of the consuls (as formerly by Romulus) (173) 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.

(174) Livy, x. 32-7. Compare iii. 63, vii. 17. C. Marcius Rutilus 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.'

of Sentinum, and of the consulship of Papirius and Carvilius in the Samnite war.(181)

Even these victories, however, did not crush the indomitable spirit of the Samnites. In the following year (292 B.C.) they defeated the consul Q. Fabius Gurges, the son of Fabius Maximus the Senate were about to recal him, but his aged father prevailed upon them to retain him in his command, by undertaking to accompany him as his lieutenant. The campaign was renewed in substance between Fabius Maximus and Pontius, the general who had passed the Romans under the yoke at Caudium, twenty-nine years before. Fabius was victorious; Pontius was taken prisoner, and was beheaded after the consul's triumph.(182)

§ 35 It appears that Q. Fabius Gurges was continued in Samnium by the Senate as pro-consul; but he was sent home by Postumius, one of the consuls for the next year, in defiance of the authority of the Senate. Postumius recovered Cominium (which had, it seems, returned into the power of the Samnites), and likewise took Venusia, in the Apulian territory.(188) It was

(181) Referebant senes, sic Maximum Rullum cum P. Decio ad bellum Gallicum, sic postea Papirium Carviliumque adversus Samnites, Bruttiosque, et Lucanum cum Tarentino populum, consules declaratos; Livy, xxiv. 9. Concerning the reminiscences of old men in public affairs, see above, vol. i. p. 118. The interval between 295 and 293 B.C., and 214 B.C., the year of Fabius Maximus and Marcellus, was however too long for contemporary memory.

(182) Livy, Epit. xi; Eutrop. ii. 9; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 30; Zon. viii. 1. A notice of this transaction, extracted from some Greek compendium of Roman history, is given by Suidas in Φάβιος Μάξιμος. Orosius, iii. 22, tells the anecdote of Fabius going as his son's lieutenant; but adds that he saved his son's life in battle by his personal bravery: he further describes the Samnite loss at this battle as 20,000 killed, and 4000 prisoners (including their general); and he states that this victory put an end to the This is inconsistent with Livy, Epit. xi. Niebuhr says of this campaign: The two greatest generals of their age fought against one another;' Hist. vol. iii. p. 399. Compare above, p. 457.

war.

(183) See Dion. Hal. xvi. 15-8, where there is an account of the third consulship of Postumius. Suidas, in Ioσróμtos, cites his words, with some addition. Livy, Epit. xi., speaks of his employing his soldiers on his own land, like Dionysius; and adds that he was condemned for it. The Moovs Toμn is also alluded to by Dio Cass. xxxvi. 32. Velleius, i. 14, agrees with Dionysius, as to the date of the colony to Venusia. He places it four years after the consulship of Fabius and Decius, in 295 B.C. pare above, p. 388, n. 71.

Com

not however till the following year, 290 B.C., that the consuls, Manius Curius Dentatus and P. Cornelius Rufinus, put an end to the Third Samnite War. (184)

§ 36 With the exception of a few scattered notices, the history of the Third Samnite War is preserved exclusively in Livy. His narrative is detailed and minute, and bears those internal marks of truth, which are presented by the mention of small, but significant circumstances: it is likewise clear and coherent; and the successive military operations are in general consistent with one another. (185) Whether the materials upon which it was founded were more authentic than the accounts of his predecessors respecting the Second Samnite War, we are not in a condition to decide: we can only say, that the Third Samnite War was nearer than the second to the age of contemporary history. At the same time, the wide and frequent discrepancies of evidence reported by Livy-between which he is himself at a loss to decide-prove that there was no authentic history of the times, in which such facts as the names of the consuls of the year, (186) their respective provinces, the battles in which they commanded, or the part which they took in the Senate, were recorded with cer

(184) Eutrop. ii. 9; Livy, Epit. xi, says: 'Pacem petentibus Samnitibus fœdus quarto renovatum est.' Victor de Vir. Ill., c. 33, gives the following anecdote: Manius Curius Dentatus primo de Samnitibus triumphavit, quos usque ad mare superum perpacavit. Regressus in concione ait: Tantum agri cepi, ut solitudo futura fuerit, nisi tantum hominum cepissem; tantum porro hominum cepi, ut fame perituri fuerint, nisi tantum agri cepissem. Cicero, de Sen. 16, mentions a triumph of M'. Curius Dentatus over the Samnites. A retrospect of the long struggle of the Samnites against the Romans, and of their subsequent hostility to Rome, is given in the speech of the Samnite envoys to Hannibal, in 215 B.C.; Livy, xxiii. 42.

(185) See Niebuhr's comments upon Livy's account of the Third Samnite War; Hist. vol. iii. p. 357.

(186) The following is an example of the uncertainties respecting the names of high officers at this period, which even Livy could not settle. Under the year 299 B.C. Licinius Macer and Tubero reported that Q. Fabius Maximus was curule ædile with L. Papirius Cursor. Piso on the other hand stated that the ediles were C. Domitius Calvinus and Sp. Carvilius Maximus. Livy thinks that the surname Maximus produced the confusion: Id credo cognomen errorem in ædilibus fecisse, secutamque fabulam mixtam ex ædiliciis et consularibus comitiis, convenientem errori;' x. 9. Compare above, p. 462, n. 156.