The story of Damaratus acquires a seductive look of historical truth, from the positive manner in which it connects itself with Cypselus, whereby it appears at the same time to confirm the chronological statements with regard to L. Tarquinius. Now could it be assumed that the story was transplanted in this shape from native traditions into the earliest annals, it would only have the more weight in consequence of the gross ignorance as to Grecian affairs displayed by the annalists even so late as in the seventh century of the city, and of their manifest incompetence for contriving that the tables of the pontiffs should synchronize with the history of Corinth. Did they not even consider Dionysius a contemporary of Coriolanus? did they not fancy, running off into the opposite errour, that in the year 323 the Carthaginian armies crossed over into Sicily for the first time?

But this apparent chronological coincidence stands and falls with the dates assigned to L. Tarquinius; and the only foundation for these is a trick played with numbers. In the bare empty outline, which is clearly an invention, there may seem to be such an agreement: but the old Roman story was enormously at variance with those dates, and there is no possibility of a reconcilement: what looks like one has only been brought about by glossing over some things and distorting others.