359

CHAPTER XIII.

HISTORY OF ROME, FROM THE REBUILDING OF THE CITY TO THE LANDING OF PYRRHUS IN ITALY.

§ 1

(391-281 B.C.)

PART I.-FROM THE REBUILDING OF THE CITY TO

THE BEGINNING OF THE SAMNITE WARS.

(391-343 B.C.)

WE have in the preceding chapter followed the course

of Roman history from the expulsion of the kings to the burning of the city by the Gauls, and have examined the evidences by which it is supported. Although this interval comprises a period of 120 years, we have not found that any sensible advance has been made to a more authentic and credible narrative of events. There is no perceptible improvement in the external attestation; we may indeed conjecture that the occurrences in the latter part of this period were preserved with greater accuracy and fulness, than the occurrences in the earlier part, because the later time was separated by a shorter interval from the age when historians began to write down oral traditions, and to compile a connected relation of facts; and also because the art of writing was probably more used in the sixty years which followed the decemvirate than in the sixty years which preceded that epoch: but we have no positive information on the subject. With respect to the bare fact that Rome was taken by the Gauls, there is for the first time in Roman history the testimony of contemporary Greek writers. In the internal character of the history, again, little progress is discernible during the hundred and twenty years in question. The accounts of the siege of Veii and of the Gaulish invasion exhibit the same general aspect as the accounts of the events in the earlier years of the Republic; such, for example, as the war with Porsena, and the story of Coriolanus. There is the same

minuteness of detail, the same vivid colouring, the same animated descriptions, and the same precise recitals of the words and thoughts of the principal actors; accompanied with vagueness, uncertainty, indefiniteness, obscurity, incoherence, and inconsistency in the general course of the narrative, and in the combined effect of the separate parts.

For the period anterior to the age of contemporary historians, we must suppose that the history of Rome was mainly derived from official annals, and from oral traditions. Now the annalistic style is marked by brevity and dryness; but it is clear and intelligible. The records of an annalist may be jejune; but they are composed with the perspicuity of a scribe who knows the truth, who seeks only to embody in language the substance of the fact, and who discards all accessories, all ornament, and all conjecture. The Hellenics of Xenophon, and many of the medieval chronicles, afford examples of this form of historical composition. On the other hand, the legendary style is marked. by copiousness and confusion: narratives derived from oral traditions abound in striking incidents, in interesting situations, in lively portraitures; but they are deficient in internal connexion. If we compare the received accounts of Roman events during the period from the Tarquins to Camillus, with the characteristics of these two styles of history, we shall not doubt whether the annalistic or the legendary style predominates in them.

§ 2 We now enter upon a period which several ancient writers (as we have shown in a former chapter) (1) concur in describing as marked by an improvement in the external attestation of events. Before the capture of the city (says Livy) the use of writing was rare; and even such records as existed in the registers of the pontifices, and in other public and private archives, were for the most part destroyed in the conflagration. But the history of Rome after its second birth, both civil and military, will henceforth be related with greater clearness and certainty.'(2) That the official and documentary (2) vi. 1. See above, vol. i. p. 152, n. 71.

(1) Above, ch. v. § 10.

foundation for the historical narrative, from this date onwards, is wider and more solid, we may take as a fact certified to us on satisfactory evidence; though we do not know what were the fuller records, commencing at this time, to which Livy refers. But whatever these records may have been, their character must have been fragmentary, and at the most annalistic; they were detached notices and morsels of evidence, but not a continuous narrative they were not the work of a historian, and they did not of themselves form a history of the period. We may have reached a time when there is a substratum of notation: but we have not yet reached the time when there is an authentic narrative of events.(3) We have indeed descended to a period when, as Livy assures us, more records of passing events were made, and these records were better preserved, than in the antecedent period; we may also suppose that the oral traditions, having passed through a smaller number of reporters, were preserved with greater fidelity; but we have not yet arrived at the time when there was a continuous authentic history, compiled from the information of original witnesses. Nevertheless, the change is sufficient to justify us in presuming that the history for the period from the capture of the city to the campaign against Pyrrhus, compared with the period from the expulsion of the kings to the capture of the city, contains a greater proportion of fact, and a smaller proportion of fiction.

