MIGRATION OF THE GAULS. CONQUEST OF ROME.

No one had any foreboding of what was now impending upon Rome. She had

become great, because the country which she had conquered had been

weakened by its oligarchical constitution; the subjects also of the

other states willingly went over to her, as they would thus be so much

better off, and moreover, in all likelihood, they were sprung from the

same stock. But even as Basil subjected the Armenians when they were

threatened by the Turks, and soon afterwards the whole of the Greek

empire was assailed by the latter, who took much more from it than it

had gained before; thus it was also with the Romans.

The inroad of the Gauls into Italy is to be looked upon as a migration,

not as a conquest. For what is historical in it, we must depend upon

Polybius and Diodorus, who place it shortly before the taking of Rome

by the Gauls. To Livy’s statement, that driven from their own country

by a famine, they had already come to Italy in the age of Tarquinius

Priscus, no credit is to be given. It originated in the fact that some

Greek historian or other, perhaps Timæus, connected this migration

with the settling of the Phocæans at Massilia. Livy has, perhaps, in

this instance borrowed from Dionysius, and the latter from Timæus;

for as he certainly made use of Dionysius in his eighth book, why

should he not also in the fifth? He himself knew very little of Greek

history.[118] But this account is evidently contradicted by that of

Justin. Trogus Pompeius was born near Massilia, and had also apparently

used for his forty-third book native chronicles; as from them only he

could have got the account of the _decreta honorifica_ of the Romans

to the Massiliotes, in return for the friendship shown them during

the Gallic war, and likewise of the sea-fights of Massilia with the

Carthaginians. Trogus knows nothing of the circumstance that the Gauls

assisted the Phocæans; but according to him, these merely met with a

friendly reception among the Ligurians, who also dwelt there for a long

time. About the year 350, fifteen years therefore before this, Livy

himself says, _gentem invisitatam, novas accolas, Gallos comparuisse_.

Even the story of that Lucumo, who had called in the Gauls, pleads

against it: referred to Clusium alone, it is absurd. Polybius dates

the passage over the Alps from ten to twenty years before the conquest

of Rome; Diodorus makes the Gauls burst upon Rome in one uninterrupted

onslaught. Moreover, it is said that Melpum, in the country of the

Insubrians, had been destroyed on the same day with Veii; and though

we may not positively assert this exact coincidence, there can yet

be no doubt but that the statement, on the whole, has hit the truth.

Cornelius Nepos wrote it, who, as a native of the country beyond the

Po, might have known the facts, and whose chronological accounts were

very highly valued among the Romans. The Gauls can only have passed,

either over the little St. Bernard, or over the Simplon. The former

is not likely, because their country reached to the Ticinus only; if

they had crossed over the little St. Bernard, they must needs also

have occupied the whole of the territory between that mountain and the

Ticinus. Now, the Salassians, for aught that we know, may have been a

Gallic people; but this is not certain, and moreover, on the banks of

the Ticinus, between them and the Gauls who had come over the Alps,

there still dwelt the Lævians; surely then, there were still at that

time also Ligurians on the Ticinus.

Melpum must have stood near the spot where Milan is now. The situation

of Milan is exceedingly favourable, and often as it has been destroyed,

it has been always restored; so that it is not impossible that Melpum

was the same town. Without doubt, the Gallic migration came sweeping on

with headlong impetuosity, like the billows of a stormy sea; how then

can we suppose that Melpum had withstood the barbarians for two hundred

years, or that they had conquered it, and had left the Etruscans

undisturbed during the whole of that time? It is absurd to believe

this, merely to bear out an uncritical assertion of Livy’s. Twelve

years after the taking of Rome, as is usually computed; or, according

to a more correct chronology, nine years later, the Triballians, who

in the times of Herodotus abode in Lower Hungary, were seen in Thrace,

having been driven out of their own country by the Gauls. It is evident

that the same movement which led them to the Middle Danube, extended

likewise to the Po. And should they who in a few days came from Clusium

to Rome, and afterwards appeared also in Apulia, have sat still in a

corner for two hundred years?

These Gauls were partly Celts, but the great body of them were Belgians

or _Cymri_. This may be gleaned from the fact that their king, as

well as he who appears before Delphi, is called Brennus; _Brenin_,

according to Adelung in Mithridates, means in Welsh and _Bas Breton_ a

king. But what gave rise to the whole migration? The statement of Livy

that a famine had driven forth the Gauls, is quite in the character of

all those traditions about national migrations which we find in Saxo

Grammaticus, in Paul Warnefrid from the Swedish lays, in the Tyrrhenian

legends concerning Lydia, and elsewhere. In the case of a people

however, like the Celts, any special account of this kind, in which,

as here, even the leaders are named, is no more worthy of belief than

all other legends among nations who have not the use of writing. It is

indeed certain that the Celts had Greek letters; but they may only have

used them for the purposes of every day life, and it is well known that

they were not allowed to commit the old lays to writing. The Celts,

however, had a tradition which we meet with in Ammianus Marcellinus,

that Britain had been one of their most ancient seats. We now find

them in Britain, Ireland, in different places in Spain, and in two

places in Portugal. For the Celticans and Celts in Portugal, who dwelt

in Algarve and Alemtejo, and between the Mincio and Douro, are pure

Celts; the Celtiberians in Spain are a mixture of Celts and Iberians:

they live in the heart of the mountain range between Saragossa and

Madrid, which is connected with the Pyrenees.[119] Of these Celts in

Spain the same tradition has been preserved, as of their appearance in

Italy: they are said to have been driven thither by famine, and to have

spread by conquest. Yet here is again a confusion of the two opposite

poles in the tradition. In no instance where a national migration has

taken place, is the invading people to be found in scattered spots;

but the inhabitants of such districts, especially in mountains, are

the remnants of the ancient population which has emigrated, or been

changed. Among the Celtiberians, the Iberians prevail; the Celts are

the indigenous people which amalgamated with the Iberians who broke

in from Africa: there may have arisen a sort of mixed language; the

names of places are Iberian. Similar transformations of a people are

sometimes met with in history. The Wendes in Germany, owing to the

insignificance of their colonies, have for the most part adopted the

German language, without there having been any German conquest or

German princes; and yet they were originally Sclavonians, as well as

the Cassubians who speak Wendish to this day. That the Iberians spread

across the Pyrenees, is proved by the existence of the Aquitanians, who

were pure Hispanians, as Cæsar informs us; nor is there any reason to

suppose that this was only a change of later times. Basques are still

dwelling north of the Pyrenees. And there is, moreover, the statement

of Scylax, that the people from the Pyrenees to the Rhone was a mixture

of Iberians and Ligurians. The Celts once possessed the whole of Spain,

with the exception of Andalusia; and besides this, Southern France,

Ireland, and part of England. The boundary of the Iberians in the

north, we cannot lay down with certainty; in the earlier ages, it was

the Sierra Morena. In the south, we find them in Southern Spain; in the

Balearic isles; in Sardinia, Corsica, and Western Sicily; and lastly

also, in Africa.

Distinct from the Celts, but of the same stock, are the _Cymri_ or

Belgians: this distinction, concerning which I have given my opinion

years ago, is of essential importance. Cæsar’s notion that the Belgians

were a mixture of Germans and Celts, is erroneous: there is a wide

difference between them and the Germans, although a small number

of words in their language are Germanic. In Cæsar’s time, they were

undoubtedly Cymri, with a sprinkling of Germans whom they had met with

in their migration. Cymri lived also in a part of Britain: probably

they were the older inhabitants, who had been dislodged by the Gales.

The Gales were pushed on by the Iberians; the Cymri by the Gales; and

the Germans by the Cymri, who at that time were settled in the north of

France and in the Netherlands, where Celts had afterwards their abode.

Southern France from the Pyrenees, Lower Languedoc, and the valley

of the Rhone, the Piemontese country, and Lombardy also as far as

the Etruscans, were inhabited by the Ligurians, a great European

nation. Scylax already says, that in Lower Languedoc, Iberians and

Ligurians were living mixed up together. In later times which cannot be

particularised, the Celts drove the Iberians from Spain to the Garonne;

and the latter pushed on the Ligurians to the neighbourhood of Aix in

Provence;--an event which may be traced in its consequences. By this

impulse the Gauls and Cymri together were driven into emigration: some

of the Cymri part from the Gauls, and go on migrating; others march

with them. Gauls and Cymri differ very much from each other: their

grammar and language are quite distinct. The two great migrations of

Bellovesus and Sigovesus, mentioned by Livy, are to be considered as

true, although the leaders may be looked upon as mere personifications.

Of these expeditions, the one, penetrating through the Etruscan Alpine

tribes and the Ligurians into Italy, overthrows the Etruscan towns in

the Lombard plain; the other proceeds northward from the Alps. The

Rhætians, the Lepontines, the Camunians, the Stonians and other Alpine

peoples in the Tyrol and in the country of the Grisons, including

Verona, stand out alone like islands, amid the immigrating Gauls who

poured round them like a sea; and they remind us of the Celts in Spain.

