Fabius and his successors, long before it was adopted and repeated by Livy.(142)

§ 31 The history of the remainder of the Second Samnite War, down to the year 304 B.C., is related by Livy with considerable detail. His narrative is indistinct and incoherent, and it differs in many material points from the notices of Diodorus, which recur at close intervals during this period, though as to the general course and chronology of the war, the accounts of the two historians agree.

The war was continued in Campania: in 315 B.C., the Romans obtained the town of Saticula, but lost Plestia and Sora.(143) Soon afterwards the Samnites seem to have been victorious in a battle at Lautulæ (near Anxur), in which Q. Aulius, the master of the horse, was killed;(144) but the Romans speedily regained the superiority, and in a few years had nearly brought the war to an end. (145) It may be remarked, that with regard to

(142) A senatus-consultum concerning the Tiburtines, published from a brazen plate, now lost, is referred by Niebuhr to the Second Samnite War, and to about the time of the Caudine treaty; Hist. vol. iii. p. 265. Visconti has referred it to the time of the Social War. The language seems to prove that it must be considerably later than the time indicated by Niebuhr. See Klotz, Lat. Litt. p. 313.

(143) Livy. ix. 21-3; Diod. xix. 72.

(144) Livy, ib. 23, first says that the battle of Lautulæ ended without advantage to either army. He then adds: Invenio apud quosdam, adversam eam pugnam Romanis fuisse, atque in eâ cecidisse Q. Aulium, magistrum equitum.' He had already given a circumstantial account of the death of Aulius in an equestrian battle near Saticula. Diodorus, ib. describes the Romans as completely routed at Lautulæ, and Aulius dying in order to avoid the disgrace of flight. The Capitoline Fasti record the death of Aulius in battle at this time.

(145) See Livy, ix. 24-9, 31; Diod. xix. 76, 101, xx. 26. Cinna, a place near which the Romans defeat the Samnites, in Diod. c. 76, is an unknown and probably corrupt or inaccurate name. The account, ib., of C. Mænius, dictator, and M. Fulvius, master of the horse, being sent to inquire about the revolt of the Campanians, also occurs in Livy, c. 26. Livy calls the master of the horse M. Foslius. Diod. xix. 2, likewise has Fulvius for Foslius, as one of the consuls for the year 318 B.C. The recovery of Fregellæ is attributed by Diod. c. 103 to Fabius; by Livy, c. 28, to Poetelius. Diod. ib. mentions the capture of Keλía and Nola in the same year. Kelia appears to be a corruption or error for Calatia, which is mentioned at the same time by Livy, c. 28. both in Livy and Diodorus. Livy speaks of bellum; c. 29. (313 B.C.) The narratives of inconsistent with Niebuhr's view that the

The colony to Pontiæ occurs profligatum fere Samnitium Livy and Diodorus are quite defeat of Lautulæ inflicted

the capture of Nola, in 313 B.C., there was, according to Livy, a doubt similar to one which was mentioned above. Some histories gave the credit of this achievement to the dictator Poetelius; while others assigned it to the consul C. Junius, and represented Poetelius as having been appointed dictator merely for the formal purpose of driving a nail into a temple in order to mitigate a pestilence.(146)

The subsequent capture of Allifæ, in the valley of the Vulturnus, by the consul Marcius, is mentioned both by Livy and Diodorus.(147) He afterwards engages the Samnites with doubtful success; and the Senate send to Fabius, the other consul, calling upon him to name Papirius Cursor dictator; an act which he does reluctantly, and in silence, on account of the treatment formerly experienced from him, as his master of the horse. In the battle subsequently gained by Papirius, the Samnites wore highly ornamented armour, and shields embossed with gold and silver. In his triumph, the gold shields were hung up in the silversmiths' forum; and hence, according to Livy, the custom for the ædiles to ornament the forum for certain pro

a deep wound upon Rome, and that the situation of the republic was not more threatening after the battle of Cannæ;' Hist. vol. iii. p. 230. In his Lectures, he says: This victory produced a mighty revolution; for the Samnites now spread into Latium;' vol. i. p. 370. No such advance however is mentioned either by Livy or Diodorus. Livy's account (c. 31) of the operations against the Samnites in the year of Junius and Emilius (311 B.C.) differs altogether from that of Diodorus; xx. 26. See Niebuhr, ib. p. 244; Arnold, ib. p. 247. The latter remarks that if we compare Livy's account with that of Diodorus, no one would suspect that both writers were describing the events of the same war and the same period.'

