will of Jupiter that the fictile chariot should go to Rome, and they delivered their work, with its accompanying good prognostic, to the enemies of Tarquin.(56)

Next follows the exploit of Mucius, who went as a volunteer, with the approbation of the Senate, to attempt the assassination of Porsena, and slew the king's secretary by mistake for the king himself. As the story is told by Livy, Mucius, upon being brought before the royal tribunal, announced that he was only one of 300 noble Roman youths, who had sworn to take away the king's life, and that the lot had fallen on him first, but that the others would follow. On being threatened with torture or death by fire, he thrust his right hand into a burning altar, and held it in the flames without shrinking; from which circumstance he acquired the name of Scævola, the 'lefthanded.'(57) Porsena was so terrified at the hardihood of the Roman, and the prospect of his own danger, that he dismissed Mucius, and sent ambassadors to treat with Rome.(58) The account of this transaction given by Plutarch is similar; he states, however, that Porsena was induced to treat, rather by his admiration of the courage of the Romans, than by his fear of the 300 conspirators. (59) The

(56) Plut. Publ. 13. The augury of the clay chariot swelling in the furnace is alluded to by Pliny, N. H. xxviii. 4. The clay chariot on the top of the Capitoline temple is also mentioned by him, xxxv. 45. The same story is told by Festus, in Ratumenna porta, p. 274, but with this variation, that when the Veientine charioteer is overturned near the Capitol, the fictile chariot is supposed to be already on the top of the temple of Jupiter, having been previously recovered in war. A different story is given by Solinus. Excusso auriga, quem Rutumannam nominabant, relicto certamine ad Capitolium quadriga prosiluit, nec ante substitit, quamlibet obviis occursibus impedita, quam Tarpeium Jovem ternâ dextrâtione lustraret;

c. 45.

(57) Athenodorus, in his work addressed to Octavia the sister of Augustus Cæsar, gave to Mucius the name of Opsigonus; Plut. Publ. 17. Concerning this Athenodorus, see Smith's Dict. in v. He is called Caius Mucius Cordus by Dion. Hal. v. 25, Zonaras, vii. 12, and Script. de Vir. Ill. 12.

(58) Livy, ii. 12, 13. Compare Script. de Vir. Ill. ib. The assassination of an enemy in the manner attempted by Mucius is justified by Grotius de J. B. et P. iii. 4, § 18, and by Puffendorf, viii. 6, § 16.

(59) Publ. 17. Zonaras, vii. 12, gives the same story, and attributes the negotiation of Porsena to fear. It is likewise told in Polyæn. viii. 8, where the same motive is assigned. The exploit of Mucius is mentioned by Cic. pro Sext. 21.

VOL. II.

с

version adopted by Dionysius is different. He omits altogether the characteristic incident of the hand thrust into the firedoubtless as being improbable; and although, like Livy, he describes Porsena as negotiating from fear, yet he throws in the additional motive of the loss of a plundering party, cut off by a Roman ambush, which Livy does not connect with this event. (60) He likewise says that the authorities differ on the point, whether Mucius was immediately sent back by Porsena, or was detained as a hostage in the Etruscan camp. (61)

The ambassadors sent by Porsena to Rome offer peace on three conditions:-1 The restitution of the property of Tarquin. 2 The cession to the Veientes of the territory north of the Tiber, called Septem pagi, which had been taken from them by the Romans. (62) 3 The delivery of hostages from the principal families.(63) The Romans reject the first, but comply with the last two of these conditions; and the hostages are accordingly given up.(64) Dionysius says that the Romans accompanied the rejection

(60) v. 27-31. The number three hundred is mentioned by Dionysius, as well as by Livy, Plutarch, Zonaras, the writer de Vir. Ill. and Polyænus. This threat of Mucius is conceived as a stratagem: kaivótatov ἐνθυμηθεὶς ὁ Μούκιος ἀπάτης τρόπον, says Dionysius; c. 29. ἕτερον τρόπον Loopioaro Tov x0póv, Zonaras: terrorem geminat dolo, Florus. Livy describes the Roman ambush, on the southern side of the Tiber; but does not connect it with the exploit of Mucius, ii. 11. Plutarch converts it into a battle with a separate army, in which Valerius kills 5000 Etruscans; Publ. 17.

