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 ;(182) 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. A Volscian war is described as imminent; but there is a difficulty in obtaining levies, as the plebeians refuse to serve, unless they are relieved from their load of debt, and from the severe law which enables the creditor to seize the body of his insolvent debtor, and to use him as a slave. The patricians appear here, for the first time, as promoters of a policy which is systematically attributed to them in the subsequent history; this is, to engage the state in war, (184) for the purpose of putting an end to intestine discord, and of delaying the satisfaction of the demands made by the plebeians. Hence, in the early portion of the Roman history, the patricians are described in general as the war-party; while the plebeians are described as desirous of peace, and as complaining that the evils of warfare fall principally upon their order. It has been assumed, though without sufficient grounds, that in the Greek republics the democratical party was always inclined to war, and the oligarchical party to peace.(185) It has likewise been often affirmed in modern times, that there is some natural and inherent tendency in democracy, more than in other forms of government, to war. Whatever opinion may be formed as to the credibility of individual facts (184) Postumius καλὸν ὑπεκδύναι πολέμῳ βαρεῖ τοὺς πολιτικοὺς χειμῶνας iyvo; Dion. Hal. vi. 22. The consuls of the next year idov oplŵç öri dei περισπᾶν τὸν ἔντος τείχους θόρυβον ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔξω πολέμους; ib. 23. Respecting this policy, see Plut. Cam. 9. (185) The following remarks are made by Mr. Grote, upon the conduct of Athenagoras, the popular orator at Syracuse, at the time of the Athenian expedition to Sicily: We observe here, that Athenagoras, far from being inclined to push the city into war, is averse to it even beyond reasonable limit; and denounces it as the interested policy of the oligarchical party. This may shew how little it was any constant interest or policy on the part of the persons called Demagogues, to involve their city in unnecessary wars: a charge which had been frequently advanced against them, because it so happens, that Cleon, in the first half of the Peloponnesian war, discountenanced the propositions of peace between Athens and Sparta. We see by the harangue of Athenagoras, that the oligarchical party were the usual promoters of war: a fact which we should naturally expect, seeing that the rich and great, in most communities, have accounted the pursuit of military glory more conformable to their dignity than any other career;' Hist. of Greece, vol. vii. p. 237. Compare p. 250, note. The common sophism, of inferring constant tendencies in forms of government from single undissected instances, is here exemplified. It may be added that the patrician party at Rome were not inclined to war from the motive pointed out by Mr. Grote, at the end of the passage. in the early Roman history, it cannot be doubted that the predominant policy and feelings of the patrician and plebeian bodies, with respect to war, were such as have been above described: and from this example we may learn the danger of making universal assertions as to the tendency of particular political forms to produce a love of war, and may perceive on how narrow a basis they stand. Upon the refusal of the plebeians to serve, (186) Servilius, desirous of conciliating the plebeians, recommends a remission or reduction of their debts; whereas Appius, with the uncompromising patrician spirit characteristic of the Claudian family, advises that the creditors should be permitted to exact their debts in full. The measure which Servilius is described as favouring, resembles the Seisachtheia of Solon, by which the poverty of the insolvent Athenians was relieved. (17) It is, as if the mortgages on the estates of Irish landowners, or the arrears of rent due by Irish tenants, were remitted or reduced by Act of Parliament. The consuls cannot agree, and Servilius collects an army of volunteers, with which he marches against the Volscians; his arrival is so little expected, that he is able to levy war-contributions upon them, and to carry off 300 hostages from the most illustrious houses. As soon however as the Roman army has retired, the Volscians, with the assistance of the Hernici and Sabines, but regardless of their 300 hostages, prepare for war: they send ambassadors to the Latins to ask for aid; but the Latins, contrary to the rules of international law, seize the ambassadors, and deliver them up to the Romans; they likewise offer a contingent of auxiliary troops to Rome; the Romans, grateful for these friendly acts, liberate 6000 Latin prisoners, but decline the offer of assistance from the Latins. (188) (186) Livy says nothing of the refusal to serve on this occasion; ii. 22. He introduces it for the first time in a subsequent part of the war; c. 24. (187) See Plut. Solon. 15, 17; Grote, Hist. of Gr. vol. iii. p. 127-34. (188) Dionysius, vi. 25, and Livy, ii. 22, agree very closely in these facts: they both mention the 300 hostages and the 6000 Latin prisoners. Livy particularly dwells on the close union between Rome and Latium at this moment: Nunquam alias ante publice privatimque Latinum nomen Ro |