(146) Livy, ix. 28. The Capitoline Fasti for this year state that C. Poetelius was dictator rei gerundæ causâ, and not clavi figendi causâ, as is affirmed by Niebuhr, ib. p. 236.

(147) Livy, ix. 38; Diod. xx. 35. There is a direct conflict of testimony between Livy and Diodorus with respect to the Marsi in the consulship of Decius and Fabius, 308 B.C. Diod. xx. 44, states that the consuls assisted the Marsi who were attacked by the Samnites; that they had the superiority in the battle, and killed many of the enemy. Livy, on the other hand, states that Decius alone went into Samnium, and that a battle which he fought with the Samnites was rendered memorable only by the fact that the Marsi fought in it for the first time against the Romans; ix. 41. Four years later, the Marsi are described as suing for peace with Rome, and obtaining a treaty; ib. 45. They are likewise defeated, and mulcted of a part of their territory, in 302 B.C.; Livy, x. 3.

cessions took its origin. It is added, that the Campanians, from hatred of the Samnites, copied this armour for the gladiators, and called it by their name.(148) Livy and Diodorus agree in describing the Romans as gaining great advantages in the years 306 and 305 B.C., (149) and they both state that in the following year the Samnites submitted to the treaty imposed upon them by their victorious enemy.(150)

During the later years of this war, hostilities with the Etruscans, which had some years been intermitted, (151) were renewed. The campaign was begun by the Etruscans, who attacked Sutrium; but were defeated near it by the Romans. After this victory, Q. Fabius crossed the Ciminian wood, which

(148) Livy, ix. 38-40; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 26. sidered as historical by Niebuhr, ib. p. 248.

These origins are con

(149) Livy, ix. 43-5; Diod. xx. 80, 90, 101. The march of the consuls Marcius and Cornelius into Iapygia (B.c. 306), in Diod. c. 80, seems to correspond with the campaign of the consul Volumnius, against the Sallentini, in Livy, c. 42. (B.c. 307.) The capture of Statius Gellius, the Samnite general, and the recovery of the towns Sora, Arpinum, and Censennia are mentioned by both historians (Livy, c. 44; Diod. c. 90): the general is called C. Gellius, and the two latter towns Harpina and Serennia by Diodorus. Bola in Diodorus is likewise a manifest error for Bovianum, whose capture is mentioned in Livy. See Niebuhr, ib. p. 257. There were discordant accounts concerning the early part of the campaign of 305 B.C. 'Alii haud dubie Samnites victos, ac viginti millia hominum capta tradunt; alii marte æquo discessum, et Postumium, metum simulantem nocturno itinere, clam in montes copias abduxisse;' Livy, c. 44. In the same place, Livy mentions that Piso had in his history omitted two pairs of consuls (Claudius and Volumnius, Cornelius and Marcius) at this period (307-6 B.c.), but whether from inadvertence, or intentionally, did not appear.

(150) Diod. xx. 101, says that the Romans and Samnites made peace with one another, after a war of twenty-two years and six months (326-304 B.C.). Livy, ix. 45, says: Foedus antiquum Samnitibus redditum. By this he evidently understands an unequal treaty; for in the Caudine convention, the Samnites stipulated for an equal treaty (above, p. 453, n. 124), and the convention was repudiated by the Romans. Dionysius represents the Romans, in the negotiations before the Third Samnite War, as calling the Samnites their subjects. (xvi. 13.) Compare Niebuhr, ib. p. 259; Arnold, ib. p. 264. Zonaras, viii. 1, gives an account, which apparently refers to the latter part of the Second Samnite War, of a defeat of the Romans under the consul C. Junius (Bubulcus) near Averna.

