his colleague before the assembly of the people, accuses him of sympathy with the Tarquinian cause, and declares his intention of convening the centuries in order to put the deposition and banishment of Collatinus to the vote. Collatinus protests against this severe measure; whereupon Lucretius, his father-in-law, comes forward and suggests a compromise; and Collatinus agrees to retire into voluntary exile at Lavinium, taking with him a gift of twenty talents from the public treasury, and five talents added by Brutus himself.(19) This, we are told, was stated by the Roman historians to have been the first occasion on which a private person, not a magistrate, was allowed to address the assembly of the people.(20) Brutus then convenes the centuries, (2) and P. Valerius is chosen consul in the place of Collatinus.(22) The consuls, being now of one mind, proceed to put the remaining conspirators to death; and to adopt three other measures. 1 They add certain plebeian members to the Senate, and complete its number to three hundred. 2 They confiscate the property, both in land and goods, of Tarquin, and divide it among the people. A reservation is however made of the plain between the city and river, called the field of Mars, which is dedicated to military exercises. Tarquin, notwithstanding the sanctity of this ground, had taken it into cultivation: the people were allowed to plunder it, but as the produce of the land was unholy, the corn and straw were thrown into

(19) Veturia, in her speech to Coriolanus at the Volscian camp, is represented by Dionysius as reminding him of the example of Collatinus, who though banished from Rome by the people, retired to Lavinium, and never bore any malice against his own countrymen; viii. 49.

oi

(20) καὶ τυχὼν τῆς ἐξουσίας ταύτης πρῶτος, ὥς φασιν οἱ ̔Ρωμαίων συγγρα φεῖς, οὔπω τότε Ῥωμαίοις ὄντος ἐν ἔθει δημηγορεῖν ἰδιώτην ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ; Dion. Hal. v. 11. with reference to Lucretius.

(21) Dionysius says: καλέσας τὸν δῆμον εὐθὺς εἰς τὸ πέδιον, ἔνθα συνηθες ἦν αὐτοῖς τούς τε βασιλεῖς καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς καθιστάναι, ν. 12. Livy expressly mentions the comitia of centuries: Collegam sibi comitiis centuriatis creavit P. Valerium; ii. 2. Dionysius describes Brutus as threatening to put the banishment of Collatinus to the vote of the centuries; radioag avríka μáλa rove̟ λóxovs; v. 10. The constitution of Servius had by this time been restored: compare iv. 75.

(22) Dionysius says of Valerius : φιλοσοφία τις αὐτοδίδακτος ἐγένετο περὶ αὐτόν; ν. 12. This idea seems to have been suggested by his Sabine origin.

the river, where they lodged, and formed the island opposite to Rome known by the name of Insula Tiberina. 3 An amnesty was given to all partisans of Tarquin who should return within twenty days: otherwise they were subject to the penalty of perpetual exile and forfeiture of goods.

Such is the account given by Dionysius, of the measures adopted by the Romans against the Tarquinian party upon the first establishment of the consular government. It is accompanied with speeches and minute details, such as might occur in the narrative of a contemporary writer.(23) The accounts of Livy and Plutarch are substantially similar; though they differ in several points. Thus Livy speaks of the decision to restore Tarquin's goods as having been made by the Senate, not by the people; and he represents the slave Vindicius as conveying the information to the consuls, not to Valerius. Moreover, he describes the expulsion of Collatinus as prior to the embassy from Tarquin, and as wholly unconnected with it: the exclusive reason assigned being his connexion with the Tarquiniau family.(24) Plutarch speaks of two distinct sets of ambassadors as making the two demands on the part of Tarquin. He like