This migration, in which the Helvetians did not join, I have already

sufficiently discussed in my little historical writings, in the essay

on the Scythians and Sarmatians. It first proceeds round the Black

forest, then stops a while, and then goes on to the middle Danube,

Hungary and Lower Sclavonia: here they undertake the difficult conquest

of the highlands, spread from thence into Macedonia, Thrace, Bulgaria,

and then across the Danube as far as the Dnieper; and then, pushed back

by the Sarmatians, they again throw themselves into Europe. It is the

only known instance, in which it is apparent that such a torrent rushes

forth until it meets with insurmountable obstacles, and then returns

again with unabated violence. As late as the times when Herodotus still

wrote, about 320 A. U. C. the nations on the banks of the middle and

lower Danube were living undisturbed in their abodes. The Scythians

inhabited Moldavia and Wallachia as far as Transylvania; there the

Agathyrsians were settled, and the Triballians in Sclavonia and Lower

Hungary. But nine years after the taking of Rome by the Gauls, the

Triballians make their appearance near Abdera in Thrace, and afterwards

they are seen on the banks of the southern Danube in Bulgaria. The

Scythians, on the other hand, are found as early as the reign of Philip

to have been limited to Bessarabia; at the time of Alexander the Getæ

are in possession of Moldavia and Wallachia. The people, who effect

these changes, are the Gauls, and by means of the same emigration as

that in which they poured themselves over Italy.

Scylax (Ol. 106.) knows of Gauls in the inmost recesses of the

Adriatic, the Carnians and Noricans of later times. They did not, he

says, join the migration: part of the Gauls, who had advanced further,

lived in Sirmium; from thence, under the name of Bastarnians, they

cross the Danube, and compel the Getæ to throw themselves into Hungary

and Transylvania; afterwards they spread in the Ukraine. From the

important inscription of Olbia, which Köhler has edited, we see that

the Galatians, and, together with them, the Scirians, afterwards a

German people, are dwelling near the Dnieper; and this agrees perfectly

well with the fact, that the Scythians now vanish. For in the east also

there is a national migration, that of the Sarmatians, a people which

Herodotus only knows as dwelling beyond the Tanais. Scylax, seventy

years afterwards, speaks of them as being settled on this side of it;

according to the Olbian inscription, they are on the other bank of the

Dnieper; under Augustus, they are in Wallachia: they destroy the Greek

towns in that neighbourhood. This movement was afterwards the cause of

the irruption of the Cymri or Cimbrians, as in the migrations of the

Celts the Cymri were always included. To them belong the Bastarnians,

who dwelt in Southern Poland and in Dacia, and were driven out by

the Sarmatians. Johann von Müller indeed was the first to recognise

the truth of Posidonius’ statement, that the Cimbrians did not come

from Jutland but from the East; but he saw not yet, that they were

originally Belgians, or, as the Greeks called it by a general name,

Κέλται. To claim the victories of the Cimbrians for the German nation

is foolish.

The extent of these emigrations reached in Germany as far as the Mayne

and the Thuringian forest. Celts, before Cæsar’s days, were settled

even in Bohemia, and some tribes of them remained in the time of

Tacitus; the Gothinians at that time still spoke Gallic; the Noricans

in Austria were of Celtic descent. The Rhætians were Etruscans; the

Vindelicians, Liburnians. The Helvetians conquered the greatest part

of Switzerland; yet near the St. Gotthardt some of the old population

were left. The Gauls penetrated into Italy by a very narrow track, very

likely across the Simplon: it was only by means of the Valais that

they kept up the connection with the people of their own stock beyond

the Alps. As far as Aosta, the ancient inhabitants stood their ground:

for, the Salassians, Taurinians, &c., were Ligurians, and the tribes

towards the St. Gotthardt Etruscans. The Ligurians were a warlike

race and held their own; they dwelt on both sides of the Alps: the

Allobroges, however, were pure Celts. On this account, Cisalpine Gaul

appears too large on the maps, even on that of d’Anville: it did not

contain Piedmont, but only the Austrian Milanese, Bergamo and Brescia,

Lombardy south of the Po to the Adriatic, and north of the Po to the

neighbourhood of Lake Garda. All the country, therefore, which they

conquered, was in the plain; and even for this reason their migration

cannot have lasted as long as Livy states.

In the history of the Gallic migration it is again shown how little we

know of the history of Italy in general. Our knowledge is limited to

Rome: it is just the same as if of all the historical sources of the

whole of the German empire, the annals of one imperial town only had

been preserved. From Livy’s account, it might appear as if the Gauls

had advanced against Rome alone, and as if this had been their only

object. And yet this immigration has changed the whole aspect of Italy.

For when once the Gauls had crossed the Apennines, there was nothing

to hinder them from marching by any road into Southern Italy; and

indeed we find some mention of their further progress to the south. The

Umbrians still dwelt as far as the lower Padus in the present Romagna

and Urbino, in parts of which Liburnians also were living. Polybius

says, that many nations there had become tributary to the Gauls; of

the Umbrians this is certain. In history, we first find the Gauls in

Clusium, where they are said to have made their appearance immediately

on their immigration, owing to the revenge of a high-born citizen

of the place who called them in against the town of his birth. Yet

this remains doubtful: if there should be any truth in it, it is much

more likely that the offended man crossed the Apennines, and fetched

the avengers from thence. Clusium had been no more spoken of since

the time of Porsena; that its people seek assistance with Rome, is

a proof how little this northern town of Etruria shared in the fate

of the southern ones; even an alliance with Rome may be conjectured.

The danger was, however, so great, that every jealousy must have been

hushed by it. The natural road for the Gauls would have been down by

the shores of the Adriatic; then through the country of the Umbrians,

who were tributary to them, and already completely broken down; and

through the Romagna, across the Apennines. The Apennines, however,

which separate Tuscany and the Romagna, are very difficult to pass

over, and particularly troublesome for beasts of burthen. As from this

side, therefore, which the Etruscans moreover had purposely allowed

to grow wild, the Gauls could not break in, though they had made an

attempt to do so, they then crossed the Apennines near Clusium, and

appeared before this town. Clusium is the key of the valley of the

Tiber; if it were taken, this as well as the road on the Arno would be

open to the Gauls, who might then advance upon Arezzo in its rear. The

Romans therefore looked upon the fate of Clusium as decisive of their

own. The people of Clusium solicit the alliance of powerful Rome; the

Romans with well-judged readiness accede to it, and send an embassy

to the Gauls, ordering them to go away. According to a more probable

account, the latter had demanded from the Clusians the division of

the land, as a condition of peace; not, as it was customary among the

Romans, as a charge imposed upon a people already conquered: if this be

correct, the Romans sent that embassy trusting to their might. But the

Gauls treated the ambassadors with scorn, and these allowed themselves

to be carried away by their military ardour to join the Etruscans in

fighting against them: it may perhaps have been only a small isolated

affray. This is what Livy tells us; and he proceeds to state, that

the Gauls, as soon as they had become aware of this violation of the

law of nations, had caused the signal for retreat to be sounded, and

had called upon the gods for vengeance, intending forthwith to march

against Rome. Here is evidently a mere legend. A barbarous people could

not possibly have entertained such regards; nor was there in this case

any real violation of international law, as the Romans stood in no

connexion whatever with the Gauls. But the fall of Rome must needs be

laid to the account of a _Nefas_, against which no power of man could

avail. Roman vanity besides plays its part; and the ambassadors were

said to have so greatly distinguished themselves, that they were more

conspicuous than the Etruscans. In contradiction to these events, it

is now stated that the Gauls had sent to Rome to demand the giving up

of those ambassadors; that the senate hesitated and left the decision

to the people, on which the latter not only refused compliance, but

even appointed the same ambassadors as military tribunes; and that

in consequence the Gauls with all their force immediately marched

against the surprised city. Livy here again speaks of the _Populus_,

to which the senate refers the decision; yet this can only be the

patrician community, as it alone could have decided on the fate of

those who belonged to that class. The Romans have, in this instance,

been unfairly charged with want of honesty. But the whole story is

certainly derived from later writers, who conferred upon barbarians a

right, to which none but a people within the pale of international law

could lay any claim. Nor is the statement by any means a general one,

that the three ambassadors, the Fabii, were chosen military tribunes.

A different account is found in Diodorus, who in this place must have

made use of Roman sources written in Greek, that is to say, of Fabius;

as he calls the people of Cære Καίριοι, and not Ἀγυλλαῖοι. He speaks of

one single ambassador, who as a son of a military tribune had fought

against the Gauls. This at least shows how little the history can as

yet be relied upon. The battle of the Alia was on the sixteenth of

July, and the military tribunes entered upon their office the first of

the same month, whilst Clusium is only a good three days’ march from

Rome.

The Gauls marched in innumerable hosts from Clusium to Rome. They were

for a long time the people most dreaded by the Romans, even so late

as in the Cisalpine war of 527; and likewise by all the nations with

which they came into contact, as far as the remotest East and the

Ukraine. For the knowledge of their manners and customs, Polybius and

Diodorus are our best guides: under Cæsar they were already changed.

In the description of their persons, we have a glimpse of the Gael, or

Highlander of the present day;--tall bodies, blue eyes, coarse hair.

Their very dress and arms are those of the Gael; their clothing being

checkered and variegated tartans (_sagula virgata versicoloria_), their

weapons the Highland claymores, broad war-swords without points. They

had an immense number of horns, such as were long to be met with in the

Highlands; and they threw themselves in huge irregular masses, and with

terrible fury upon the enemy, those in the rear pushing on those in

front, so that no line of battle then in use could withstand the shock.

Against them the Romans should have employed the phalanx, and doubled

it, until they became accustomed to such a foe, and gained the mastery

by dint of their superior skill. If they could stand the first onset,

then the Gauls were sure to fall into confusion, and were afterwards

easily routed. The Gauls who in later times were defeated by them, were

the descendants of those who had been born in Italy, and had very much

fallen off in courage and strength. The Goths under Vitigis, not fifty

years after Theodoric’s immigration into Italy, were cowards, and did

not hold their ground against the twenty thousand men of Belisarius:

thus quickly do barbarians degenerate in such a climate. Terrible also

were the Gauls for their appalling cruelty! Wherever they settled, the

original towns and their inhabitants utterly vanished from the face of

the earth. In their own homes they had the feudal system and a priestly

government. The Druids, who were their only rulers, avenged the

oppressed people upon the chiefs, and in their turn were its tyrants.