(151) Niebuhr attributes the pacific relations between Etruria and Rome at this period to the danger from the Gauls, who kept the attention of the Etruscans directed to their northern and eastern frontiers; Hist. vol. iii. p. 275. Compare above, p. 298.

was at that time considered impassable by an army;(152) but with regard to the rest of the campaign, there were conflicting accounts. Some said that the Etruscans again concentrated their forces near Sutrium, and that Fabius, having ravaged Upper Etruria, returned and defeated them: others, that he advanced as far as Perusia, and that his second victory over the Etruscans was gained near that town. (158) The latter version is that followed by Diodorus. (154) Both historians agree in stating that treaties with Perusia, Cortona, and Arretium, were the result of this campaign. Livy describes, in a subsequent year, a campaign under M. Valerius Maximus, against the Etruscans, in which they are defeated; a war contribution is levied upon them, and they are glad to sue for peace; but the Romans only grant them a truce for two years. He adds, however, that, according to some accounts, the dictator fought no battle, and quieted Etruria by the mere arrangement of political parties. (155) There was further a discrepancy in Livy's authorities as to the name of the master of the horse for this year: some stated that it was M. Æmilius Paullus; others, that it was Q. Fabius Maximus.(156) The Capitoline Fasti differ from both these versions, for they make Q. Fabius Maximus, and not M. Valerius Maximus, the dictator, and M. Æmilius Paullus the master of the horse.

§ 32 An interval of only five years separated the second from the third Samnite war; so that the treaty by which the

(152) Livy states that five envoys, with two tribunes of the plebs, were sent to Fabius, in order to prevent him from crossing the Ciminian wood, but that they luckily arrived too late; ix. 36. This incident shows that tribunes of the plebs sometimes were sent on missions to the armies at this time. See above, p. 454, n. 128.

(153) Livy, ix. 32, 35-7; Frontin. i. 2, 2.

(154) Diod. xx. 35. Niebuhr decides in favour of the latter account; ib. p. 280, 282; Lect. vol. i. p. 381.

(155) Habeo auctores sine ullo memorabili prœlio pacatam ab dictatore Etruriam esse, seditionibus tantum Arretinorum compositis, et Cilnio genere cum plebe in gratiam reducto; x. 5.

(156) x. 3. It is difficult to see the force of Livy's remark: Ceterum ex Maximi cognomine ortum errorem haud abnuerim.' According to him, the doubt lay between Emilius and Fabius, not between Valerius and Fabius. If the question had been between the version of the Capitoline Fasti, and Livy's version, the remark would be intelligible.

former war was terminated proved little more than a truce. That treaty was made in the year 304 B.C.; in 298 B.C., the Lucanians came to the Romans to ask assistance against the Samnites. The request was granted. According to Livy, feciales were sent to require the Samnites to withdraw their army from the territory of the Lucanians; but they received on their way a message informing them, that if they ventured to address any federal assembly of the Samnites, their persons would not be respected. As soon as this fact was known at Rome, the Senate and people declared war against the Samnites.(157) Dionysius, on the other hand, in an extant fragment, gives an entirely different account of the transaction. According to his version, the Samnites received the communication of the Romans, and stated in answer, that the treaty did not prohibit them from making war against a third power, without the consent of Rome; and that the alliance of Rome with the Lucanians had been entered into since they were at war with the Samnites. The Romans replied that, by the late treaty, the Samnites had become the subjects of the Romans, and must now obey the orders of their superiors; if not, they must prepare for war. The Samnites, thinking the arrogance of this language intolerable, dismissed the ambassadors, and decreed war against Rome. Such, adds Dionysius, was the patent and avowed cause of the war the real, but unavowed cause was, the power of the Samnites, and the fear of its increase, in case they should succeed in reducing the Lucanians under their dominion. (158)

The first campaign under the consuls L. Cornelius Scipio and Cn. Fulvius (of which we have conflicting accounts), appears to

(157) Livy, x. 11, 12. One of the consuls for the year 298 B.C. was L. Cornelius Scipio, 'the first Roman (as Dr. Arnold remarks) of whom a contemporary record has reached our times. Yet (he continues) such are the perplexities of the uncertain history of these times, that no one action recorded in Scipio's epitaph is noticed by Livy, while no action which Livy ascribes to him is mentioned in his epitaph;' Hist. vol. ii. p. 325. See above, vol. i. p. 187. It has been remarked above, vol. i. p. 226, that there is no ground for supposing that this epitaph is composed in Saturnian verse.

(158) Dion. Hal. xvi. 11-4. Compare Thuc. i. 23.