(23) Dion. Hal. v. 1–13. In c. 4, the envoys from Tarquin are represented as addressing the Roman Senate in the following terms: avрúπоvý δ ̓ ὄντας μηδὲν ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν φρονεῖν, μηδ' ἀθανάτους ἔχειν τὰς ὀργὰς ἐν θνητοῖς σώμασι. This latter antithesis is borrowed from some verses of Euripides, fragm. 790, ed. Wagner; afterwards condensed into the proverbial verse: ἀθάνατον ὀργὴν μὴ φύλασσε θνητὸς ὤν; id. Trag. Incert. fragm. 14. Compare Porson ad Eurip. Med. 139. The same sentiment recurs in the speech of Veturia to Coriolanus : εἰ μὴ σὺ, ὦ Μάρκιε, ἀξιοῖς τὰς μὲν τῶν θεῶν ὀργὰς θνητὰς εἶναι, τὰς δὲ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀθανάτους ; viii. 50. (24) ii. 2-5. The early historian Piso likewise represented Brutus as The following words fearing Collatinus simply on account of his name. are cited by Gellius, xv. 29, from the second book of his Annales: 'L. Tarquinium, collegam suum, quia Tarquinium nomen esset, metuere; eumque orat uti suà voluntate Romam contendat' (Krause, p. 150); where for Romam contendat' the sense seems to require Romam relinquat,' or some equivalent expression. The same reason is assigned by Cicero, Off. iii. 10, and Brut. c. 14. Compare Eutrop. i. 9. Sed Tarquinio Collatino statim sublata dignitas est. Placuerat enim, ne quisquam in urbe maneret, qui Tarquinius vocaretur. Ergo accepto omni patrimonio suo, ex urbe migravit. Also Florus, i. 8; Tantumque libertatis novæ gaudium incesserat, ut vix mutati status fidem caperent, alterumque ex consulibus, tantum ob nomen et genus regium, fascibus abrogatis, urbe dimitterent. Zonaras, ii. 12, agrees with Dionysius as to the cause of the deposition of Collatinus.

wise mentions a certain Caius Minucius, who gave his opinion against the restoration of Tarquin's property, as having been the first private citizen who spoke before the Roman people: thus differing from Dionysius, who says that it was Lucretius.(25)

The completion of the Senate is likewise related by several authors, but by all differently from Dionysius. His account is that Brutus and Valerius gave to certain selected plebeians the rank of patricians, and added them to the Senate, until it reached the full number of three hundred members. (26) Livy says that the number was made up to three hundred: but he describes the added members as being of the equestrian order, not plebeians; and he places the event under Brutus and Collatinus, before the arrival of the envoys from Tarquinii.(27) Plutarch places it after the battle in which Brutus falls.(25) There is likewise a statement that the number of members thus added was exactly one hundred and sixty-four.(29) Livy uses this transaction for explaining the phrase Patres conscripti; which he supposes to be equivalent to Patres et conscripti, the Patres being the original senators, and the conscripti those who were subsequently added. A similar explanation of the same phrase is given by other authorities; the addition being by one referred to king Servius.(3) Dionysius on the other hand traces the origin of the expression Patres conscripti to the time of Romulus.(31) The whole of this is a mere conjectural ætiology of the ancient appellation of the senators. Tacitus finds in the same event an explanation of another constitutional

(25) Public. 2-8. Plutarch speaks of the conspirators in the house of the Aquillii confirming their oath by a libation of human blood, and by laying their hands on the entrails of a slaughtered man. A similar account is given by Sallust of the oath of the Catilinarian conspirators; Catil. 22. (26) v. 13. (27) ii. 1. (28) Public. 11.

(29) Festus, p. 254, who says that they were plebeians. Plut. Public. 11. Niebuhr conjectures that the number 164 was derived from Valerius Antias. These arbitrary numbers were a trick by which he tried to give his fictions a delusive resemblance to genuine accounts;' Hist. vol. i. p. 526.

(30) Festus, ib. Plut. Rom. 13; Quæst. Rom. 58; Servius, ad Æn. i. 426. (31) ii. 12.

phrase he considers the original senators of Romulus as the majores gentes; those added by Brutus as the minores gentes.(32) All these guesses stand on the same ground, and aim at the same object. The reasons are equally uncertain, but the subject of explanation is an ascertained fact.

From the name of the slave Vindicius is traced the ancient mode of manumission per vindictam: for his important service, he received a pecuniary reward from the public treasury, his freedom, and also the rights of citizenship. Hence, says Livy, those who were liberated per vindictam obtained the full franchise.(3) It is plain that this story of the slave Vindicius is an institutional legend, intended to serve as a support to the ancient mode of manumission in question.

