raises a presumption that the day was not perpetuated by an uninterrupted traditional observance. (180)

A strange hypothesis is advanced by Niebuhr with regard to the Fabian occupation of the Cremera; that it was in fact a colony founded in consequence of a secession; that the secession of the Fabii was owing to their discontent at the rejection of the conciliatory proposal of Kæso Fabius by the Senate; and that the one Fabius who remained behind was not a boy, but 'a man in the prime of life, and of a resolute character, who persisted in the previous sentiments of his house, and separated from them when they emigrated.'(181) This view implies not so much a rationalizing, as a reconstruction of the whole story; but the supposition is destitute of all verisimilitude: for if the Fabii were dissatisfied with their position at home, and wished to separate themselves from their countrymen, and to found a new settlement, it is not likely that they would have chosen an insulated hill close to Rome, on an enemy's territory, without previously obtaining his consent. Our historians moreover describe the Fabii as peculiarly well-inclined to the state, and as desirous of making great sacrifices for its good; they further state that the people felt great grief at the disaster of this gallant baud, and fined Menenius, the consul, for not having shown sufficient promptitude in their relief. (182)

Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. n. 441. Florus, i. 13, § 7, compares the disasters of the Cremera and the Allia. While the day on which the Fabii perished is a matter of unquestionable tradition, the manner of their destruction is wholly uncertain;' Niebuhr, Hist. ib. p. 201. The destruction of the Fabii on the Cremera is a historical fact, but the account of it is partly poetical, partly annalistic;' Lect. vol. i. p. 163. The account of the slaughter of the Fabii on the Cremera is discredited by Col. Mure, Lit. of Gr. vol. iv. p. 338.

(180) F. Lachmann, de Die Alliensi (Gotting. 1822) p. 15, thinks that unlucky days were not marked in the calendar before the burning of the city, and that the day of the Cremera had been forgotten.

(181) Hist. vol. ii. p. 193-4; Lect. vol. i. p. 163. This hypothesis is adopted as a matter of fact by Dr. Arnold. The Fabii (he says) left Rome as the Claudii had left Regillus a few years before; they wished to establish themselves as a Latin colony in Etruria, serving the cause of Rome even while they had renounced her;' Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 170; compare p. 214. Niebuhr likewise thinks that they were intentionally sacrificed by the consul, and he compares their fate to that of Siccius Dentatus at the time of the decemvirs; ib. P. 203. The only

(182) Dion. Hal. ix. 23, 27; Livy, ii. 52; Dio Cass. xxi. 3.

Menenius, who had been encamped near the Cremera at the time of this calamity, shortly afterwards engaged the Veientes, but was defeated with great loss. The Janiculum was occupied by the enemy, and the Roman territory ravaged. The other consul was recalled, and the Romans were superior in two conflicts-one near the temple of Hope, the other near the Colline gate.(183) The incursions of the Veientes prevent the cultivation of the soil, and cause a scarcity; but the Veientes are shortly afterwards defeated in a great battle, the Janiculum is recovered, and plenty is restored.(184)

§ 31 The succeeding events—including the impeachments of Menenius and Servilius, and the submission of the Veientesare similarly related by both our historians. (185) The next im

The

support which Niebuhr can find for this hypothesis is the following passage of Gellius: Bello Veiente, apud fluvium Cremeram, Fabii sex et trecenti patricii, cum familiis suis, universi ab hostibus circumventi perierunt;' xvii. 21, § 13. These words he translates: 306 Fabii perished with their families on the Cremera,' and adds that Gellius assuredly made this statement 'not without the express authority of ancient books' (vol. ii. p. 193). By families he means wives and children. Nothing is said elsewhere of the Fabii migrating with their wives and children, and it is very improbable that Gellius, in his general synchronism of Greek and Roman history, followed any peculiar accounts of celebrated events. Dionysius says that the Fabii were attended by a numerous body of clients (ix. 15), and it is to clients or house-slaves, and not to wives and children, that Gellius evidently refers, so that his words correspond to those of Dionysius ὅτε ἡ Φαβίων συγγένεια καὶ τὸ πελατικὸν αὐτῶν ἀπώλλυντο, ib. 23. expressions of Gellius point rather to a battle in which none but men are killed, than to the storming of a fort. Compare the words of Livy, iii. 19, where Cincinnatus likens the Capitol, seized by a body of servile invaders, to a private house, from which the owner is blocked out by his own slaves. Scilicet si quis vobis humillimus homo de vestrâ plebe, si quis ex his domum suam obsessam a familiâ armatá nunciaret, ferendum auxilium putaretis?' Here familia means the slaves of the householder, to the exclusion of the members of his family, properly so called. It may be remarked that Niebuhr, in citing the passage of Gellius, omits the words Bello Veiente, apud fluvium Cremeram, universi ab hostibus,' which would have caused the reader to see that wives and children could not be meant. See likewise Serv. ad Æn. vi. 846 (transcribed by Myth. Lat. i. 224, ed. Bode): Nam trecenti sex fuerunt de unâ familiâ, qui cum conjurati cum servis et clientibus suis contra Veientes dimicarent, insidiis apud Cremeram fluvium interempti sunt.