The whole of the people were serfs; which proves that the Gauls, even

in their own country, were a race of conquerors who had enslaved an

older population. Their wealth in gold is much talked of; and yet there

are no rivers in France by which gold is washed, and the Pyrenees were

at that time no more in their possession: the gold must, therefore,

have been bartered. Much of it may be only exaggeration; and when

individual chieftains wore golden chains, the ancient poets may have

extended this to the whole nation, as popular poetry, particularly in

such embellishments, is apt to give itself great license.

Pliny says, that the _census_ before the Gallic calamity had amounted

to 150,000; but this only includes the men who had votes, and neither

women, children, slaves, nor foreigners. When we take this into the

account, the number of inhabitants was immense. Should this statement,

however, be well founded, it must not be understood of the residents

in the city alone; for these were much fewer. When we read in Diodorus

that every one was called out to fight against the Gauls, and that

forty thousand men assembled at the summons, this is very probable:

there is the testimony of Polybius that Latins and Hernicans were

included in the host. According to another account, the Romans took

the field against the Gauls with twenty-four thousand men; that is to

say, with four country, and four city legions. The country legions

were raised from the plebeians only; they served in the order of the

classes, very likely in maniples. The city legions contained all those

who did not belong to the plebeians and patricians, all the ærarians,

proletarians, freedmen, artisans, who at other times had never yet

faced the enemy; they were certainly not armed with the _pilum_, nor

arrayed _manipulatim_, but provided with pikes, and drawn up in

phalanx. As to the country legions, they consisted half of Latins

and half of Romans, there being in each maniple a Roman and a Latin

century; and if in those days there were four of these legions, this

would be twelve thousand men, as the legion together with its reserve

was then three thousand strong. When therefore one statement gives

twenty-four thousand, we see that it implies four country, and four

irregular city legions. Thus there were only six thousand plebeians,

so that, had the legions contained Romans exclusively, there would not

indeed have been more than twelve thousand of them; but if to these we

add twelve thousand irregular troops and sixteen thousand allies, the

number of forty thousand is then correct. If so, the population of Rome

was not so large as that of Athens in the Peloponnesian war, which is

very likely. The horsemen are not reckoned in this calculation; forty

thousand men must, however, be deemed the maximum of the whole army.

There seems to be no exaggeration in this; so that on the whole, the

battle on the Alia ranks among those events which are historical. It

is surprising that the Romans elected no dictator for the battle; they

cannot be said to have looked upon that war as quite an ordinary one,

as in that case they would not have summoned all their forces to the

fight. Yet they did not estimate the danger to its full extent. There

were always fresh swarms crossing the Alps; the Senonians also now

make their appearance, seeking out places where to dwell. They, like

the Germans afterwards, asked for land, on beholding the Insubrians,

Boians, and others already settled in the country. They had taken up

their abodes in the Umbrian district near the sea; but only till they

should find larger and more convenient ones.

The river Alia has no remarkable features. It would almost seem that

the country in the neighbourhood has changed; it is only by the

distances which are given, that we can tell what river it was. The

ancients describe it as a stream with high embankments; but the river

which we must now take for it, has none. The name is now obsolete.

In the summer, however, all these rivers have very little water; and

therefore the position behind it could not have availed much. The

Romans committed the great fault of giving battle with troops swept

together in haste, to an enemy hitherto invincible. The hills near

which the right wing is said to have been placed, are no more to be

recognised: they may perhaps have been only small mounds of earth.[120]

At all events, the opposing a long line to the huge masses of the

enemy was quite absurd. The Gauls, on the other hand, could without

any trouble turn off to the left; and, passing the river higher up,

where it was more easy to be forded, they very judiciously threw

themselves with the whole of their might on the right wing, which

consisted of the irregulars. These at first stood their ground, but

not for long; and when they fled, all the rest of the line, which as

yet seems to have stood quite useless, was seized with panic. Fright

preceded the Gauls, as, like the Turks, they devastated every thing

wherever they went. (Throughout the _Cispadana_ they destroyed the

towns, they themselves dwelling in villages only: when the Romans

afterwards conquered the country of the Insubrians, they found not a

trace any where of the former population.) This, instead of calling

forth a desperate resistance, paralysed the courage of the Romans.

Thus they were defeated on the Alia in the most inglorious manner. The

Gauls had attacked them in the rear, and cut them off from the road

to Rome: part of them fled to the Tiber, of whom some escaped through

the river, and others were drowned; and part took refuge in a forest.

Yet the slaughter must have been immense; and it is inconceivable, how

Livy could speak only of the disgrace. Had not the Roman army been

all but annihilated, it would not have been necessary to have given

up the defence of the city so entirely, as was done: for it was left

undefended and abandoned by all. Many, instead of returning to Rome,

ran away to Veii; some few only, who had fled along the high road,

entered the city by the _Porta Collina_. Rome was exhausted; its force

was scattered to the winds, its legions powerless; its allies also who

could bear arms had most of them shared in the defeat, and they partly

expected the dreadful enemy in their own homes. In Rome it was believed

that the whole of the army was destroyed: nothing was known of those at

Veii. Within its walls were only old men, women and children; defence

was not to be thought of. It is not, however, to be supposed that the

gates were left open, and that the Gauls, fearing an ambush, had waited

several days before the town. More likely is what others relate, that

the gates were barricaded. We may form a very lively image of the

condition of Rome after this battle, by comparing it with the similar

situation of Moscow just before the fire. People were convinced that

a long defence was impossible, as in all likelihood provisions were

scarce. Livy has a false idea of the evacuation of the city, as if the

defenceless inhabitants in their consternation had remained immoveable,

and part of them had been received into the Capitol. But it had been

resolved to defend the Capitol. The tribune Sulpicius, with about a

thousand men had taken refuge in it. There was an old well there, which

is still in existence, and without which the garrison would soon have

died of thirst. No antiquary knew of it; but I discovered it from the

accounts of the people living there: it is sunk through the rock to

the level of the Tiber, yet its water is not fit to drink. The Capitol

was scarped, and thereby inaccessible: the way to it, leading from

the Forum and the Via Sacra, was a _clivus_, which was shut by a gate

at the bottom and on the top. The rock was not as steep as in later

times,--this is shown by the account of the assault,--but it was still

very strong. Whether, as was the case in Moscow, some remained behind

in the town, who, in their confusion, did not consider what an enemy

they had to deal with, we cannot decide. The story is very fine, and

reminds us of the taking of the Acropolis by the Persians, where also

the old men allow themselves to be put to the sword by the enemy. Yet,

in spite of the improbable character of the incident, I am inclined

to believe, that several old patricians,--the number may not be quite

historical,--seated themselves in their robes of office on the curule

chairs in the Forum; and that the _Pontifex Maximus_ consecrated them

for death. Such consecrations were a well-known Roman custom. And,

surely, it is also true, that the Gauls were astounded at finding the

town forsaken, and only those old men immoveably sitting; and that,

mistaking them for images or phantoms, they did nothing, until one of

them struck a Gaul who touched him; whereupon all were slain. To lay

hand on themselves, was at variance with the habits of the Romans,

whose feelings, on the whole, were in many things much more correct,

and much more akin to ours, than those of many other nations of old.

All hope for their fatherland had indeed been given up by the old men;

but the Capitol was still tenable, and people chose rather to die in

an attempt at resistance, than to flee away to Veii, where, after all,

they would not have been able to hold out. The sacred things were taken

to Cære. The hope of the Romans was now, that the barbarians would get

tired of the siege. The Capitol had been provisioned for some time to

come; there may have been a couple of thousand persons in it; public

and private buildings, all the temples were used as dwellings. The

Gauls made dreadful havoc in Rome, still more so than the Spaniards

and Germans did in 1527. The soldier sacks, destroys, when he finds

no men; he gets drunk, and fire breaks out quite undesignedly, as at

Moscow;--the whole town was laid in ashes, with the exception of some

houses on the Palatine where the chiefs of the Gauls were living. It is

to be wondered at, that single monuments of the earlier times outside

of the Capitol are still talked of; statues were said to have been

preserved: it is true that the _Travertino_ is tolerably fireproof.

That Rome was burnt down, is certain; at the rebuilding of the city,

the old streets were not even restored.

The Gauls were now lying in the town. At first they made an assault on

the _clivus_, and were repulsed with loss; which is rather surprising,

as we know that the Romans had before succeeded in an attack upon the

same _clivus_ against Appius Herdonius. Afterwards they discovered

the footsteps of a messenger, who had been sent from Veii to provide

for the affairs of the city in the due forms of law. For, the Romans

on the Capitol were patricians, they represented the curies and the

government; those who had gathered together at Veii, represented the

tribes, but had no leaders. The tribes had decided upon recalling

Camillus and making him dictator; Pontius Cominius was therefore sent

to Rome to obtain the consent of the senate and the curies. This was

quite in the spirit of the olden times. If the curies had interdicted

him _aqua et igni_, they only could recall him after a previous decree

of the senate. But, if he had gone into voluntary exile, and, by

accepting the right of citizenship at Ardea, had renounced the Roman

one before a decree of the centuries had been passed against him, it

again rested,--he being a patrician,--with the curies alone, to receive

him anew as a citizen; otherwise he would have been no dictator, nor

would he have considered himself as such.

