[942]. “All over India the hedge-priest is very often an autochthon, his long residence in the land being supposed to confer upon him the knowledge of the character and peculiarities of the local gods, and to teach him the proper mode in which they may be conciliated. Thus the Doms preserve to the present day the animistic and demonistic beliefs of the aboriginal races, which the Khasiyas, who have succeeded them, temper with the worship of the village deities, the named and localised divine entities, with the occasional languid cult of the greater Hindu gods. The propitiation of the vague spirits of wood, or cliff, river or lake, they are satisfied to leave in charge of their serfs” (W. Crooke, Natives of Northern India, London, 1907, pp. 104 sq.). When the Israelites had been carried away captives into Assyria, the new settlers in the desolate land of Israel were attacked by lions, which they supposed to be sent against them by the god of the country because, as strangers, they did not know how to propitiate him. So they petitioned the king of Assyria and he sent them a native Israelitish priest, who taught them how to worship the God of Israel. See 2 Kings xvii. 24-28.
[943]. H. Jordan, Die Könige im alten Italien (Berlin, 1884), pp. 15-25.
[944]. Livy, i. 56. 7; Dionysius Halicarnasensis, Ant. Rom. iv. 68. 1.
[945]. Livy, i. 34. 2 sq., i. 38. 1, i. 57. 6; Dionysius Halicarnasensis, Ant. Rom. iv. 64.
[946]. I owe to Mr. A. B. Cook the interesting suggestion that the double consulship was a revival of a double kingship.
[947]. As to the Regifugium see below, pp. [308]-310.
[948]. Pausanias, iv. 5. 10; G. Gilbert, Handbuch der griech. Staatsalterthümer, i. 2nd Ed., 122 sq.
[949]. The two supreme magistrates who replaced the kings were at first called praetors. See Livy, iii. 55. 12; B. G. Niebuhr, History of Rome, 3rd Ed., i. 520 sq.; Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 3rd Ed., 74 sqq. That the power of the first consuls was, with the limitations indicated in the text, that of the old kings is fully recognised by Livy (ii. 1. 7 sq.).
[950]. It was a disputed point whether Tarquin the Proud was the son or grandson of Tarquin the Elder. Most writers, and Livy (i. 46. 4) among them, held that he was a son. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, on the other hand, argued that he must have been a grandson; he insists strongly on the chronological difficulties to which the ordinary hypothesis is exposed if Servius Tullius reigned, as he is said to have reigned, forty-four years. See Dionysius Halic. Ant. Rom. iv. 6 sq.
[951]. Livy, i. 48. 2; Dionysius Halic. Ant. Rom. iv. 31 sq. and 46.