But although, when we descend to the siege of Veii and the burning of the city, we come to events of which the substance is clearly historical, we can perceive but little difference in character between the narrative of the early years of the Republic, and that of the last years of the kings. In external evidence they stand on the same ground; and the internal features of the accounts are similar.

§ 2 The change of government which took place upon the expulsion of the Tarquins is described to us as consisting partly in the restoration of old, and partly in the introduction of new, constitutional forms. The beneficent laws of Tullius respecting contracts are stated to have been re-established; the common sacrifices in the town and country, as they existed under the same king, were renewed; the assembly of citizens, and its power of decision by vote in important matters, together with the other constitutional usages, were restored.() One permanent innovation was made; not only was Tarquin dethroned and banished, but his office of king was abolished; and its powers were divided between two high magistrates, denominated consuls, whose office was annual. The large powers previously exercised by the king were therefore controlled by their division between two persons, and their limitation to a yearly period.) An arrangement about the division of the fasces is variously represented one historian says that Brutus alone had the twelve fasces formerly borne before the king: the other that each consul had twelve fasces, but one had only rods, without axes.(")

(τ) ἐκκλησίαν τε καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀπέδοσαν ὑπὲρ τῶν μεγίστων, καὶ ψῆφον ἐπιφέ ρειν, καὶ τἄλλα πράττειν ὅσα κατὰ τοὺς προτέρους ἐθισμοὺς ἔπραττον ; Dion. Hal. v. 2. It is further stated that the census, according to the laws of Servius, which had been suspended during the entire reign of Tarquin II., was revived in the second year of the consular government, ib. c. 20.

(2) Post ubi regium imperium, quod initio conservandæ libertatis atque augendæ reipublicæ fuerat, in superbiam dominationemque se convertit, immutato more, annua imperia binosque imperatores sibi fecere. Eo modo minime posse putabant per licentiam insolescere animum humanum. Sallust. Cat. 6. See above, vol. i. p. 537, n. 199.

(3) Dion. Hal. v. 2; Livy, ii. 1. Both these regulations concerning the fasces are mentioned by Cicero, but they are attributed by him to Valerius, Rep. ii. 31. Livy says: Brutus prior, concedente collegâ, fasces

Livy remarks that if the change from the regal to the consular government had taken place under any of the kings before the second Tarquin, it would have been premature; but that at the moment when it occurred, it was suited to the circumstances of the Roman community. The change from the regal to the consular government is not represented as extensive, or as affecting the essential characteristics of the constitution. All the chief popular elements of the consular government had already existed under the kings. The principal importance of the change is described as consisting in the substitution of two annual magistrates for the usurped and illegal despotism of Tarquin the Second.

Sallust speaks of the marvellous growth of the city, on the acquisition of liberty, in terms nearly identical with those applied by Herodotus to Athens after the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ.(1) Niebuhr, however, draws a directly opposite inference from the treaty between Rome and Carthage, in the year of the first consuls, which is preserved by Polybius. In this treaty Rome stipulates for the maritime towns of Ardea, Antium, Laurentum, Circeii, and Tarracina, and any other Latin towns which may be subject to Rome.(5) According to the history of the kings, as related to us, the power of Rome did not now extend over all these places. Ardea is described as having been besieged by Tarquin, shortly before his expulsion, but as having made a fifteen years' truce with Rome, and therefore as being at this time independent.(6) It is shortly afterwards included by Dionysius among the Latin towns. Antium is stated

to have joined the Latin league in the time of Tarquinius

habuit. Plutarch, Publ. 12, states that Valerius yielded the fasces first to Lucretius as being the senior; which custom remained to his cwn day. Cicero, ib., has the same statement.

(4) Cat. 7. See above, vol. i. p. 537, n. 198. Compare the account in Herod. vii. 156, of the sudden growth of Syracuse under Gelo.

(5) iii. 22. For the third name, the MSS. appear to have 'Apevtívov, for which Ursinus reads Aavpevtívov. Niebuhr, vol. i, n. 1183, suggests 'Apikηvŵv, on account of the order of the names, but Aricia is an inland town, and according to its geographical position it would precede Antium. (6) Above, vol. i. P. 521. (7) Dion. Hal. v. 61.

Superbus, who established his supremacy over the Latin towns:() so that Antium and Laurentum would, according to the common story, have been subject at this time to Rome. The colonization of Circeii is moreover attributed to Tarquin II.:(9) but of Tarracina nothing is said during the regal period. It is first mentioned by Livy about a century later, with the remark that its original name was Anxur.(10) Substantially however the list of towns in the Carthaginian treaty agrees with the received accounts of the extent of the Roman power under Tarquin. During the war with Porsena, and in the subsequent war with the Latins, this power appears as curtailed; and Niebuhr accordingly considers that Rome, having attained to a high pitch of greatness under the kings, underwent a decline shortly after the expulsion of the Tarquins. (1) Such certainly is the result of the accounts handed down to us, assuming them to be historical.(12)

While the indignation of the people against Tarquin is at its height, the consuls cause them to take an oath that they will never appoint, or allow any one else to appoint, a king at Rome(13) A law is said to have been afterwards passed by

(8) iv. 49. Above, vol. i. p. 511.

(9) Livy, i. 56; Dion. Hal. iv. 63. Above, vol. i. p. 515.

(10) Anxur fuit, quæ nunc Tarracina; Livy, iv. 59. If Livy's statement is correct, we must suppose that the name Anxur in the original text of the treaty was translated by Polybius into Tappákiva.