It was in the dogdays that the Gauls came to Rome. But summer has at

all times been pestilential at Rome, especially the two months and

a half until September; and, a thing which Livy also tells us, as

the barbarians bivouacked in the open air amid the ruins, they could

not fail to be attacked and destroyed by diseases like the army of

Frederic Barbarossa before the castle of St. Angelo. Yet it was not the

whole host of the Gauls which was encamped there, but most likely no

more than were necessary to keep the garrison on the Capitol blockaded:

the rest were overrunning the neighbourhood and devastating the flat

country in Latium, all the open places and the isolated houses. Many a

place which existed in the early ages and is no more met with now, may

have been destroyed at that time. Ostia was a strong town, and held

out; for it was able to get provisions by sea, whilst the Gauls were no

adepts in the art of besieging. The Ardeates, the territory of which

the Gauls likewise invaded, made head against them under the command of

Camillus.[121] The Etruscans seem to have caught at this opportunity

of regaining Veii; for it is said that the Romans in Veii under the

command of Cædicius won a battle against them, and were thus encouraged

to reconquer Rome, as they were now in possession of arms.

A Roman, Fabius Dorso, is said to have offered in broad daylight a

gentilician sacrifice on the Quirinal, and the astonished Gauls to have

done him no harm: a tradition which is by no means improbable.

The provisions in the Capitol were about to be exhausted; but the

Gauls, being themselves troubled by contagious diseases, were tired of

their conquests, and not inclined to settle so far from their homes.

They tried yet once more to storm the Capitol, having observed, how the

messenger had gone up and come down again near the Porta Carmentalis

below Araceli, which is in the direction of the Venetian palace. Now

the old rock is covered with rubbish, and is therefore no more to be

recognised. The besieged never dreamed of an attack being made from

that side. There may have been masonry there which had become ruinous;

in southern countries there is always some vegetation springing up

about walls (Virgil says, _Galli per dumos aderant_, Livy also speaks

of _virgulta_); and if this were not attended to, it might easily be

climbed. They had already gained fast footing, as there was no wall on

the top (it was not the Tarpeian rock which they tried to climb, but

the _Arx_), when Manlius, who lived there, roused by the cackling of

the geese, hastened to the spot, and hurled the assailants down. This

made the Gauls still more ready to treat: they were besides called

back by an irruption of the Alpine peoples into Lombardy where they

had their wives and children. They were willing to withdraw on payment

of a ransom of one thousand pounds of gold, about fifty thousand

Frederics d’or (for, the Roman pound is very light, weighing nearly

twenty-three half-ounces of Cologne), which, surely, were to be taken

from the treasure on the Capitol. This was a vast sum for that age:

in Theodosius’ time, there were indeed people in Rome who are said to

have had a revenue of several hundred weight of gold; one even, who

had as much as ten tons. That that sum was paid the Gauls, and that

in consideration of it they left Rome, is historical truth; that in

weighing it they practised a scornful fraud, is very possible. The

_væ victis_ also may be true: we Germans have also lived to see the

same thing previous to the year 1813. Not true, however, is the rest

of Livy’s story, that while they were disputing about it, Camillus

made his appearance with an army, and forbade the fulfilment of the

bargain, as the military tribune had no right to agree to it; and

moreover, that he then drove the Gauls out of the city, and afterwards

in a twofold battle so discomfited them, that not a messenger escaped.

Beaufort, inspired by Gallic patriotism, has most ably shown the utter

groundlessness of this tale. It is quite childish to try and hide the

calamities of one’s ancestors by means of fables. Livy did not invent

that story; he merely copied it from others. At the same time, he would

not let his own better conviction get the upperhand here, as it is his

way to look upon the whole of the earlier history with a kind of irony:

he has half a mind to believe, and yet for all that, he has no belief

in it. Another account, that in Diodorus, is that the Gauls besieged a

town then in alliance with the Romans (the name of which, indeed, must

have been wrongly written, and is said to have probably been Vulsinii);

and that the Romans delivered it, and took back again from the Gauls

the gold which had been paid them: Livy, however, knows nothing of this

siege of Vulsinii. A third account, in Strabo, and also in Diodorus,

does not allow the honour to belong to the Romans; but will have it

that the Cærites pursued the Gauls, and attacked and cut them to pieces

in the country of the Sabines. Just in the same way did the Greeks

endeavour to disguise the fact that the Gauls took the money from the

treasury of Delphi, and that in quite an historical age (Ol. CXX.). The

true explanation is surely the one which is found in Polybius, that the

Gauls were induced by the rising of the people of the Alps to withdraw

from Rome, and that Rome on the other hand had suffered its full meed

of humiliation. What booty the enemy had taken, was spent; conquests

they had made none, they had merely pillaged and devastated everything;

and now they had been lying there for eight months, and there was

nothing more which they could gain but the Capitol, and that very money

which they also thus obtained. From Polybius’ version, many discrepant

accounts may be sifted and reconciled, Livy’s romantic embellishments

included. As a proof of the Gauls having been really beaten, it was

asserted in Rome, that the money taken from them and buried in the

Capitol, amounted to twice as much as the city’s ransom. Yet it is

much more likely that the Romans paid their ransom from the treasure

of the Capitoline Jupiter, and of other temples, and that this was

afterwards made up double by a tax; and this tallies with a notice in

the history of Manlius, that a rate was levied for the payment of the

Gallic ransom. This, however, could not indeed have been done whilst

the Romans were scattered every where during the siege; but afterwards,

to replace the gold which had been taken away. Now, if such a mass of

gold was hoarded at the Capitol, it is evident that people might have

thought that they saw in it a proof that the Gauls had not kept the

treasure.

As late as in Cæsar’s times, they used to show in Rome the spot near

the Carinæ where the Gauls piled up and burnt their dead. It was called

_busta Gallica_, which during the middle ages was corrupted into

_Portogallo_; hence the church which now stands there, is properly

called _S. Andreas in bustis Gallicis_, or, according to later

Latinity, _in busta Gallica_. The Gauls marched off with the gold,

and the Romans were reduced to pay it, being so pinched with hunger,

that they stripped off the leather from their shields, and cooked

it. Annihilated the Gauls certainly were not. We find in Justin the

remarkable statement that the self-same Gauls who had destroyed Rome,

marched into Apulia, and from thence offered the elder Dionysius their

aid for money. From this important account it is manifest, that at

all events they marched through the whole of Italy, and then perhaps

returned along the Adriatic. Their devastations extended far into

Italy; and it is an undoubted fact, that the Æquians received from them

their deathblow, as from henceforth there is no more mention of any

hostilities of the Æquians against Rome: on the other hand, Præneste,

which must formerly have been subdued by the Æquians, appears as an

independent city. During the passage therefore of the Gauls, the

Æquians who inhabited small towns which might easily be destroyed, must

no doubt have been crushed.

RESTORATION OF THE CITY. MANLICUS CAPITOLINUS. THE LICINIAN ROGATIONS.

CONFUSION IN THE CHRONOLOGY. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRÆTOR URBANUS AND OF

THE ÆDILIS CURULIS.

The most striking feature in Livy’s history, is unquestionably the

view which he takes of the consequences of the Gallic calamity. He

must have pictured it to himself as a passing storm, by which Rome

was bent, but not broken: the army, according to his account, was

only scattered; the Romans come forth just as they were before, as

if all had been nothing but an evil dream, and the only thing to be

done was the rebuilding of the town. Yet the havoc was surely immense

throughout the Roman territory. During eight months, the barbarians

had raged in that country, destroying every trace of tillage, every

farmhouse, all the temples and all the public buildings; they had

purposely pulled down the walls of the city, and carried off a great

number of the inhabitants into slavery: the rest were in great misery

at Veii. Camillus, as dictator, is called a second Romulus; and to him

the glory is due of not having yielded to despair in this crisis. Since

the Volscian war, Rome had been powerful enough no longer to grant

to her former allies, who at that time were weak, the same rights as

before; for nearly seventy years they had been all but her subjects,

although she made a very mild use of her superiority. But all these

nations, which had suffered less than Rome, now no more acknowledged

her supremacy; and this is the _defectio Latinorum qui per centum

fere annos nunquam ambigua fide in amicitia populi Romant fuerant_,

of which Livy speaks. Nothing is more natural than that they should

make themselves independent. It would be very bad indeed, if unnatural

arrangements were of irrefragable force, so that the natural state of

things could not be established at last. That it must have come to

this; that shortly before the Gallic troubles the Romans had in reality

the ascendency, is quite a different question. This had certainly been

the case; just as, under similar circumstances, among the seven Dutch

provinces, equal as they all were in law, Holland in fact took the

lead, holding that position which belonged to it in right of its wealth

and population. In the same way, the Romans might be considered as the

heads of the league; but only so long as Rome was in possession of her

power.

