Before the consuls could reach Etruria, the legion under Scipio at Clusium suffered a great blow. The accounts of this catastrophe differed; some said that the entire legion was cut off, and not a man left to carry the news of its fate. Others, that some foragers were surprised and killed, but that assistance was obtained from the camp, and the victors defeated. Some said that the attack was made by the Gauls, others by Umbrians.(167)

The consuls soon crossed the Apennines, and marched into the country of Sentinum, in Umbria, not far from Ancona. Here, according to Livy, there were two allied armies; one formed of the Samnites and Gauls, the other of the Etruscans and Umbrians. The latter army was drawn off by an attack made upon the Etruscan territory at Clusium by the pro-prætors; so that the consuls were engaged only with the Samnites and Gauls. A great struggle took place; the battle was for a time doubtful, and Decius, following the example of his father at the battle of Veseris, devoted himself for the Romans. At length victory declared itself on the side of the Romans; Gellius Egnatius, the Samnite general, and the organizer of the confederacy, was killed: the enemy lost twenty-five thousand men, and eight thousand prisoners. On the Roman side, seven thousand men are said to have been killed in the army of Decius, and one thousand two hundred in that of Fabius. (168) Other Roman accounts, however, men

(167) Livy, x. 26. Polybius, ii. 14, describes this as a regular engage. ment of the Romans with the Samnites and Gauls in the country of the Camertians; in which a large number of Romans fell. See above, p. 406, n. 134. As Livy mentions that Clusium was anciently called Camars, it seems probable that Polybius means the same place. Niebuhr however thinks that Camerinum, on the borders of Umbria and Picenum is intended by Polybius; Hist. vol. iii. p. 377; Lect. vol. i. p. 398. He is followed by Dr. Arnold, ib. p. 338. Dr. Arnold here makes a remark, which is applicable to many parts of Livy's historical narrative, especially with reference to the events of different years. Exactly at this critical point of the campaign (he says), Livy's narrative fails us, and all that passed between the destruction of the legion and the final battle at Sentinum, is a total blank: it is as much lost to us as a country travelled over during the night; we were in one sort of scenery yesterday, and we find ourselves in another this morning: each is distinct in itself, but we know not the connexion between them;' p. 339.

(168) Livy, x. 27-9.

tioned by Livy, described the Umbrians and Etruscans to have been also engaged in the action; some likewise stated that Volumnius with his troops, as pro-consul, was present on the Roman side; most of the historians gave the entire credit to the two consuls. (169) Polybius agrees with Livy in stating that this battle was fought against the Samnites and Gauls, and that they were entirely routed. (170)

The fame of the battle of Sentinum reached Greece: it was mentioned by Duris of Samos, a contemporary historian, who wrote the history of Agathocles. He states that it was fought by the Romans under their consul Fabius against the Etruscans, Gauls, and Samnites, and their allies, and that the Romans killed one hundred thousand of the enemy: an exaggeration which shows that his account was derived from common rumour.(171)

Notwithstanding their repeated reverses, and the length of time during which they had, with little intermission, carried on the war with Rome, the Samnites still continued to bring fresh armies into the field. (172) The conflict proceeded during the consulship of L. Postumius Megellus and M. Atilius Regulus, but the events of their year were related with remarkable discrepancies. Livy mentions three distinct accounts. The first is that of Fabius Pictor; who stated that both consuls marched into Samnium, and fought a battle near Luceria, in which both sides suffered great losses, and a temple was vowed by one

(169) Livy, x. 30. The numbers in the passage of Livy, Superjecere quidam augendo fidem,' &c., appear to be too small; but the conjectural alteration of Niebuhr is uncertain; Hist. vol. iii. n. 647; Lect. vol. i. p. 402, a different conjecture is proposed by Alschefski ad loc. Niebuhr, Lect. ib. remarks that this campaign, in regard to achievements, battles, and design, is the greatest known in the early history of Rome.'

(170) ii. 19. See above, § 13.

(171) Ap. Diod. xxi. 13; Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 479, fr. 40. It is not clear from the passage of Tzetzes, that the self-devotion of Decius was mentioned by Duris.

(172) See the reflections of Livy, x. 31. He reckons forty-six years from the beginning of the First Samnite War to 295 B.C. According to the chronology of Fischer (who interpolates two years) it is forty-eight years: viz., from 343 B.C.

of the consuls (as formerly by Romulus) (178) to Jupiter Stator, 'the stayer of flight.' He added, that the army was afterwards led to Etruria, but by which consul he did not mention. The second is that of Claudius Quadrigarius; who stated that Postumius, after having taken some Samnite towns, was utterly defeated in Apulia, and was glad to find a refuge, wounded and attended by a few companions, in Luceria; that Atilius, the other consul, was successful in Etruria, and received the honour of a triumph. The third is that preferred by Livy himself. According to this version, Atilius invaded Samnium, where his camp was attacked by the enemy, and he was in considerable. danger, until his colleague came to his relief. This gave the Romans the superiority; and the two armies separated. Postumius ravaged Samnium, and found several of the towns deserted by the inhabitants: Atilius was less successful in Apulia. He suffered a reverse near Luceria; but a second battle (of which the commencement was unfavourable, and in which he vowed a temple to Jupiter Stator) was converted into a victory; though with great loss to the Romans. The Senate refuse him a triumph. Postumius, finding insufficient occupation for his army in Samnium, marches to Etruria, without the consent of the Senate: he gains some advantages, and compels the towns of Volsinii, Perusia, and Arretium, to sue for peace. The Senate refuse him a triumph, but he triumphs in defiance of their prohibition. He is described by Livy as referring to the precedents of Horatius and Valerius in the year 449 B.C., and of C. Marcius Rutilus in the year 356 B.C., whose son was at that time censor. (174) To these must be added a fourth version, which is implied in the record of the Capitoline Fasti, that both consuls triumphed, Postumius over the Samnites and Etruscans, and Atilius over the Volsones and Samnites. The

(173) See above, vol. i. p. 426.