(183) Dion. Hal. ix. 24, and Livy, ii. 51, agree as to the places of these two battles. See Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 204.

(184) Dion. Hal. ix. 25-6; Livy, ii. 51.

(185) Dion. Hal. ix. 27-36; Livy, ii. 52-4; Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 207-8, describes both Menenius and Servilius as tried by the curies;

portant incident is the death of the tribune Genucius; who is described by Dionysius as reviving the question of the agrarian decree, and as impeaching C. Manlius and L. Furius, the consuls of the previous year, for not having carried it into effect. (186) Livy represents Genucius as proposing an agrarian law, and as impeaching these consuls; but he is silent as to the ground of the impeachment. (187) As to the cause of his death, they likewise differ. Livy says that he was found dead in his house on the day of his trial, having been secretly murdered by the senators: Dionysius describes his body as having been found in his house on the previous day, without any mark of violence or poisoning; and considers his death at the critical moment as due, not to any human agency, but to the special interference of the gods. (188)

§ 32 We are now arrived at the important political movement originated by Volero Publilius; near the beginning of which, Dionysius places a pestilence, and other alarming pro

which, according to his view, consisted only of patricians. Dionysius however states distinctly that they were tried by the tribes, c. 27, 33; and Livy evidently conceives the tribunal as a popular one, c. 52.

(186) Dion. Hal. ix. 37-8. In c. 37 it is stated that twelve consulships had intervened between the year of the agrarian decree and the year in which Genucius made his accusation: i. e. between 486 and 473 B.C. See also x. 38, where the eleventh year is mentioned.

(187) ii. 54. Livy speaks of the continuance of agrarian agitation, but does not connect it with the decree in the time of Cassius. He describes the tribunes as themselves proposing fresh agrarian laws, not as complaining of the non-execution of an existing law. Thus in c. 52 he calls Considius and Genucius the auctores agrariæ legis,' and says, tribuni plebem agitare suo veneno, agrariâ lege;' in c. 54: Paci externæ confestim continuatur discordia domi; agrariæ legis tribuniciis stimulis plebs furebat.' With regard to the consuls of this year, Livy says: L. Æmilius et Opiter Virginius consulatum ineunt. Vopiscum Julium pro Virginio in quibusdam annalibus consulem invenio; ib. Dion. Hal. ix. 37, makes L. Æmilius Mamercus and Vopiscus Julius the consuls.

(188) ix. 38; Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. n. 473, treats the passage in x. 38 as inconsistent with the previous account; but the representation there given by L. Siccius Dentatus is meant to be distorted from the truth, as proceeding from a partisan. His account of the execution of Sp. Cassius in the same chapter, likewise differs from the previous narrative; viii. 77-8. Compare the case of Scipio Africanus minor, who was found dead in his bed, without any apparent cause of death, in the year 129 B.C. It was said that he died a natural death, that he killed himself, and that he was murdered; but the truth was never ascertained. See Appian, B.C. i. 19; Plut. C. Gracch. 10.

digies, which were arrested by the execution of Orbinia, one of the Vestal virgins, for unchastity. She was buried alive; and of her two accomplices, one killed himself, the other was flogged to death, like a slave.(19) These incidents are not mentioned by Livy.

Volero Publilius first distinguished himself by resistance to the consul, who enrolled him as a common soldier, whereas he had already served as a first centurion. In consequence of his spirited conduct on this occasion, he was elected a tribune of the plebs; in which capacity he proposed a law for transferring the election of the tribunes from the curiæ to the tribes. This is the statement of Dionysius; who adds, that the difference between the comitia curiata and comitia tributa was, that, for the former, a preliminary decree of the Senate, the voting of the people by curia, and favourable auspices were necessary; whereas in the latter the votes were taken by tribes, without the necessity either of the consent of the Senate or of auspices.(190) He

(189) Dion. Hal. ix. 40. Compare above, a similar case (p. 141) where the unchaste vestal is immured. Livy, xxii. 57, states that near the beginning of the Second Punic War, the accomplice of an unchaste Vestal was flogged to death by the Pontifex Maximus, in the Comitium, with his own hands. See above, vol. i. p. 150.