There is an old tradition, that in the famine the aged men were

killed, to spare them the pain of dying of hunger, and that the little

which was left, might be reserved for those who were to propagate the

republic. It was almost as sad as at the destruction of Magdeburg, when

the number of inhabitants was reduced from 30,000 to 3,000. Rome, even

when restored, could for several generations have been only a shadow

of what it was before its overthrow. It is natural, that people in

their despondency should have lost all courage, and that the tribunes

insisted on abandoning Rome, and removing to Veii. To have withstood

this faint-heartedness, was the merit of Camillus, who in this was

upheld by his high aristocratical feeling. It certainly required

enlarged views, to make the right decision:--the gods had forsaken

Veii; Juno had loudly said that she would not reside at Veii, but at

Rome. The discussions on this subject in Livy, are full of his peculiar

beauties. I will not assert that Rome could not have taken root again

in Veii also; but the chances are that it would have quite gone to

ruin: the Latins would have taken for themselves the left bank of the

Tiber, and perhaps have placed a Volscian or a Latin colony on the

seven hills. Rome’s site on a stream between three peoples, was marked

out by heaven with a view to her greatness. The advantages of it are

evident: in Veii, she would perhaps have become Etruscan. The senate

now behaved like a stern father. After having come to the resolution,

which for the poor man was a very hard one, of restoring Rome, it

caused Veii to be destroyed for the purpose of rebuilding the city. It

is said to have granted bricks, stones, and other building materials,

all of which were to be found at Veii. Mean huts were built, and it was

only by degrees that better houses were restored. The senate allowed

every one to build as they liked; for according to Roman principles,

all private property had, owing to the late confusion, fallen in to the

state, which now gave its sanction for a new occupation. The walls were

raised again, and the dangerous place at the Capitol was faced with

hewn stone (_saxo quadrato_). Under Augustus only was Veii restored as

a military colony; but yet as a little Veii; like Gabii, Lavici, &c.

With regard to the rate of interest, and the law of usury at Rome,

there were no clear views whatever at the beginning of this century,

the antiquities of the Roman civil law being utterly neglected at that

time. I make an exception, however, in favour of Schulting. Heineccius

is full of talent and learning; but he did not know which way to take.

Among others, Hugo, the father of scientific jurisprudence, has handled

that subject. He had a fine taste for these things; but he was wanting

in the requisite knowledge: Savigny, as well as myself, has been long

convinced of the worthlessness of what he has written concerning

interest. Savigny did not himself enter into this research; I was led

to it in my inquiries. Schrader has confirmed my opinion, and it is now

generally received.[122] The Roman loans were contracted for years of

ten months, and one ounce in the _As_ was given as interest; that is

to say, a twelfth of the capital, which is equivalent to ten per cent.

in a year of twelve months. Hugo thought that a twelfth was given

monthly; which proves that he had no insight into the state of things,

so as to tell what was possible, and what was not. Jurisprudence in

general has two sides, theory and practice, with regard to the latter

of which we, in Germany, are quite in a wrong track: they manage that

better in other countries. The Roman system of debts and obligations

in later days is entirely borrowed from the Greek law; the calculation

of the _syngraphæ_ and the _centesimæ_, as it was in common use in

Cicero’s time, arose out of the relations in the Greek towns of Athens,

Rhodes, and Alexandria. In Tacitus, it is stated, that the _foenus

unciarium_ was introduced by the laws of the Twelve Tables; in Livy,

that it was adopted in the beginning of the fifth century. People

affected to find in this an irreconcilable contradiction, and once I

also thought myself that Tacitus was mistaken: now I am of a different

opinion. We are to make a distinction here. It does not by any means

follow from Livy, that the _foenus unciarium_ was not mentioned already

in the Twelve Tables. Until the city was destroyed by the Gauls,

there were no complaints of usury; but afterwards, when every one had

to build, the law against usury was in all likelihood abrogated, in

order that people might be enabled, at all events, to get money. This

gave rise to that awful state of debt which followed; and forty years

afterwards the old usury law was again enacted. Thus it may also be

quite true what Livy says, that at one time it was positively forbidden

to take any interest. In the year 1807, friends of mine, contrary to

my earnest representations, carried the abrogation of the usury laws,

a measure which had unhappy results. The money, afterwards, could not

be paid: they then _faciebant versuram_; that is to say, they added the

interest to the principal.

It is wonderful, where, at that time, men were to be found, who could

lend money. People confined themselves, it is true, to what was most

strictly necessary, on which account the senate gave permission to

build as every one pleased. Yet, however much the state might give to

lighten the burthen, the restoration must still have been infinitely

expensive indeed. I believe that the means for it were furnished by

the clients. The grand resolution to restore Rome, which had been

formed in the consciousness of its imperishability, must have commanded

respect, and have led to a belief in the stability of the state; and

thus holders of capital from far and near might have been tempted to

betake themselves to a place, where one could get such high interest:

the patricians could hardly have saved all this immense capital. Now

if a Syracusan, Neapolitan, &c., came with ready money to Rome, he

could not himself put it out to interest; so he became the client of

some patrician, who concluded the _nexum_ for him. And thus, until

the Licinian laws, the condition of the commonalty was exceedingly

wretched; and it was unfair that the order which had already such

advantages in the state, should also receive usurious interests.

If Rome alone had been destroyed, which the reader of Livy, unless he

take a more elevated point of view, must needs believe, it would be

quite incomprehensible to us, how it could have kept the neighbouring

people at bay, when they had become aware of the opportunity of shaking

off the yoke. But the inhabitants of all the country round had indeed

likewise to bear their full share of the calamity; and even when they

succeeded in defending their towns, many of them may have bought

themselves off from being pillaged, at the cost of a heavy war tax.

This state of things reminds us of the times immediately after the

thirty years’ war, when in the same way the wars soon break out anew.

We see clearly that the Etruscans now rose against the Romans, and

that this turned out much to the advantage of the latter. Sutrium and

Nepete were now the border-towns of Rome towards Etruria,--all the

rest, even Falerii also, were lost,--and these towns, moreover, were

sometimes besieged, even taken; and when the Romans had reconquered

them, they changed them into colonies. The war was principally with the

people of Tarquinii and Vulsinii. That the Etruscans tried to wrest

back from the Romans their conquests, shows that the Etruscan league

was also now dissolved; the northern Etruscans fight against the Gauls,

whilst those in the south attack Rome. These Etruscan wars, however,

are in the narratives of the historians as full of unauthenticated

statements as all the former ones. We find every where throughout

that age a breaking up of the old alliances, together with the want

of combining into larger states. This was also the case in Greece.

Latium was then in a state of political dissolution: one may say that

it was no more kept together by any compact bond. Antium, Velitræ and

Circeii, the colonists of which were either driven out, or made common

cause with the Latins and Volscians, were severed from Rome; so were

also the Hernicans; scarcely did the nearest places, like Tusculum

and Lanuvium, still hold to Rome. An important part is now played by

Præneste. The people of that town and those of Tibur seem to have been

allies at that time; Præneste might now perhaps have been the capital

of part of the Æquians. The boundary between the Æquians and Romans

had ceased to be there: it was now on the other side of Præneste. The

respective positions of the different states in the ancient world

changed with extraordinary quickness: this is most strikingly seen in

Arcadia; the three chief Arcadian peoples are at last quite forgotten.

As on the dissolution of Latium, part of the Latins, together with

Velitræ and Antium, rose in hostility against Rome; so did Præneste

likewise, with part of the Æquians. The time of Rome’s supremacy was

now past; Veii only was a permanent gain; and they now received the

inhabitants of Etruscan places, which had already before enjoyed the

right of citizenship without _suffragium_, as full citizens, forming

four tribes of them; so that there were again twenty-five tribes.

Livy says by mistake, that the new tribes were composed of persons who

in the former wars had gone over to Rome. This is impossible, as the

Romans always formed new tribes of a much greater number of individual

voters than there were in the old ones; for on this principle only

they could really unite with them, that while these had equal rights

as individuals, their influence on the votes should be limited. I,

on the contrary, am convinced that all these tribes had formerly

been sovereign places and districts: the districts of Veii, Capena,

Vulsinii, &c., were no doubt mere spectators in the wars of the towns

which ruled them; and they yielded without resistance to the Romans,

as soon as these made their appearance, because they were equally

well or badly off under any state. Many also were on a footing of

neutrality; of which, during the war of Spain and the Netherlands, we

find a similar example in the towns of Brabant, which paid taxes to

both the belligerent parties in order to remain unmolested. Owing to

the destruction of the towns, they became the subjects of Rome. Now it

was certainly these to whom Rome gave the full citizenship, and thus

filled up its lessened numbers. The conduct of the Etruscan towns in

this change was very likely quite passive. Rome had the wisdom to give

its new subjects the full plebeian right of citizenship; it was as

in Jerusalem, when Ezra and Nehemiah, after the return from Babylon,

rebuilt the city.

Of the weakened state of Rome, there is a tradition in Plutarch and

Macrobius, which, indeed, such as it is, seems not to be historical.

While the city was still without walls, armies made their appearance

from quite powerless places in the neighbourhood, like Fidenæ and

Ficulea; so that the Romans had to give hostages. But a trick was

played when this was done; and instead of maidens of high birth, they

sent servant-girls, whose leader, a Greek bondmaid of the name of

Philotis, like another Judith, when the troops, in the celebration of

their unwonted good luck had got drunk, gave a signal with a torch to

the Romans, whereupon these destroyed the enemy. This incident was

dated in Quinctilis, consequently four months after the evacuation

of the town. This story is at all events a proof how weak Rome was

supposed to have become.

On the new country district, which was not inconsiderable, there

again arose a renewal of Rome’s might. At the end of this period, the

disorganised state of things on the left bank is the same as before: on

the right bank, every thing belonged to Rome except Sutrium and Nepete,

which are border fastnesses, and beyond which the _silva Ciminia_

grew into a wilderness. Whenever an _ager publicus_ is now spoken

of, it lies almost exclusively in these parts. It was probably only

with the nearest Latin towns, Tusculum, Lanuvium, Aricia, that Rome

was in relations of isopolity. These events cannot here be told in a

connected narrative; the details would not serve any purpose whatever:

it is only with those which are important in themselves, and in their

consequences, that we have to do. It was otherwise with Livy, who wrote

for his countrymen.

Of much greater consequence are the events which happened at home.

Avarice and usury are among the besetting sins of the Romans; which in

proportion as they found a wider range, became the more oppressive.