(61) v. 31. Dionysius prefers the latter account: kai táx' âv ein Toût' anorepov. Plutarch likewise says that there are various versions of the adventure of Mucius: τὸ δὲ περὶ Μούκιον εἴρηται μὲν ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ διαφόρως λεκτέον δὲ ᾗ μάλιστα πιστεύεται καὶ ἡμῖν ; Public. 17. The deed of Mucius was considered as the chief cause of the salvation of Rome from Porsena: αἰτιωτάτῳ δόξαντι γεγονέναι τῆς καταλύσεως τοῦ πολέμου; Dion. c. 35. Paulus Diaconus likewise says, in his abridgment of Festus: Mucia prata trans Tiberim, dicta a Mucio, cui a populo data fuerant pro eo, quod Porsenam, Etruscorum regem, suâ constantiâ ab urbe dimovit;' p. 144.

(62) This territory is stated to have been ceded by the Veientes to Romulus; Dion. Hal. ii. 52.

(63) Dion. Hal. v. 31; Livy, ii. 13; Plut. Publ. 18.

(64) Plutarch says that the hostages were twenty in number, ten youths and ten virgins, all patricians. Livy afterwards represents Pontius the Samnite as reproaching the Romans with their breach of faith respecting these hostages: Obsides Porsenæ dedistis: furto eos subduxistis;' ix. 11.

of the first condition with an offer that Porsena should arbitrate between them and Tarquin. While this arbitration is pending, Cloelia and the other virgins, who were among the Roman hostages, escape from their guards, swim across the Tiber, and fly to Rome. Valerius, considering this act a violation of the treaty, brings them back to Porsena; but the Tarquins lie in ambush for them on their way, and try to seize them as security for their property. This attempt however fails; and Porsena, indignant at the treachery of the Tarquins, breaks off his connexion with them, restores all the hostages to the Romans, declaring that the faith of Rome is better than all such guarantees, and presents Cloelia with a richly-caparisoned war-horse. He likewise liberates all the Roman prisoners without ransom, and (contrary to the Etruscan usage) he leaves all the constructions in his camp uninjured, to become the public property of the Romans.

The Roman Senate, in token of their goodwill, send Porsena an ivory throne, a sceptre, a golden crown, and a triumphal dress, such as was worn by the kings. To Mucius they make a grant of land on the same terms as to Cocles, which in the time of Dionysius still bore the name of Mucia prata. (65) A statue in honour of Cloelia was erected near the Via Sacra, by the parents of the other virgins. (66)

(65) The Mucia prata are also mentioned by Livy, Script. de Vir. Ill. 12, and Festus, p. 144. Compare Becker, vol. i. p. 656.

(66) v. 32-5. Plutarch's account is similar; Publ. 18-9; Polyæn. viii. 31, like Dionysius, represents all the hostages as being voluntarily restored. The statue of Cloelia on the Via Sacra was equestrian; Livy, ii. 13; Plut. ib. 19; Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 13; Script. de Vir. Ill. 13; and it was to explain her equestrian statue that the story mentioned by Plutarch, and adopted by Florus, i. 10, and the writer de Vir. Ill. was invented of her having swum across the Tiber on horseback. The gift of the horse in Dionysius, Polyæn. viii. 31, and Dio Cass. xiv. has the same object. The statement in Dionysius, as to the donors of the statue, is doubtless borrowed from Piso, whose testimony is cited by Pliny: Cloliæ Piso tradit ab his positam, qui una obsides fuerant, redditis a Porsennå in honorem ejus; ib. According to Plutarch, some said that the equestrian statue in question represented Valeria, not Cloelia. Again, Annius Fecialis reported that the equestrian statue near the temple of Jupiter Stator was of Valeria, the daughter of Publicola, and that she alone escaped, and swam across the Tiber, when the other hostages, who were sent to Porsena, were treacherously slain by Tarquin; Plin. ib. There seems to have been a confusion in antiquity as to the identity of the statue of Cloelia,

Livy knows nothing of the arbitration of Porsena, and represents Cloelia alone as restored; she is permitted to select a portion of the hostages for liberation, and her choice falls on the boys, as most liable to maltreatment from the Etruscans. The rest of the male hostages remain, according to him, with Porsena, and are not restored till the following year.(67) Another obscure story speaks of all the hostages except Valeria, the consul's daughter, having been treacherously put to death by Tarquin.(68)