C. Marcius Rutilus

(174) Livy, x. 32-7. Compare iii. 63, vii. 17. Censorinus, the person here alluded to, is mentioned by Livy as conducting the census of the following year, 293 B.C.; x. 47. This second censorship occurs in Val. Max. iv. 1, § 3; Plut. Cor. 1. The victory of Atilius, after an unsuccessful beginning (as in Livy) is mentioned by Zon. viii, 1.

account of Claudius Quadrigarius, and that followed by Livy, agree in representing Postumius as triumphing over the Etruscans; but none of the three versions gives Atilius a triumph over the Samnites; of the Volsones, nothing is known.(175) It should further be noted, that Dionysius represents Postumius as having triumphed, in defiance of the Senate, in his subsequent consulship, in 291 B.C.(176) It seems highly improbable that such an event should have happened twice to the same person within three years; so that Dionysius probably did not recognise the triumph of Postumius in 294 B.C.

§ 34 In the following year, the Samnites made a great exertion, and called in the aid of religious ceremonies, for fortifying the courage of their soldiers. A legion of 16,000 men was distinguished by a peculiar armour and by a linen dress: an oath was also administered, in a solemn assembly, by which each soldier called down a curse upon himself and his family, if he did not obey his commander, if he fled from the ranks; or, if he did not put to death any other soldier who fled. (177) Papirius Cursor, however, attacks the main Samnite army, including the sacred legion, and gains a great victory; 30,340 Samnites are stated to have been killed, and 3870 prisoners taken; while ninety-seven standards are reported to have been captured. At the same time, Sp. Carvilius, the other consul, took Cominium, and is said to have killed 4380 Samnites, and taken 11,400 prisoners. The former pursued his advantages against the Samnites; the latter was called away to check some hostile movements in Etruria. Both consuls received the honour of a triumph; the spoils obtained by Papirius Cursor, in Samnium, are described as immense.(178) It is however remarkable, that a large statue of Jupiter, on the Capitol, which is described as dedicated from the cuirasses,

(175) Concerning the divergent accounts of this year, see Niebuhr, Hist. ib. p. 388-90; Arnold, ib. p. 349-50. Livy, c. 37, remarks: 'Et hujus anni parum constans memoria est.'

(176) Dion. Hal. xvi. 18.

(177) Livy, x. 38; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 29.

(178) Livy, x. 39-46. In the Capitoline Fasti, both consuls are recorded as triumphing over the Samnites.

greaves, and helmets, of the sacred Samnite band, is attributed by Pliny to Carvilius, and not to Papirius ;(179) whereas, according to Livy, the battle in which the sacred band was defeated, was fought by Papirius.(180)

The fame of these consuls and their successes was so great and so enduring, that when Fabius Maximus and Marcellus were elected consuls in the fifth year of the Second Punic War, 214 B.C., their appointment is said to have reminded aged persons of the consulship of Q. Fabius and Decius, in the year

(179) Fecit et Sp. Carvilius Jovem, qui est in Capitolio, victis Samnitibus sacratâ lege pugnantibus, e pectoralibus eorum, ocreisque, et galeis. Amplitudo tanta est, ut conspiciatur a Latiario Jove; H. N. xxxiv. 18.

(180) With this year, the tenth book of Livy terminates: the election of the consuls for the ensuing year is mentioned in the last chapter. Books xi. to xx. inclusive are lost. Niebuhr, in his History, speaking of Livy's tenth book, remarks that with regard to the history, we might easily console ourselves for the loss of the subsequent books, if only one of the earlier works were left us, which he had before his eyes;' vol. iii. n. 668. In his Lectures, he says: The period from the third Samnite war down to the time when Pyrrhus was called into Italy, though it embraces scarcely ten years, is one of the most important in all ancient history (?), whence it is to be greatly regretted that we have no accurate knowledge of it. In the sixteenth century, people are said to have conjured up spirits for the purpose of recovering the lost works of ancient authors; if such a thing were possible, or if by any sacrifice a lost work could be recovered, I should not hesitate, as far as information goes, to choose the eleventh book of Livy, in preference to any other work;' vol. i. p. 409. Dr. Arnold takes a somewhat different view: We should be glad (he says) to possess the eleventh book, which contained the account of the secession to the Janiculum, and of the Hortensian laws; yet, on the whole, a careful study of the ninth and tenth books will dispose us to be more patient of the loss of those which followed them. How little does the tenth book tell us of the internal state of Rome, how uncertain are its accounts of the several wars! Its most valuable information consists in the miscellaneous notices with which Livy generally concludes his account of each year; such as his notice of the paving of a part of the Appian road, and of the building of several temples;' vol. ii. p. 360. Criticisms such as this on the earlier books of Livy, assume that there was an authentic history of the time, in existence, to which he could have access, if he thought fit; an assumption for which there is no ground. Niebuhr recurs elsewhere to the notion of evoking ancient spirits. Thus in his Lectures on Roman History, he remarks: It is said that a philologer once tried to conjure up spirits, in order to obtain from them ancient books which were lost; and if such a thing were possible, the first ancient work to be asked for would be the Origines of Cato;' vol. 1, p. xxxvi. In his Lectures on Ancient History, vol. i. p. 223, he says: The grammatical period of Alexandria has much that is excellent; and if I had the power of conjuring, I would summon an Alexandrian grammarian to appear before me.'