(3) Dr. Arnold accordingly remarks that no period of Roman history since the first institution of the tribunes of the commons is really more obscure than the thirty years immediately following the retreat of the Gauls. And the reason of this is, that when there are no independent cotemporary historians, the mere existence of public documents affords no security for the preservation of a real knowledge of men and actions. The documents may exist indeed, but they give no evidence; they are neglected or corrupted at pleasure by poets and panegyrists; and a fictitious story gains firm possession of the public mind, because there is no one to take the pains of promulgating the truth; Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 2. Compare Beaufort, p. 307 Nous voyons aussi, que l'obscurité repandue sur les premiers siècles de l'histoire romaine, malgré la promesse que TiteLive nous fait au commencement de son sixième livre, s'étend encore plus d'un siècle au delà de la prise de Rome. La disette d'historiens, où les Romains furent jusqu'au temps de la seconde guerre punique, fait que ce n'est proprement qu'avec le sixième siècle qu'elle commence à avoir quelque certitude.'

At the commencement of this period of a hundred and ten years, Rome, having been brought to the ground by the Gallic irruption, takes a new departure, and enters upon a second career.() Her territory, even with the addition of the Veientine district, is still of very narrow dimensions; and it is during this period that the advance is made, which formed the basis of her power, and enabled her afterwards to subjugate all Italy, and finally to become the mistress of the entire civilized world. Livy believes that if Alexander the Great, about 325 B.C., had turned his arms against Rome, he would have found in her a successful opponent; and in 280 B.C., Pyrrhus certainly considered her as a firstrate military power.(5) The period of this progress is, as is natural, chiefly occupied with military history: the neighbouring nations, whose wars recur so often during the previous period-the Sabines, Equians, and Volscians-are speedily reduced; the Gauls too are repressed; but a dangerous revolt of the Latins, long the faithful allies of Rome, occurs. The Latin war, and the long wars against the Samnites, occupy the largest space during the next hundred and ten years.(6) It is in the interval between the establishment of the consular government and the capture of the city that the most noted events of early Roman history occur: the death of Lucretia, and the expulsion of Tarquin, the war with Porsena, the institution of a dictator, the battle of Lake Regillus, the first secession of the plebs, and the creation of tribunes, the story of Coriolanus, the disaster of the Cremera, the dominion of the decemvirs, and the death of Virginia, the siege of Veii, the irruption of the Gauls. During the following period of a hundred and ten years, the chief

(4) See Polyb. i. 6. λαβόντες οἷον ἀρχὴν τῆς συναυξήσεως. Ab secunda origine, velut ab stirpibus lætius feraciusque renatæ urbis; Livy, vi. 1. (5) See above, vol. i. p. 66-7.

(6) The Samnite wars begin forty-seven years after the taking of the city, and last fifty-three years; so that their conclusion is exactly 100 years after that epoch. (290 B.C.) The Punic wars begin in 264 B.C., twentysix years after the termination of the Samnite wars; the defensive war against Pyrrhus during the seven years from 281 to 274 B.C. being interposed.

event in constitutional history is the passing of the Licinian laws, by which the appointment of one plebeian consul is secured. In the military history, the most celebrated occurrences are the Caudine disaster, and the devotion of the two Decii. A detailed narrative of the history of this period, down to the year 293 B.C., is preserved in Livy: but we have scanty means of checking and confronting it with other accounts. A few fragments of the latter books of Dionysius, a portion of Plutarch's Life of Camillus, with a few notices in Polybius and Diodorus, and the meagre abridgments of Florus, Eutropius, and Aurelius Victor, furnish our only means of comparison. The same materials therefore do not exist for investigating the historical evidences of this period, as those which exist for the preceding period, and a more general survey of it must suffice; but enough can be ascertained for characterizing its annals, and distinguishing it from a period described by contemporary historians.

§ 3 While the Gauls are encamped upon the site of Rome, the enemies of the Romans are represented as remaining quiet; but as soon as the Gauls have departed, the Volscians and Equians appear in the field, and even the Latins revolt. Camillus is appointed dictator, and a campaign ensues, of which, according to Plutarch, there were two accounts, one historical, the other fabulous. The historical account represents Camillus to have attacked the Latins in their camp, and to have effected an entrance by setting the palisade on fire. Livy's account is similar, only he substitutes the Volscians for the Latins.(*) Diodorus speaks of a victory having been gained over the Volscians, and he agrees with Plutarch and Livy as to the place where the battle was fought.(") The fabulous story is

(7) περὶ τούτου τοῦ πολέμου διττοὶ λόγοι λέγονται, Cam. 33. These double accounts are probably borrowed from Dionysius. Compare Dion. Hal. ix. 18, concerning the disaster of the Cremera: περὶ δὲ τῆς κατασχούσης τοὺς ἄνδρας συμφορᾶς διττὸς φέρεται ὁ λόγος.

(8) vi. 2.

(9) xiv. 117. The place of this battle, according to Plutarch, is To Máρriov opos, Cam. 33, 34. Livy calls it ad Mecium, and states that it was near Lanuvium. Diodorus says it was τὸ καλούμενον Μάρκιον