No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Livy's frank statement which follows of his uncertainty about the date and identity of the first dictator has excited comment from everyone who has considered this passage. In fact, the controversy is very slight and easily solved. The two candidates are T. Larcius and M'. Valerius. The only sources to mention the second name are Livy, in a tradition he rejects, stating it is a late version, and Festus, optima lege 216Ll). All others are agreed that the first dictator was Larcius, although there are slight corruptions of the name (Marcius or Largus). And modem scholars seem unanimous in preferring Larcius to Valerius for two reasons: his family is too unimportant after its isolated appearance in the early fifth century fasti to have been able later to invent such a prestigious tradition for itself; indeed, they seem to be Etroscan, as some other early fifth century notables. And second, the evidence for Valerian tampering with the tradition is overwhelming. The reason for the new office is hardly varying. It was a military crisis. Dionysios has been misunderstood to imply political reasons (5'70f.). He says the plebeians were bringing up economic grievances (5.63 f.), but these were important only because they might imperil the conduct of the Latin war (5.61). He simply wants to explain the dictator's freedom from provocatio. As for the date, there are only two years mentioned: 501, 498. The reason is clear. These were both years Larcius was consul, and it was a common belief that the dictator should have been a consular.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.