A few years after the evacuation of the city, when a distress was

reigning which Livy completely disguises from us, and perhaps from

himself, M. Manlius came forward to befriend the sufferers. The

cognomen of Capitolinus was not given him for having saved the Capitol,

but because he lived there; as T. Manlius, most likely his father,

already twenty years before, occurs with that name in the Fasti. The

deliverance of the Capitol was not the only brilliant achievement of

Manlius: he was acknowledged as one of the most distinguished heroes

in war, and the fact of his not being met with at all in the Fasti,

throws a light upon the position in which he stood. It is generally

told of him, that he entertained _consilia regni affectandi_; but

Livy says, that there were no proofs to be found in the annals of any

such intention, beyond meetings held in his house, and his bounty to

the _Plebes_. It may have been, that he bore a grudge against those

who were in power, because he had received no reward for his deeds:

it may be also, that his great soul was stirred within him by a vast

ambition, and that he yielded to the desire of taking the crown for

his reward. Whatever he did, his were actions which the purest and

most benevolent mind might have done as well. Every day, citizens were

assigned to creditors as bondmen for debt; Manlius paid for them what

they owed, especially for old soldiers; dissolved their _nexum_, and

restored them to their families by the sacrifice of the whole of his

fortune. At the same time, he is said to have charged the patricians

with having embezzled the money which had been retaken from the

Gauls. The suspicion must have arisen from the tax having been laid

on to replace the gold which had been paid to the Gauls; as there was

harshness and fanaticism in calling it in under such circumstances,

although it was destined for the gods. Thus Manlius acquired an

enthusiastic popularity; and therefore the ruling order attacked him

in the most violent manner. Instead of taking the hint, and relieving

the distress, the patricians stood obstinately upon their right, and

thus a race was run between benevolence, or benevolent ambition, and

the most headstrong oligarchy; just as in the year 1822 was the case in

Ireland, where the peasantry, when animals were bled, would fight for

the blood that they might appease their hunger, and yet the landlords

would not for all that abate from the strict letter of their claims.

Thus it was natural, that there should be a feeling among many, that

any change would be better than such a government; and that Manlius, as

a usurper, might be useful, like many of the Greek tyrants. The Roman

government was so little inclined to recede in its course, that it

caused Manlius to be arrested. Yet this was to no purpose: a general

sympathy manifested itself in behalf of a man who until now had not

offended in any thing; the _Plebes_ went into mourning, and flocked

in crowds to the gates of his dungeon. And thus the government was

obliged to release him. Now, one might have thought, he would be sure

to take some step which could not be justified. Manlius had a difficult

part to play. Men often begin under such circumstances with the purest

intentions, and are drawn in by degrees to go dreadfully astray. I

believe that Manlius did not set out with the design of making himself

the tyrant of his country; but when his own kindred now decried him,

and gave his good motives an evil interpretation, his actions were

thus as it were poisoned in the bud, and thence might grow up the

resolution of seizing upon despotic power. And yet there is no proof

to be found of it. The tumult increased. Manlius demanded in the name

of the people, that part of the common land should be sold, and the

debts be paid from the proceeds; a reasonable request as the state had

a right of property in the demesne. But the oligarchs wanted to keep it

in their occupation, and they exulted at the distress of the plebeians.

Embarrassment had made the dependence of the _Plebes_ very great; so

long as the _Præfectus urbi_ had the power of addicting, every one was

in danger of losing his liberty. Manlius now became more proud and

self-assured in consequence of his victory; dangerous thoughts might

daily have been more familiar to him. He was accused: two tribunes

declared for the senate; Camillus, according to Zonaras, was expressly

appointed dictator. Overawed by the dictatorship, he was now brought

before the assembly of the centuries; yet they did not venture to send

him again into prison. Having been liberated on bail, he surrendered

and defended himself; which gives us the strongest presumption of his

innocence, as he might have withdrawn himself. He pleaded his great

military achievements, and his good and kindly deeds, as vouchers for

his motives; he brought forward the spoils of thirty slain enemies, and

forty marks of honour gained in war; he appealed to the citizens whom

he had saved, even to the Master of the horse himself; he pointed to

the Capitol, which is seen from the Campus Martius; and the centuries

acquitted him. But the oligarchy was not satisfied with this. The

senate prosecuted him before the curies (_concilium populi_), which

were to judge him as a patrician in the Peteline grove. Livy, and all

those who followed in his wake, misunderstood this. As the _concilium

populi_ occurs but seldom, he thought of a tribunician impeachment;

yet he cannot deny that the _duumviri_, that is to say, the patrician

public accusers, instituted the proceedings. The assembly was held in

the Peteline grove; not because one could not thence see the Capitol,

but most likely because it was not wished to pronounce a sentence of

death within the town, and yet one was obliged to assemble on a sacred

spot. Manlius was condemned, and thrown headlong from the Tarpeian

rock. This brought on an awful calm which lasted for several years,

just as after the death of Cassius; but the cause of the patricians,

as was always the case, had to suffer for it,[123] although the full

weight of vengeance did not fall upon them. For until C. Gracchus

called the murderers of his brother to account, those who were in power

were not personally made to answer for such outrages; and it was in

truth to this very forbearance that Rome owed the preservation of her

liberty. From Manlius’ blood sprang those, who did not so much avenge

him, as carry out his ideas. Licinius and Sextius were perhaps, or

rather, in all likelihood, his friends; his shameful death animated

them to brave every danger, that they might accomplish their great

work. Encouraged by his example, they did this without bloodshed.

It was about ten or eleven years after the destruction of the city,

that two tribunes of the people, C. Licinius and L. Sextius, put

themselves at the head of their order, with the resolution of at last

placing the two orders on a right footing. The patricians were not to

be done away with as a distinct class; but the plebeians were to exist

by their side with equal rights, and the state, in the true spirit of

its original idea, was to become a double one, being formed of two

perfectly equal communities. The military tribunes were now again

almost always patricians only, which is unaccountable. Something must

be wanting here; unfortunately there is nothing to be found about this

period in the excerpta _de Sententiis_ from Dio Cassius. The patricians

were content with the military tribunate; they wanted no consuls. There

is a silly story current concerning the motives of Licinius in thus

putting himself forward; so that it was an easy task for Beaufort to

show that it was mere fiction. M. Fabius Ambustus was said to have had

two daughters, one of them married to the patrician Sulpicius, the

other to C. Licinius. Sulpicius was a military tribune, and had come

home with the lictors. The younger sister, who was startled at the

noise, was laughed at by the elder one, as if the noise must indeed

have been an unwonted one to her, the wife of a man who could never

attain to this honour. Beaufort has justly remarked that this honour

could not possibly have been unknown to a child of M. Fabius Ambustus;

and it is quite as unhistorical, that the younger Fabia begged her

father and her husband to help her to get it likewise. Plebeians could

indeed be military tribunes just as well as patricians, and M. Fabius

Ambustus besides is afterwards one of those who join in violating the

Licinian laws. The whole is a wretched story, such as we meet with in

memoirs, trumped up by a party who are annoyed at the success of their

opponents’ designs. The motives of men are often mean at bottom; yet

one ought not to make the rule general, and to bury everything great

beneath the littleness of contemptible circumstances. Livy has merely

borrowed the tale from others: in him it is the thoughtlessness of

haste, and the want of entering into the spirit and relations of the

times; he wrote history, not to give an account of facts, but for the

sake of the narrative. He had a generous and noble soul; and although

his patrician predilections sometimes beguile him, it is still quite

true what he says in the preface, that he felt impelled to seek for the

great in the olden times.

Whatever may have been the occasion, it was natural enough to think of

remedying the existing abuses by a radical reform. Theirs embraced two

objects; the alleviation of the temporary distress was the third. The

first law which they proposed, was that no military tribunes should

be elected any more, but consuls, one of whom must of necessity be a

plebeian. The patricians, small as their numbers were, had still the

upperhand in the government; and they tried for along time to evade

the law, until it was made so stringent, that all their artifices

became impossible. It was on account of these tricks, that the law had

to be laid down in such absolute terms. It would not do to say, that

the most worthy from both orders were to be elected, as the curies

had still the confirmation, and could refuse it to a plebeian; and

therefore the election of a plebeian was to be made an indispensable

point. The division was of importance for the patricians themselves;

as otherwise, when the plebeians became powerful in the state, they

would have elected two men of their own order. Only two hundred years

after, the balance turned in favour of the plebeians, who were then

aware that the patricians had quite dwindled, the patrician nobles

being to the plebeian ones in the ratio of 1 to 30. The second law

established the principle, that plebeians as well as patricians might

have a share in the possession of the _ager publicus_; and that with

regard to the past, part of it should be assigned to them as property,

according to the _lex Cassia_, while with regard to the future, one

part of it should be granted to the patricians in possession, and

one part be allotted to the plebeians as property. No individual was

to hold more than five hundred _jugera_; whatever now exceeded this

amount, was to be divided among the _Plebes_ in lots of seven _jugera_.

The number of cattle also, which might be allowed the use of the common

pastures, in summer on the hills, and in winter in the meadows near

the city, was to be according to a certain proportion. The temporary

measure was contained in the third law proposed. Of the debts of the

plebeians, the interest, which had been added to the principal, was to

be cancelled; and the rest was to be paid, no doubt without interest,

in three instalments, at periods of a year of ten months each. This was

indeed a general bankruptcy; but it was the only feasible plan, and

the creditors had previously gained enough in all conscience by their

usury. That was done for individuals, which Sully, after the dismal

times of the _Ligue_, did for the state, when he brought down the debt

by striking off the exorbitant interest already paid, and leaving the

remaining capital to continue at the usual rate of interest. Owing to

this strong measure, France was raised to a high state of prosperity

under Louis XIII.; whilst before that, the marrow of the nation had

only served to fatten the farmers of the revenue and the usurers. In

Rome also, it was without doubt merely the worst people among the

citizens who suffered under it: a more gentle remedy would indeed have

been very desirable; but there was none to be found, and help could not

be withheld.