The story of the corn thrown into the Tiber, again, is evidently a topographical legend, invented in order to explain the origin of the Insula Tiberina. Dionysius differs from Livy and Plutarch as to the time of the consecration which made the corn unholy the former supposes the ground to have been already sacred when it was tilled by Tarquin; the latter conceive the consecration as subsequent to the confiscation, and as affecting the standing corn. (3) Another account described this event as having happened at a later period, when either the Campus Martius itself, or an adjoining piece of land, was given to the people by a Vestal virgin named Tarquinia, or Tarracia. (35)

(32) Ann. xi. 25.

Compare Becker, ii. 2, p. 388-9.

(33) Livy, ii. 5; Plut. Public. 7. Compare Mr. Long's art. Manumissio in Dr. Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antiquities.

(34) Dion. Hal. v. 13; Livy, ii. 5; Plut. Public. 8. Florus, i. 9, likewise supposes the consecration to Mars to take place after its confiscation. For a description of the Campus Martius in the Augustan age, see Strabo, v. 3, §.8.

(35) Plut. ib. Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 11; Gell. vi. 7. Plutarch concludes his account of the origin of the Insula Tiberina with the words: Kai TaŬTa μὲν οὕτω γενέσθαι μυθολογοῦσι. The statement as to the evidence of the Vestal being made admissible by special legislation, which occurs both in Plutarch and Gellius, shows that the same person is in question in both writers; and as no corruptions are so frequent in the manuscripts of ancient authors, as the corruptions of proper names, it seems not improbable that Ταρρακίαν ought to be read in Plutarch for Ταρκυνίαν. Compare Becker,

§ 4 As soon as the failure of the attempt to procure the restoration of Tarquin is known, the Tarquinians and Veientes combine their forces, and make a joint expedition against Rome. The Romans go out to meet them, and cross the Tiber. An equestrian single combat, in front of the armies, takes place between Brutus and Aruns Tarquin, in which both fall, transfixed by each other's spears.(36) The infantry are afterwards engaged, and the armies separate without any decisive result; a divine voice (supposed to be that of Silvanus or Faunus) is however heard at night from the neighbouring wood, declaring that the Romans are the victors, for that the number of their dead is less than that of the Etruscans by one. When the dead bodies are counted, it is found that the exact numbers are 11,300 Etruscans, and 11,299 Romans.(37) The body of Brutus is carried back to Rome, with civic honours; and on the following day a funeral oration is delivered over it by his colleague. The matrons honoured his memory by a year's mourning, as for a parent.(38)

After the death of Brutus, Valerius, like Collatinus, incurs the suspicions of the people, by remaining sole consul, without proposing the election of a colleague, and also by building a house in a lofty and precipitous position, called Velia, com

vol. i. p. 621, 651. Dr. Schmitz, Hist. of Rome, p. 99, says: It scarcely requires to be observed that this story about the origin of the island in the Tiber is a mere fiction.'

6

(36) Decorum erat (says Livy) tum ipsis capessere pugnam ducibus;' ii. 6.

(37) Dion. Hal. v. 14-17; Livy, ii. 6; Plut. Publ. 9; Zon. vii. 12. The place of the battle is called by Dionysius, deur Ovívios, near the sacred grove of a hero Horatus. Plutarch has Αἰσούειος λειμών, and Ούρσον ἄλσος. Livy has Silva Arsia. Obscure proper names are _perpetually corrupted in the manuscripts of the ancient writers. With respect to the voice issuing from the wood, see above, vol. i. p. 208, n. 88. A warning voice was heard at night before the Gallic invasion, according to Livy, v. 50. The day of this battle was fixed to the last day of February; Plut. ib. Val. Max. i. 8, § 5, says that the Etruscans were seized in this battle with a panic fear, caused by the supernatural announcement of Silvanus that one more would be killed on the Etruscan than on the Roman side, and that the Romans would be victorious. He speaks of Silva Arsia, like Livy.

(38) See Dion. Hal. v. 17-8; Plut. Publ. 9; above, vol. i. p. 185.