dictatorem inde factum; Livy, ii. 21. (111) Dion. Hal. vi. 2, says that all were of opinion that an irrespon sible chief was required by the emergency. VOL. II, D |