Against these rogations, the patricians not only now displayed the

greatest determination themselves not to yield, but they also exerted

all their influence in the assemblies for elections; so that for

ten whole years the tribunes, who were re-elected every year, met

with opposition within their own college. Beyond this, the affair is

shrouded in great darkness; on which side the resistance arose, and

wherein the difficulty lay, we cannot tell for certain. Whether the

tribunes themselves made opposition; or whether the patricians managed

to call forth a spirit of indifference and refractoriness within the

commonalty itself; or whether the laws, as rogations, were adopted by

the centuries; must all be left undecided: probably it was different in

different times.

Our authors state that Licinius and Sextius had so stoutly withstood

the election of new magistrates, that for five, or according to

others, for six years, no curule magistrates were chosen. This is one

of those stories which at first sight seem as if they could not have

been invented. We also find in all the Fasti five years, in which

neither consuls nor military tribunes are given, but only Licinius

and Sextius as _tribuni plebis_: their colleagues, who surely ought

likewise to have been mentioned, we also miss. Thus it is in Junius

Gracchanus besides, from whom it passed to Joannes Lydus. Nevertheless

it is false. Undoubtedly the tribunes stopped for some length of time

the elections of the curule magistrates, so that the Fasti were put

out by it: but what a state of confusion there would have been if

this had happened five years running! _Interreges_ were sufficient in

times of peace only, as no one could have led an army into the field;

and were the neighbours quiet all the while? The account arose, in

the first place, from the positive information that the tribunes had

really during the whole struggle hindered the elections, and had only

given way in extreme cases, when a war made the appointment of a curule

magistrate indispensable: the vacancies therefore lasted always for

a short period only, during the delay of the elections. In the next

place, the ancients thought,[124] that Rome had been taken by the

Gauls under the Archon Pyrgion Ol. 98, 1. They read this in Timæus,

and took it for granted, without considering that he was by no means

so sure of this, as would seem from his positive way of speaking.

Fifty Olympiads later, Ol. 148, 1. (corresponding with 565 according

to Cato), Fabius wrote. He knew perfectly well how they now reckoned

in Greece, and he knew likewise that Rome had been taken by the Gauls

two hundred years before; and so he reckoned backwards. But the Fasti

did not tally: six or seven years were wanting between the taking of

Rome and the Licinian rogations, some of which were made up by taking

into the account the substitution of _interreges_ instead of consuls.

This went some way; but it could not fill up the deficiency. After

the Gallic invasion, the consuls were elected _Kalendis Quinctil._;

at that time perhaps _Kal._ or _Id. Aug._, as on those two days of

the month only were elections held. And thus the yearly reckoning was

disturbed. Hence it follows that these statements are as false as they

are incongruous: the Gallic conquest must be placed considerably later,

by at least four years, than it has been. Now the first who composed

our accounts, were by no means of opinion that the tribunes had been

the only magistracy for five years; but they compared the Greek date

with the Roman statements, and yet they did not see their way through

the Fasti. Owing to this, we have the interpolated dictatorships of

entire years in the Fasti of Varro, which are likewise false, and

only grounded on the derangement of the consular year. They then went

beyond the restored consulship of 388; and putting in this place that

impossible anarchy of five or six years, they foisted in the tribunes

of the people, to whom, however, instead of ten years, there were much

too many given. The forger found in the Fasti _tribuni_, without any

further mention of the curule magistrates; and made out from this the

opposition against the elections, which in Livy has been extended to so

great a length.

During these proceedings of the tribunes, there surely were always in

Rome military tribunes, almost without any exception patricians, upon

whom the elections were forced by their presidents; in one instance,

however, half of them were plebeians. The exasperation increased from

day to day: it went so far, that the outbreak of a civil war was

actually to be dreaded. Under the dictator Manlius, the tribunes first

succeeded in having half of the decemvirs who had the charge of the

Sibylline books, chosen from the plebeians, in order to prevent false

assertions concerning the _prodigia_ on the part of the patricians.

Another instance of progress was this, that the dictator P. Manlius

raised a clansman of the tribune Licinius to the dignity of _Magister

equitum_, being indeed authorized to do so by ancient usage. For in

fact the plebeians had also knights of their own, and Brutus, even as

early as in his time, had been _tribunus celerum_. When there was now

no more opposition made by any tribune, and the tribes had adopted the

rogations of Licinius, matters were brought to a crisis; as the senate,

which was almost entirely patrician, refused to give its sanction. The

commonalty showed itself much less obstinately bent upon carrying the

law for the election of consuls, which was all that the plebeian nobles

cared about, than upon having the others passed. The policy of the

senate, of trying to compromise the matter by temporising concessions,

was brought here into play again. But Dio Cassius informs us, that the

tribunes of the people, in order to carry all the laws together at

once, had consolidated them into one; and that Licinius had said, that

if they did not choose to eat, they should not drink either.

In every free state, there are in families political views and

principles which are handed down like heirlooms. Of this there are

many examples in Roman history: people are born members of a party, as

well as of a church. The first tribune of the people was a Licinius;

a Licinius was the first who took the lead of the people in the

insurrection on the Sacred Mount; and a Licinius it was, who 420 years

later, after Sylla’s rule, again asserted the rights of the tribunate:

the Licinii ever continued to be the first plebeian house. It was the

same with the Publilii and the Sicinii. If this seems to us a strange

narrowing of individual freedom, thus to cleave to the principles of

one’s forefathers, as if there were an outward obligation for doing

so, we shall after some experience find it to be the true groundwork

on which the stability and the strength of a nation rest. In the same

manner, there are certain marked political features ever recurring in

many English families.

Licinius therefore combined the different laws in one, that they

might all stand or fall together. Nothing is more praiseworthy in

Roman history, than that a community, which was far superior to its

antagonists in might as well as in numbers, bore with their wiles for

a succession of years with the greatest forbearance and self-command,

and without committing one illegal action. The aged Camillus, who was

past eighty, was now named dictator. In him the old party spirit with

all the old feelings, was still alive: called upon by his order, he

believed that he could make things possible, which were impossible.

To withstand a dictator was more than the plebeians would have dared;

but with consummate wisdom they formed the resolution, should Camillus

take upon himself as dictator to do anything against them contrary to

law, to prosecute him after the expiration of his time of office for

a fine of 500,000 _Asses_. This announcement paralysed Camillus: he

could effect no more than Cincinnatus had been able to do ninety years

before. He himself advised compliance, and made a vow to build a temple

to _Concordia_, if he should succeed in reconciling the two orders.

This temple was consecrated, although not before the death of that

great man. For the Romans of the later ages, it was too mean in its

ancient glory; and under Augustus already it was replaced by another,

under Trajan, by a still more splendid one. Until 1817, it was sought

for in a wrong place: it stood in a corner, under the _Salita_ which

leads from the arch of Septimius Severus to the Capitol. Several votive

tablets were found there; it is behind the church of St. Servius,

which Pope Clement VII. had built in the place of an older one. The

columns, which were of later date, were of Phrygian marble, and of

most elegant workmanship. Trajan was fond of transporting himself into

the past. He coined Roman _denarii_, bearing on one side his head, and

on the other the stamp of some extinct family of distinction (for, in

former times the right of coining was no prerogative); of these _nummi

restituti_ there is a great number in existence. In the same spirit,

Trajan was pleased with the thought of restoring the ancient temple

of _Concordia_: the spot where the golden age of Rome had begun, to

him was hallowed; as it also was to his friends Pliny and Tacitus.

This temple is a classical spot in Rome: it is the symbol of the

constitution, based on freedom and equality.

The reconciliation was now brought about in the following manner.

There were to be elected one plebeian and one patrician consul; yet

the old consulship was not to be restored as it was before the time

of the decemvirs, but there was to be a permanent _præfectus urbi_ as

a new curule magistrate, under the name of a _prætor urbanus_. He was

not, however, so called merely in contradistinction to the _prætor

peregrinus_, a point in which I was formerly, like so many others,

mistaken. This _præfectura urbis_ had existed already before the

institution of the decemvirs, and was to have served in it a different

purpose. The patricians had very strong reasons not to allow it now to

pass into the hands of the plebeians; because the whole of what was

possessed in the _ager publicus_ depended on it. If, for instance, a

father left by will four hundred _jugera_ to a son who had four hundred

already, a conscientious prætor might take from him the three hundred

by which the legal standard was exceeded; but if it was the system of

the prætor to keep down the law, he adjudged the possession, without

taking any cognizance of the objection that the heir was already

possessed _ultra modum_. Besides which, the right was still in the

possession of the _pontifices_; and therefore, the patricians, who

alone had the appointment of the pontiffs, might say, that they alone

were qualified for the prætorship. Another function of the prætor, and

as important a one, was that of nominating the _judex_. In questions

of _meum_ and _tuum_, the _centumviri_ were the judges, and they were

elected by the tribes; but criminal causes had to be tried before the

prætor. Wherever a _delictum manifestum_ was in the case, the culprit

was dragged _obtorto collo_ before the tribunal, and the prætor at once

decided on the amount of punishment. But if the matter were disputed,

the prætor might delegate a _judex_, and direct him to decide in such

or such a manner, according to the issue of the trial. He no doubt had

also the right of giving judgment himself; but he could not possibly

master alone all the cases that occurred. Now these judges were then,

and long afterwards, elected from the senate; and for this reason it

was of immense importance for the patricians to keep the prætorship

for themselves. And hence we may understand the grand character of

the restoration by the Gracchi. For thirty-two years, the patricians

retained the prætorship for the members of their own order: but when

a great part of the _ager publicus_ had passed into the hands of

the plebeians, and the prætor’s functions had likewise changed in

consequence, as he had to command armies, and often to act as consul,

his office necessarily fell within the reach of the plebeians also. The

prætor besides was termed _collega consulum_; and as the two consuls

had together twelve lictors, he had six of them.

