From the time of the battle at the Regillus, the narratives of Dionysius and Livy are in many years quite in agreement with each other, and there are rarely any discrepancies of importance. The history of the legislation of the decemvirs is also an instance of this harmony. Other accounts, however, few as we have remaining, do not at all tally with them; so that their accordance is not exactly a proof of their historical truth, and we must suppose that both these historians happened to make use of the same sources for that period. The narrative, especially in Livy, is exceedingly fine and highly wrought. It has already been remarked, that probably the intention was to establish the decemvirs as a permanent magistracy, the consulship and tribunate being abolished; and that the decemvirs of the second year were not chosen as lawgivers, but as supreme rulers, although they were authorised to add two more tables. Another supposition which I set forth pretty positively, is this,--that these decemvirs were not elected merely for one year, but for several, perhaps for five. There is a tradition handed down to us, that they did not go out of office on the Ides of May, and this is considered as an usurpation. If it were so, this would be a real δυναστεία in the true Greek acceptation of the word (it is used in contraposition to τυραννίς, a distinction which is foreign to the Roman language, although not without an example in ancient history).[105] According to an invariable principle, it must have been intended in the election of the decemvirs, that those who should be invested with this dignity, should forthwith pass into the senate; but ten persons every year would give too great an increase. It seems much more likely that the fact of their being appointed for longer than one year was overlooked, than that they should arbitrarily have prolonged their tenure of office, which they indeed could hardly have ventured upon doing.