[141] Niebuhr treats Dionysius with great respect; cf. Lectures, i. liv: “The longer and more carefully the work is examined, the more must true criticism acknowledge that it is deserving of all respect, and the more it will be found a storehouse of most solid information.” Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. 621 f., and 626 f., assumes that Dionysius is alone responsible for the view that the plebeians were in the primitive tribes and the curiae. A glance at the citations given above, p. 24 f., will show, however, that Cicero and Livy shared this view.
[142] Cf. Pais, Storia di Roma, I. 1. 82. The usual opinion (cf. Bernhöft, Röm. Königsz. 8 f.) is that the sources of Dionysius are later and less trustworthy than those of Livy, but Pais asserts that on the whole the two authors drew from the same sources.
[143] Röm. Gesch. i. 339, Eng. 165.
[144] Lectures on Roman History, i. 81, 100 f.
[145] Röm. Gesch. i. 332, Eng. 158.
[146] In ibid. i. 330, Eng. 162, he excludes the “freed clients” from the gens; in 339, Eng. 165, he states that the nobles alone had the gens, the clients belonged to it in a dependent capacity.
[147] Cf. the edition of Sandys, 252; Rose, Aristotelis Frag. 385.
[148] Röm. Gesch. i. 326, Eng. 160. Genz, Patricisches Rom, 6, has the same idea.
[149] Il. ii. 362 f.; ix. 63 f.
[150] CIA. i. 61; cf. Dem. xliii. 57.