passage in the constitutional history of Rome.(88) It is likewise one out of many examples which prove the impossibility of separating the history of the constitution from the history of political occurrences; and the consequent unsoundness of the doctrine, that although the events in Roman annals may be fabulous, the constitutional changes are all real. (89) A. Postumius Tubertus is the dictator, and he gains a great battle against the Volscians and Equians.(0) According to some accounts, Postumius caused his son to be put to death, after this battle, for a breach of discipline, which consisted in his leaving his post in order to kill an enemy. Livy says that the accounts differed, and the story might be either credited or discredited; he himself disbelieves it, chiefly because the execution of a son by a father was named after Manlius, not Postumius. (91) On the other hand, Diodorus, Valerius Maximus, and Gellius, relate that Postumius ordered the execution of his son on this occasion. (92) It will be observed that Livy proposes to decide this question by merely indirect arguments; and that he does not attempt to examine the testimonies by which the different accounts are supported, and to weigh them against one another.

Livy here inserts a notice, that in this year the Carthaginians, who were destined to be afterwards such formidable enemies to Rome, for the first time sent an army to Sicily in order to assist one of the parties in a dispute between two Sicilian states.(93) This entry is made under 431 B.C., the first year of the Peloponnesian war. It seems highly improbable that the expedition of Hamilcar (94) in 480 B.C., should be referred to; and it can

(88) Livy, iv. 26.

(89) See above, ch. iv. § 5.

(90) Camillus first distinguished himself in this battle; Plut. Cam. 2. (91) Nec libet credere, et licet, in variis opinionibus; et argumento est, quod imperia Manliana, non Postumiana, appellata sint; quum qui prior auctor tam sævi exempli foret, occupaturus insignem titulum crudelitatis fuerit; iv. 29.

(92) Diod. xii. 64, who agrees with Livy in making L. Julius master of the horse. Val. Max. ii. 7, § 6; Gell. xvii. 21, § 17. In i. 13, § 7, Gellius speaks of the Postumiana imperia et Manliana.' The triumph of Postumus Tubertus over the Volscians and Equians for a battle in the Algidus is mentioned by Ovid. Fast. vi. 715-8.

(93) Livy, iv. 29.

(94) Herod. vii 165-8; Diod. xi. 20.

scarcely be doubted that the great expedition of Hannibal, in 409 B.C., caused by the dispute of the Egestæans and Selinuntines, is intended; although it occurred above twenty years after the time specified by Livy.(95) As the error antedates the event by twenty years, it could not have been made till some time after the memory of the real expedition had faded away. It is conceivable that a contemporary entry by an official Roman annalist might have contained an inaccurate account of transactions in Sicily: but although rumour might have disfigured the truth, there could have been no mistake as to the time. For instance, an incorrect description of a battle in the interior of China might now reach this country; but it would arrive soon after the time when the battle had been fought, and its mention in a newspaper would be good chronological evidence, though the account itself might be defective.

Two other foreign events were recorded in the Roman histories of this period, in which Rome had a more immediate interest than in the affairs of Sicily. Livy mentions the capture of Capua from the Etruscans by the Samnites, in 423 B.C., (96) and the capture of Cuma from the Greeks by the Campanians, three years later. The Campanians are here equivalent to the Samnites, and hence Livy speaks of the Samnites being in possession of Capua and Cumæ in 411 B.C.(98) Diodorus places the capture of Cuma by the Campanians in 428 B.C.:(99) which, for an event of this date, is a tolerably close agreement with Livy.

§ 63 The contest with the Veientes, which had originated in the murder of the Roman ambassadors, is now continued after a short truce. The question of war or peace was referred to the people, and all the centuries voted for war.(100) It was

(95) Diod. xiii. 54.

(97) c. 44.

(96) Livy, iv. 37, cf. vii. 38, x. 38, xxviii. 28. (98) c. 52.

(99) xii. 76. He refers the origin of nation and name of the Campanians to the same year 445 B.C. xii. 31. Eusebius, Chron., refers the same event to the sixteenth consulship 444 B.C. Compare Strabo, v. 4, 4;

Müller, Etr. vol. i. p. 178.

(100) Livy, iv. 30.

The

conducted by three consular tribunes, whose divided command produced a want of unity of action, and led to a reverse. city was displeased, and wished for a dictator: but a religious or constitutional scruple arose, whether a consular tribune possessed the same power of nomination as a consul for this purpose. The augurs were consulted, and removed the difficulty; whereupon A. Cornelius Cossus, the consular tribune who had charge of the town,(101) appointed Mam. Æmilius dictator, who in turn appointed him master of the horse. The success of the Veientes induces the Fidenates again to revolt, whose town, though captured only nine years before, is now described as again in their possession. A great battle takes place, in which, according to Livy, the Romans were victorious; according to Diodorus, neither party gained the advantage.(102) Livy informs us that some histories contained a statement that there was at this time a naval action near Fidene with the Veientes: this account naturally appears to him absurd, in reference to the width of the Tiber at that spot; but the attempt to explain it, by supposing that Livy misunderstood the meaning of the word classis, and did not know that in old Latin it denoted a multitude of men as well as of ships, (103) is highly unsatisfactory. (104) An armistice of twenty years is soon afterwards concluded with Veii. (105)

§ 64 After an unsuccessful campaign against the Æquians, under the consul Sempronius, which is recovered by a subsequent victory, a proposal is made by the consuls, and approved by the Senate, for doubling the number of quæstors; in order that, besides the two stationed in the city, there might be two appointed to attend the consuls during war. Up to this time none but patricians had been created quæstors; the tribunes took advantage of the proposal for doubling the number, to

(101) It seems strange that Cossus, who was a man of active bravery, should have been the consular tribune left at home.