(11) It [the treaty with Carthage] divulged the secret of the early greatness of Rome, and of her fall after the banishment of the Tarquins; a secret which her children in later times were foolishly anxious to keep concealed, as if it had been an indelible blot on the honour of their ances

tors; Hist. vol. i. P. 533. In this passage, Niebuhr assumes the existence of a knowledge of the history of Rome at this period, which is purely imaginary. If the later Romans did not know the truth about the events of 510 B.C., there was no occasion for any study to conceal it. Compare Schwegler, vol. i. p. 790-2.

(12) Livy contrasts the military power of Rome under the kings, and during the war with Porsena: C. Mucius, adolescens nobilis, cui indignum videbatur populum Romanum servientem, quum sub regibus esset, nullo bello nec ab hostibus ullis obsessum esse; liberum eundem populum ab iisdem Etruscis obsideri, quorum sæpe exercitus fuderit;' i. 12. Dionysius also says of the same war: Σαβίνων τινὲς καταγνόντες τῆς πόλεως ἀσθέ γειαν ἐκ τοῦ Τυρρηνικοῦ πταίσματος, ὡς οὐκέτι τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀξίωσιν ἀναληψομένης ; ν. 37.

(13) Dion. Hal. v. 1; Livy, ii. 1. Plutarch, Publ. 2, describes Valerius Publicola as taking the oath against the restoration of Tarquin.

Valerius, which made it a capital offence, with forfeiture of goods, to attempt to become king.(14) Every such endeavour continued, throughout the Roman history, to be regarded as a treasonable act: Cassius and Manlius were executed for this high misdemeanor, in the early period of the Republic; an apparent assumption of royalty was made the pretext for the murder of Tiberius Gracchus ;(15) and even the Cæsars could not acquire supreme power without deferring to the national dislike of the kingly title and insiguia. The name of rex aroused in the breast of a Roman the same stimulating associations as that of rúpavvoc in the breast of a Greek. (16) It is however difficult to reconcile this state of feeling with the accredited historical account of the Roman kings, who are described as exercising a limited power, in combination with a senate and a popular assembly, and one of whom was regarded as the author of the liberties of the plebeians. Both Dionysius and Livy agree in representing the general course of the regal government as mild, popular, and beneficent, and in treating the violent despotism of Tarquin II. as an extraordinary and exceptional departure from its prevailing spirit. The probable explanation of this apparent inconsistency is, that the Romans in general had no distinct idea of the constitutional history of their kings; and that they understood the word in the sense which it bore in Greece in the post-Alexandrine age; when a king was universally conceived as possessing an absolute and unlimited power.(17)

(14) Livy, ii. 8.

(15) Plut. Tib. Gracch. 19.

(16) Sallust gives the following account of Catiline: Hunc post dominationem Lucii Sullæ libido maxima invaserat reipublicæ capiendæ ; neque id quibus modis assequeretur, dum sibi regnum pararet, quidquam pensi habebat;' Cat. 5. In this passage regnum is exactly equivalent to the Greek Tuparvis. Appian in like manner applies the term Bagieia to the dictatorship of Sylla: he says that the Romans having been governed above 240 years by kings, and then 400 years by democracy and annual consuls, returned under him to regal government; Bell. Civ. i. 99. Livy represents Horatius Cocles as addressing the Etruscans, in the war of Porsena, in the following words: Servitia regum superborum, suæ libertatis immemores, alienam oppugnatum venire,' ii. 10, where the subjects of king Porsena are considered as equivalent to the slaves of a deσnótηs or (ominus.

(17) See above, vol. i p. 106.

Γ

§ 3 The first events in the history of the consular government are connected with attempts to restore the ejected Tarquinian family. Tarquin removes to his paternal city of Tarquinii, and at his persuasion, envoys are sent to Rome to procure his restoration. Being admitted to the Senate, they first propose that Tarquin should be allowed to return, and resume his royal office under certain restrictions. This request is peremptorily refused by Brutus, and the ambassadors then content themselves with demanding the cession of Tarquin's property. The two consuls are divided in opinion: Brutus thinks it dangerous to restore, Collatinus thinks it unjust to withhold, the property. The Senate are unable to settle the question, and refer it to the people. The thirty curiæ vote upon it, and it is decided by a bare majority that the property shall be given up.(1) Having by this decision secured a pretext for delay, the envoys take means for gaining over some of the citizens to the cause of Tarquin; among whom were persons closely connected with the two consuls: namely, the two sons of Brutus, two Vitellii, his brothers-in-law, and two Aquillii, nephews of Collatinus. The conspirators meet in the house of the Aquillii, where their plans are overheard by a slave, named Vindicius, who secretly conveys information of the fact to Valerius. Acting on his own authority, Valerius collects a body of retainers, enters the house, seizes some treasonable letters written by the conspirators themselves, and addressed to Tarquin, and denounces the guilty persons before the consuls. Then follows the celebrated condemnation of the sons of Brutus by their father, and their immediate execution in his presence. When however Brutus proceeds to follow the same course with the Aquillii, their uncle Collatinus, the other consul, interposes his veto to save them. Brutus, upon this, denounces

(13) Dionysius says: ἀναλαβοῦσαι ψῆφον αἱ φράτραι τριάκοντα οὖσαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν, οὕτω μικρὰν ἐποιήσαντο τὴν ἐπὶ θάτερα ῥοπὴν, ὥστε μια ψήφῳ πλείους γενέσθαι τῶν κατέχειν τὰ χρήματα βουλευομένων τὰς ἀποδιδόναι κελευούσας; v. 6. The votes here alluded to must be the votes of the several curiæ, not the votes of the members within each curia. This being the case, the least majority must have been sixteen to fourteen, that is, a majority not of one but of two; a majority of one is only possible where the number of votes is uneven.