The generosity of Porsena in leaving the buildings in his camp to become the property of the Romans, is intended by Dionysius to serve as an explanation of a singular custom which still prevailed at Roman auctions in his time, of making a fictitious sale of the goods of Porsena. This custom is expressly mentioned by Livy, who accounts for it in the same manner; but from his expressions, it is evident that the explanation was conjectural, and that nothing certain was known on the subject. (69)

When Porsena has withdrawn his army from Rome, his son Aruns, with a portion of the forces, crosses the Tiber, and besieges Aricia, intending to establish a separate kingdom for himself. The Aricines are defended by succours from Antium, Tusculum, and Cuma; and the Cuman troops, under Aristodemus Malacus, defeat the Tuscans, and kill Aruns. The fugitives escape to the Roman territory, where they are hospitably received, so that

Dionysius, v. 85, says that it no longer existed in his time; but Plutarch, Serv. ad Æn. viii. 646, and Myth. Lat. i. 74, ed. Bode, speak of it as still extant. See Becker, vol. i. p. 112. Servius, ib., states that Porsena, admiring the courage of Cloelia, wrote to the Senate to suggest that some manly honour should be assigned her-in consequence of which they erected an equestrian statue of her.

(67) ii. 13, 15. The account of Servius, Æn. viii. 646, is similar; only Cloelia escapes alone, and when she is restored, she asks Porsena for the liberation of the other virgins. This is a variation of Livy's version. The writer de Vir. Ill. 13, mentions both the boys and the virgins, and combines both variations.

(68) Plin. ubi sup.

(69) Livy, ii. 14. Plutarch gives the same account of the origin of this custom; he limits it to the sale of public property: and says that Porsena left much corn and money behind him for the Romans; in gratitude for which, they recorded his name at all sales by auction. He states that it continued in his time; Publ. 19.

many of them remain there as permanent inhabitants, and form a colony in a street of Rome, which thence obtains the appellation of Vicus Tuscus. In return for this benefit, Porsena restored to the Romans the district of Septem pagi, which they had recently ceded. Tarquin found an asylum with his son-inlaw, Mamilius Octavius, at Tusculum ;(70) and the interference of Porsena with Roman affairs, on behalf of the Tarquinian family, is at an end.

§ 6 The next event after the departure of Porsena is a Sabine war, which is minutely described by Dionysius, but which Livy despatches in a few lines. The Sabines are encouraged by the weakness of the Romans to attack them;(7) but in the second year, a distinguished Sabine citizen, named Attus Clausus, removes to Rome on account of civil discord, with a large body of followers. His accession was of so much importance to the Romans, that they made him a patrician, gave the rights of citizenship to his companions, and assigned them a district beyond the Anio, which became the Claudian tribe. He himself assumed the Roman names of Appius Claudius, and was the progenitor of the celebrated Claudian house.(72)

(70) Dion. Hal. v. 35-6; vii. 5-7; Livy, ii. 14-5. The two accounts do not exactly agree. The expedition of Aristodemus Malacus to Aricia, is described in detail by Dionysius in the 7th book, and is represented as the means by which he made himself despot. Eutropius, i. 11, seems to consider Tusculum as the last asylum of Tarquin: Tertio anno post reges exactos Tarquinius, cum suscipi non posset in regnum, neque ei Porsena, qui pacem cum Romanis fecerat, auxilium præstaret, Tusculum se contulit, quæ civitas non longe ab urbe est, atque ibi per quatuordecim annos privatus cum uxore consenuit.' Another origin for the Tuscus vicus was found in the Etruscans who came to Rome with Cæles Vibenna under the kings: see above, vol. i. p. 508, n. 102-3. Festus, p. 355, seems to have stated both origins; Paulus Diaconus, in his abridgment of Festus, p. 354, only repeats the later origin. Compare Becker, vol. i. p. 488.

(71) According to Dionysius, they were stimulated to the war by Sextus Tarquin, who argued that the former treaty between the Sabines and Tarquin, was personal as regarded the latter, and not with the nation; v. 40.

(72) Dion. Hal. v. 37-47, 49; Livy, ii. 16; Plutarch, Publ. 20-2; Zon. vii. 13. Dionysius and Plutarch agree in stating that Clausus brought 5000 heads of families with him. Plutarch says that he received twenty-five plethra of land, and each of his followers two plethra. The derivation of the Claudian_gens from Attus Clausus the Sabine, was recognised in the time of the Emperor Claudius: see Tacit. Ann. xi. 24. Compare xii. 25 :