(102) Livy, iv. 31-4; Diod. xii. 80. (103) See Becker, ii. 1, p. 198. (104) See the commentators on Livy, iv. 34, and Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. (105) Livy, iv. 35.

p. 461.

propose that a certain number of the quæstors should be plebeians. The Senate were willing to render plebeians eligible, as in the case of consular tribunes, but would not agree to a fixed number: the proposal was accordingly withdrawn. (106) Much discord now prevailed between the orders; the Senate wished for consuls, and the people for consular tribunes: the elections were delayed for a long time, till at last, L. Papirius, an interrex, persuaded both parties to compromise their dispute on the following terms; namely, that consular tribunes should be elected, and that four quæstors should be chosen promiscuously from patricians and plebeians. The elections were then held, and the singular result was, that four consular tribunes and four quæstors were elected, all patricians. (420 B.C.) (107) It was not till 409 B.C., after an interval of eleven years, that the plebeians succeeded in making their way to the quæstorship; in this year, three out of the four quæstors were plebeians.(108) The first plebeian consular tribune was not elected till 400 B.C.; the office having been opened to the plebeians in 444 B.C., so that they had much less difficulty in reaching the quæstorship than the consular tribunate.

An entirely different account of the history of the quæstorship is given incidentally by Tacitus. He states that the quæstors were chosen first by the kings, and afterwards by the consuls; but that the election was transferred to the people, and that Valerius Potitus and Mam. Æmilius were appointed in this manner, in the sixty-third year after the expulsion of the Tarquins (446 B.C.), in order that they might be present in the field afterwards, as their duties increased, two more were added, in order to attend to the business at Rome. (109)

(106) The reasons assigned by Niebuhr for the withdrawal of this measure are quite imaginary; Hist. vol. ii. p. 431.

(107) Livy, iv. 43-4. The tribunes of the plebs complain non suis beneficiis, non patrum injuriis, non denique usurpandi libidine, quum liceat, quod ante non licuerit, si non tribunum militarem, ne quæstorem quidem quemquam ex plebe factum;' ib. 44. Usurpare jus is to exercise a right, for the purpose of asserting it. See v. 12.

(108) Livy, iv. 54.

(109) Ann. xi. 22. Compare Becker, ii. 2, p. 338.

It is impossible to reconcile any part of this account with the representation in Livy. Neither the transfer of the appointment from the consuls to the people, nor the time when the first quæstors were elected, nor the priority of the military to the urban quæstors, agrees with Livy's statements. In this, as in other cases, the accounts of the origin of an ancient institution, given by different writers, are wholly irreconcilable.

§ 65 In 410 B.C., the citadel of Carventum is retaken from the Equians,(110) but in the following year falls again into their hands. Livy says that the accounts differed as to whether both consuls marched against Carventum, or whether one staid at home for holding the comitia; all however agreed in reporting that the attempt on Carventum was unsuccessful, but that Verrugo, a Volscian town, was recovered by the same army, and that much plunder was collected from the Æquian and Volscian territory.(11) The Volscians and Equians now arm again, and threaten another attack upon Rome. The Senate, in alarm, pass a decree for the election of a dictator; but two of the consular tribunes for the year, unwilling that the management of affairs should pass out of their hands, refuse to act. The Senate appeal to the tribunes; but they, rejoicing in the discord of the patricians, decline to help them out of their difficulty. At last, the third consular tribune declares that he prefers the public interest to the goodwill of his colleagues, and that if the Senate persist in their present wish, he will take upon himself to name a dictator in the next night.(112) The dictator is accordingly named, and the enemy is speedily defeated. (118)

§ 66 In the year 407 B C., the twenty years' armistice made with Veii, is stated by Livy to have expired; but this statement

(110) Livy, iv. 53.

(III) Consules ambo profecti sint ad arcem Carventanam, an alter ad comitia habenda substiterit, incertum diversi auctores faciunt: illa pro certo habenda, in quibus non dissentiunt, ab arce Carventanâ, &c.; iv. 55.

(112) Concerning the nomination of the dictator during the night, see Livy, viii. 23, and Becker, ii. 2, p. 160. This singular custom seems to indicate the necessity for secrecy and rapidity involved in the appointment of this extraordinary officer.

(113) Livy, iv. 56-7.