(190) ix. 41. Compare x. 4. In iv. 20, Dionysius distinctly states that the curiæ were originally the assembly of the entire people, in which each citizen had an equal vote; and that this mode of voting was altered by Servius Tullius into the voting by centuries, in which the rich citizens had an advantage. The purely democratic constitution of vote by curiæ is attributed to Romulus; ii. 14. See above, vol. i. p. 412, 542. Notwithstanding the valid objections which apply to violent alterations of the text of ancient historians, I cannot help agreeing with Goettling, ib. p. 308, n., that the passage of Dionysius in the speech of Lætorius respecting the comitia curiata is corrupt. Having first alluded to the secession, and the creation of the tribunate, he proceeds thus : διεξελθὼν δὲ ταῦτα, τοὺς νόμους ἐπεδείκ· νυτο οὓς ὁ δῆμος ἐπεκύρωσεν οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ, τόν τε περὶ τῶν δικαστηρίων τῆς μεταγωγῆς, ὡς ἔδωκεν ἡ βουλὴ τῷ δήμῳ τὴν ἐξουσίαν κρίνειν, οὓς ἂν αὐτοῖς δόξειε τῶν πατρικίων, καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ψηφηφορίας, ὡς [ὃς Niebuhr] οὐκέτι τὴν λοχῖτιν ἐκκλησίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν κουριᾶτιν ἐποίει τῶν ψήφων κυρίαν, ix. 46. The supposition of Niebuhr that this is an insulated statement, preserved from an annalist,' and at variance with the rest of the narrative, is quite untenable. (Hist. vol. ii. p. 181, and n. 468.) Dionysius always weaves his materials into a consistent story, and in this passage he evidently refers to the preceding facts. The change of jurisdiction alludes to his detailed account of the trial of Coriolanus (see vii. 65); and the change in the suffrage can only refer to the measure proposed by Volero, which had been virtually agreed to by the people, though it had not formally obtained the

evidently understands that the same body of persons voted in both comitia; though in the other parts of the procedure there were the differences which he specifies. Cicero likewise describes the tribunes of the plebs as having been elected in their second year in comitia curiata, with auspices.(191) Livy mentions the transfer to comitia tributa, but does not state from what body the transfer is made. He speaks of the change being greater in idea than in reality; and as consisting in the exclusion of the patricians from the comitia.(192) The proposal is not carried the first year; but Volero is re-elected, and he renews his proposition, which he now extends to the election of ædiles, and to all other acts within the competence of the people.(198) The two historians differ in many of the details; but they agree in describing a violent conflict between the patricians and plebeians as the consequence of this proposal, and the Senate as finally consenting to its adoption by the people.(194) Niebuhr, and the

force of law. This proposal is thus described in c. 41: vóμov clopépei πepì τῶν δημαρχικῶν ἀρχαιρεσίων, μετάγων αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς φρατριακῆς ψηφηφορίας, ἣν οἱ Ρωμαῖοι κουριᾶτιν καλοῦσιν, ἐπὶ τὴν φυλετικήν. Compare c. 49. Hence in ix. 46 the sense seems to require ὃς οὐκέτι τὴν κουριᾶτιν ἐκκλησίαν ἀλλὰ τὴν φυλετικὴν ἐποίει τῶν ψήφων κυρίαν. Some event subsequent to the trial of Coriolanus must be intended. The arbitrary treatment of this passage by Niebuhr is well exposed by Mr. F. Newman in the Classical Museum, vol. vi. p. 120, but his own explanation is not satisfactory.

(191) Itaque auspicato postero anno decem tribuni plebis comitiis curiatis creati sunt; Cic. pro Corn. i. Cicero agrees with Dionysius in attri buting auspices to the comitia curiata. The use of auspices and the presence of priests at the comitia centuriata is mentioned by Dion. Hal. x. 57.

(192) Variâ fortunâ belli, atroci discordiâ domi forisque annum exactum, insignem maxime comitia tributa efficiunt; res major victoria suscepti certaminis, quam usu. Plus enim dignitatis comitiis ipsis detractum est, patribus ex concilio submovendis, quam virium aut plebi additum est aut demtum patribus; Livy, ii. 60. Compare the account in c. 56, of the tribune removing the patricians from the comitia, which were to vote on the law of Volero; in c. 57, they are called concilium plebis. I cannot accede to Mr. Newman's interpretation of this passage: Class. Mus. vol. vi. p. 215. (193) Dion. Hal. ix. 43.

(194) Dion. Hal. ix. 41--49; Livy, ii. 54-8, 60. Dionysius describes the first proposal (which was limited to the election of tribunes) as arrested by a terrible pestilence, which he describes at some length. He seems to consider it as a divine interposition made for the sake of obstructing the propositions of Volero, which were despotic in their character. exe αὐτοῦ τὰ βουλεύματα, ὄντα τυραννικά, ἑτέρα συμπεσοῦσα θεήλατος συμφορά, ο. 42. Livy knows nothing of this pestilence; he says that the rogation of Volero