cola; but this is an unfortunate remedy, since a P. Valerius, as a son of Poplicola, again occurs in the Fasti afterward. The poem, however, was not concerned about Fasti and Annals. We cannot regard the two Valerii sons of Poplicola, but as the ancient heroes Mamilius and Poplicola, themselves, who had fought and fell. The legend undoubtedly related that Tarquinius and his sons were likewise slain; and the statement that the king was only wounded arose from the record that he died at Cuma. The introduction of the dictator Postumius was certainly a pure interpolation, and the poem undoubtedly mentioned Sp. Lartius, who could not be wanting here, any more than M. Valerius. The reward offered by the dictator refers to the legend of the Dioscuri-as in the war against the Lucaniares, under Fabricius, when a youth carried the ladder to the wall, and afterward, when the mural crown was awarded to him, was not anywhere to be found.

us.

This battle forms the close of the lay of the Tarquins, as the lay of the Nibelungen ends with the death. of all the heroes. The earliest period of Roman history is thus terminated, and a new era opens upon There is no definite time to which the battle can be assigned. Some suppose it to have taken place in A.U. 255, others in A.U. 258. Some represént Postumius as consul, others as dictator-a sufficient proof that the account is not historical, for if it were the Fasti would have marked such an event.

It is not impossible that peace with the Latins was restored in A.U. 259; and if we were to take this statement literally, it would confirm the victory of Lake Regillus. It might be conceived that the Latins were defeated there, and submitted to the condition which Tarquin had established for them; but that afterward the Senate, from other motives, restored them to the constitution of Servius Tullius. Be this as it may, peace was renewed between the Romans and the Latins before the secession of the plebs. For many years after the battle of Lake Regillus, Livy records nothing. about the Latins, whereas Dionysius relates a variety of events, which however are arbitrary inventions.Lecture XIII.

THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

ASTOR. LENOX

ILD N FOUNDATIONS

THE LEGEND OF REGULUS.

Everyone remembers the beautiful verse of Horace and what Cicero says concerning Regulus. After the defeat of the Romans in Africa under Regulus, the Carthaginians, it is said, sent Regulus to Rome with proposals of peace, with the understanding that if he should not succeed, he should endeavor at least to effect an exchange of prisoners. Regulus, however, is stated to have dissuaded his fellow-citizens from either measure; to have returned to Carthage, and there to have been tortured to death.

The first who demonstrated the untenableness of the story was the excellent French philologer, Paulmier de Grentmestril. Beaufort afterward adduced further reasons to prove that this tragedy is a complete fiction, and that it was probably invented because the Romans acknowledged that the terms of peace proposed by Regulus were abominable, and that he had to make amends for his shameful conduct. Beaufort has drawn attention to a fragment of Diodorus, according to which two noble Carthaginians were retained at Rome as hostages for the life of Regulus, and were given over to his wife and family. The same fragment states that they were tortured by the relatives of Regulus in a frightful manner, and that the tribunes summoned the senate, and compelled the monsters to release one of the hostages who was shut up in a cage containing the dead body of his comrade. Now, as both Paulmier and Beaufort justly observe, if the Carthaginians did actually torture Regulus to death, it was probably this crime, committed by his family, which caused the fabrication of the whole story about the death of Regulus.

But even this is not the same in all authors. According to some, his eyes were put out; others say that he was tortured with iron nails; others that he was killed, being exposed to the sun and insects. Some middle-age writers take especial delight in inventing the most fearful and complicated tortures, as was done by the authors of the forged Acta Martyrium. Such is also the case with the story of Regulus. It surely cannot have been

known previously to the time of Polybius; for had he been acquainted with it, as told by later writers, he would not have passed it over in silence.

The common account of the death of Regulus may be effaced from the pages of history without any scruple. It may be it was taken from Nævius, for Diodorus was not acquainted with it, as is clear from his fragments. He knew this history of Rome but very imperfectly, and only from early, almost contemporary, writers, as Philinus of Agrigentum, Timæus, and Fabius Pictor; he had not read Nævius, and hence the latest Roman historians were probably those who gave currency to the story from Nævius. Cicero knew it, and it must therefore have been related either in Cato's Origines or by Nævius. If it originated with later authors, it arose, at the earliest, from one hundred to one hundred and fifty years after the time of Regulus.-Lecture LVI.

HANNIBAL.

I do not say that Hannibal committed no act of cruelty, but what he did was no more than the common practice among the Romans themselves, with whom, as with the ancients generally, the destruction of the enemy was the principal object of war. Of the perfidia a plus quam Punica, with which he is charged by Livy, not a single instance is known, and Polybius confidently asserts that in capitulations he always kept his engagements; for, if he had not, the charge would have been brought against him, and no one would have made any capitulation with him.

The Romans are terrible liars when they blame an enemy. Stories like those of the murder of the senate at Nurcena, and the massacre of that of Acerræ are not established by any good authority.

His greatness was not less striking in peace than in war; and in this respect the difference between him and Scipio is very remarkable. In times of peace Scipio was a useless citizen. Hannibal, on the other hand, showed his genius in everything, and in times of peace, after the second Punic war, he was the benefactor and reformer of his country by wise laws and institutions.