(176) Zonaras, vii. 13, agrees with Dionysius in making the Sabine war extend over this and the three following years. He likewise mentions the two conspiracies in the two years next ensuing. He differs however from both Dionysius and Livy, in placing the death of P.Valerius in the year of P. Valerius and T. Lucretius, and not in the following year,

(177) M. de la Curne, Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, tom. viii. p. 363–71, attempts to reconcile the histories of Dionysius and Livy for the six years, beginning with the consulship of Cominius and Larcius, and ending with that of Postumius and Virginius, 501-496 B.C. In order to accomplish this object he transposes the order of the events narrated under the first three and the last three consulships in Livy, and conceives that by this transposition he makes the narrative of Livy agree with that of Dionysius. He says: Lorsque j'ai voulu comparer ensemble ce que Denys d'Halicarnasse et Tite Live ont dit de ces consulats, j'ai trouvé d'abord ces auteurs si différents l'un de l'autre, qu'il m'a paru impossible de les concilier.' It is scarcely needful to remark that this harmonizing process is purely arbitrary, and amounts to a confession that the two historians cannot be reconciled.

(178) A peculiar circumstance is mentioned by Dionysius under this year, which has all the appearance of having been preserved by contemporary registration. Manius Tullius (he says), one of the consuls, in the holy Roman games, during the procession, fell from the sacred chariot in the circus, and died on the third day after the procession. Sulpicius was sole consul during the short remaining portion of the year; v. 57. It is difficult to conceive why such a circumstance as this should be mentioned if it had not been preserved from an authentic record made at the time.

DIONYSIUS.

12. T. Larcius and Q. Clœlius. Fidenæ is taken.

The Latins hold a federal assembly and send ambassadors to Rome.

The Romans refuse redress and declare war.

T. Larcius is appointed dictator. He prepares for war; but a truce for a year is made with the Latin cities (v. 76). Larcius abdicates.

LIVY.

11. Q. Clalius and T. Larcius. No event in this year.

13. A. Sempronius and M. Minucius. 12. A. Sempronius and M. Minucius.

14. Appius Claudius and P. Servilius.

Death of Tarquin at Cumæ. summaries of the accounts of

On comparing the preceding Dionysius and Livy, for this period of fourteen years, it will be perceived that, although there is in some respect a close agreement, the discrepancies are too wide, too numerous, and too fundamental to admit of the supposition that there was in existence a brief annalistic series of events, derived from authentic registration, and recognised as true by all historians. Even the lists of consuls do not altogether agree: for Larcius and Herminius, the consuls for the fourth year in Dionysius, are wanting in

On the other hand, it is difficult to reconcile the preservation of an authentic record of so trivial a fact with the total uncertainty of the date of an event so important as the battle of Regillus.

Livy; and in the third year Livy has P. Lucretius, while Dionysius has M. Horatius. In the principal events there is an approximation to an agreement; but in the arrangement under years there is the widest variance; and it is impossible to suppose that the chronological Fasti which each historian followed, could have been derived from a common source, or could have been founded upon a record which assigned each battle, or war, or siege, or other leading event, to its proper consuls. Not only is there great discrepancy between the two historians, but each historian is not always consistent with himself: thus Dionysius states that a truce is made with the Latins for a year, in the consulship of Larcius and Cloelius-and yet he represents it as expiring in the second year afterwards. Livy, in stating the discordance of the testimonies respecting the year of the battle of Regillus, plainly avows the confusion of the authorities to be such as to render any certain chronological arrangement of events, for the early part of the Republic, impossible.(179)

The synchronism of Roman with Greek history is carefully marked by Dionysius, who from time to time states the name of the corresponding Athenian archon. Our most ancient comparison is furnished by Polybius, who states that the first year of the Republic was twenty-eight years before the crossing of Xerxes into Europe: that is 28+ 480 508 B.C.(150) According to Dionysius, the Tarquins were expelled in the year of Isagoras, (181)

=

(179) Tanti errores implicant temporum, aliter apud alios ordinatis magistratibus, ut nec, qui consules secundum quosdam, nec quid quoque auno actum sit, in tantâ vetustate non rerum modo, sed etiam auctorum, digerere possis; ii. 21. This passage describes the confusion which is caused by the want of a careful contemporary registration of public facts: but it is not the antiquity of the historians which is in fault; if the historians had been as ancient as the events, Livy would have had no reason to complain.

(180) iii. 22. Dionysius, ix. 1, says that the archonship of Calliades, in Olymp. 75, at the time of the expedition of Xerxes against Greece, corresponded with the consulship of K. Fabius and Sp. Furius, which he makes the 29th from the expulsion of the kings. Polybius and Dionysius therefore agree. Diodorus however follows a different calculation, for he makes the expedition of Xerxes contemporary with the consulship of Sp. Cassius and Proculus Virginius, xi. 1, which is seven years earlier 486 B.c. (181) v. 1.

508 B.C.; and Brutus was killed seventeen years before the battle of Marathon ;(12) that is, 17+ 490 = 507 B.C., so that the dates of Polybius and Dionysius only differ by a year.

§ 15 The death of Tarquin, and the final extinction of the hopes of the Tarquinian faction, constitute an epoch in the early history of the Republic. Both Livy and Dionysius agree in dating the commencement of the active conflicts between the patricians and plebeians from that period: as soon as the common fear of the expelled despot and his allies is removed, the internal dissensions break out. According to Dionysius, the immediate occasion of their outbreak is the reopening of the courts for the recovery of debts, whose jurisdiction had been suspended during the late war.(183)

The events referred to the year of the next consuls, Appius Claudius and P. Servilius, are numerous; they are characteristic of the internal state and external policy of Rome, as represented to us at this period; and they are related in detail by both our historians. The account of this year may serve to exemplify the period upon which we are now entering. The events have nothing marvellous: they are not wanting in probability or internal coherence. The narratives of the two historians agree in most of the main facts, and sometimes in details; but they sometimes differ altogether even in material points: they are too full of circumstances and details, and they depart too much at certain intervals from one another, to bear the appearance of being both derived from a dry annalistic record made at the time; and again, they have too business-like and simple an air for legendary stories handed down by popular tradition. It may be added, that although their character is thoroughly prosaic, they stand in immediate juxtaposition with the battle of Regillus, which has been selected for reproduction in a poetical form, on account of its imaginative and unreal character.

(182) v. 17. Compare Dodwell's Chronologia Græco-Romana pro Hypothesibus Dionysii Halicarnassei,' reprinted in the fourth volume of Reiske's edition.

(183) Livy, ii. 21; Dion. Hal. vi. 22; cf. v. 69. Above, p. 25.