It is said moreover that the curule ædiles were now chosen to preside

over the public games. The plebeian ædiles refused, we are told,

to give expensive games in celebration of the peace; on which some

patrician youths took the business upon themselves, and to honour

them the new office was created. I have already shown in the first

edition of my Roman history, that this opinion is absurd. They were

the same as what the old _quæstores parricidii_ had been: they had

to do with accusations before the tribunals of the people, with

state prosecutions, for instance, for poisoning, sorcery, and such

like. This is something quite different from the jurisdiction of the

prætors; if a distinct punishment, fixed by law, was not named in the

indictment, they adjudged the penalty in proportion to the crime. After

the lapse of a year, the plebeians insisted on having a share in this

magistracy also; and for a hundred and thirty years, the ædiles were

always elected by turns, one year, two patricians, and the other, two

plebeians. To the _ludi Romani_ a fourth day was now added for the

plebeians: formerly they had games of their own. From the statements

which Dionysius, at the end of the seventh book, gives from Fabius

concerning the _ludi Romani_, it is manifest, that the state, until

then, gave a great sum yearly to defray the expense; and was compelled

only by the disastrous turn of affairs in the first Punic war, to

saddle individual citizens with the cost. The _ludi_ were now given at

the charge of private persons; and thus the office of the curule ædiles

became a _liturgy_ in the Greek acceptation of the word. The ædiles

had access to all the places of honour; but they had on the other hand

to pay out of their own pocket all the expenses of the games. This was

also continued afterwards, although the state had in the meanwhile

again acquired great wealth. Even trierarchies came into use at that

time, just as at Athens.

That the plebeian ædiles were a general Latin magistracy, is evident

from the mention of them in Latin towns: whether the curule ædiles,

as such a local magistracy, had already existed before among the

patricians; or whether they were newly created, cannot now be made

out. People have hitherto pictured to themselves these curule ædiles

as a police authority. This indeed they also partly were; and in this

respect, they had to compete with those of the plebeians. Yet their

proper duty was not confined to the supervision of the corn trade,

buildings, and so forth, in which we make no distinction between the

patrician and plebeian ones; but it consisted also in conducting, as

public accusers, the trials before the people: of this I have pointed

out several examples. I suppose that the _triumviri capitales_ were

an offshoot of the ædilician power. The ædiles had no lictors, no

_imperium_. How happened it then that these new magistrates were

nominated in the _comitia tributa_? Very likely they were at first

to be chosen by the _comitia tributa_ and _curiata_ alternately,

and to be acknowledged by the others; but when the _lex Mænia_ made

the confirmation by the curies a mere form, this election also was

wholly transferred to the tribes. The petty magistracies, _triumviri

monetales_, _quatuorviri_, and others, were first established after the

_leges Hortensia et Mænia_, when the curies no longer assembled, and

the election was to all intents and purposes made over to the tribes.

As for the prætor, it cannot be doubted but that he was appointed, like

the consuls, by the centuries. The expression is, _iisdem auspiciis_;

but the auspices were taken for the centuries and curies only. Thus the

settled points help us on to the explanation of all that is enigmatical

in the constitution.

INVASION OF THE SENNONIAN GAULS. LEAGUE WITH THE LATINS AND HERNICANS.

CHANGES IN THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF ROME.

According to Joannes Lydus, that is to say, according to Gracchanus, at

the end of the commotions, the government remained for some time under

the sway of the tribunes. This is highly probable. The fact that Varro

in his memoir to Pompeius, _de Senatu habendo_, mentions the _triumviri

rei publicæ constituendæ_ among those who had the right of calling the

senate together, is very strong evidence for it. It may also have been

with reference to that earlier magistracy, that the later triumvirs

called themselves by the very same name. Nor is it at all unlikely

that the first military tribunes were likewise designated in the old

accounts as _triumviri rei publicæ constituendæ_.

When the Licinian laws had been carried, and the first plebeian consul

elected, every thing was nearly on the point of being undone again;

inasmuch as the patricians refused their confirmation to the plebeian

consul. After a great deal of trouble, matters were made up: the

patricians yielded, and acknowledged the plebeian consul L. Sextius.

Thus was brought to a conclusion this moderate, legal, and necessary

revolution, of which the stages were somewhat like the normal changes

in the bodily constitution of one who is growing up out of childhood

into early manhood. That the peace was a hollow one, is not to be

wondered at: the patricians yielded to necessity; but with the fixed

intention to get back by force, at the very first opportunity, all

that they had lost. About twelve years later, 339 according to Cato’s

chronology, which Livy also follows,[125] the struggle was renewed.

The patricians succeeded in engrossing again the second place of the

consulate; and they kept up this contest until 413, during which they

usurped the consulship more than a third of the time. At last they

were obliged with shame to give in, and in the course of the struggle

to yield to claims which the plebeians would not have urged with such

violence, had the treaty been honestly observed.

The beginning of this period is marked by few incidents. Livy’s

statement, that no wars had been waged lest the plebeian consuls

should have an opportunity of gathering laurels, can only be a mere

supposition. The whole of men’s attention was bent on domestic affairs;

and it is but natural, that the immense number of arrangements at home

which followed from the Licinian law, should have entirely absorbed

it. Surveys of the whole of the _ager publicus_ had to be made; a

commission was engaged in regulating the matter of the debts, and a

great deal of other business was lying on hand. The general allotment

of land to the plebeians is to be considered as the cause of the

rebuilding of the city. We do not easily find in history such a speedy

recovery: Rome seems to have become young again, although there are

wars nearly every year. The debts still partly continued, and the right

of the _nexum_ was not done away with; but it became less oppressive by

degrees. The changes extended further than what we know; the treasury

of the patricians now became in all likelihood the general exchequer of

the country. These were also quiet times abroad: the Latins, separated

from Rome, lived in peace; single towns only, like _Tibur_ and

_Præneste_, were hostile, rather from mistrust than from any special

reasons. The people of Tarquinii were the only enemy who threatened

Rome. But from afar a new foe made his appearance--the Sennonian Gauls,

in the year 393, thirty years after the first invasion. What has been

mentioned of earlier inroads of the Gauls, is contradicted by Polybius,

who records all their expeditions, and speaks of this one as being the

first after the destruction of Rome. It seems that the Gauls, after

the taking of Rome, had retired into Apulia, and there had concluded a

treaty with Dionysius of Syracuse: they then returned to their abodes

in what is now-a-days the Romagna, and the territory of Urbino. Yet

there was a new migration over the Alps, which forced its way as far

as the Anio. Here was said to have been the single combat of Manlius

Torquatus, who took from the Gaul his golden chain: this appears to

be historically authenticated, and we have no grounds for deeming it

a fable. A great battle was not fought there: the Romans, who were in

readiness to receive the enemy, were now fully awake, and on their

guard. The Gauls then took up a strong position: they seized upon the

Alban Mount and the heights of Latium, and from thence they wasted the

Latin country, roving beyond Tivoli[126] as far as Campania, even to

Apulia, as is stated in one account. They must therefore have overcome

the Samnites, and passed through their long and narrow territory, as

afterwards the Romans did also.

These events had again the most fortunate consequences for the Romans,

as had been the case with the Volscian war, a hundred years before.

They themselves, as well as the Latins and Hernicans, now came to the

conviction, that their division exposed them to great danger. Between

the Romans and Latins, there was no hostility; between the Hernicans

and Romans there was open war, in which the Romans may have taken the

strong town of Ferentinum: it ended in the return to the old relation.

False is the story that the Hernicans surrendered; for so late as

half a century afterwards, they received one-third of the booty, or

an equivalent in money, until C. Marcius conquered them. Latins and

Hernicans united with Rome, and a new state was now formed which Livy

mentions in two places,[127] without, however, being aware of the

circumstances connected with it. The Latins were to all appearance

no more a compact state: to restore themselves to the condition in

which they were before, was impossible; very many of their towns had

been destroyed by the Volscians and Æquians, or by the Gauls. But

now, the Volscians, their former enemies, were likewise split into

several states:--the Antiates seem to have kept by themselves, but

other towns of them united with Latium; they had urgent reasons for

annexing themselves, as they were hard pressed by the Samnites, who

were making conquests on the upper Liris, and had taken Fregellæ,

and become masters of Casinum. Thus a new Latin political league

was formed, which was joined by the Latin colonies and part of the

Volscians; for with regard to the Latin colonies the Romans seem to

have renounced every claim to hegemony: Sutrium and Nepete, which lay

on the left bank of the Tiber, entered likewise into the confederacy.

Forty-seven peoples shared in the sacrifice on the Alban mount; but

that was in those times when Latium, as a powerful state, stood by

the side of Rome. As a counterpoise to Latium, another part of the

Volscians seems to have been admitted to the rights of full Roman

citizenship; for two new tribes are formed, which had their abode near

the Volscian frontier; just as in the treaty of Sp. Cassius, the Latins

yielded to the Romans the Crustuminian territory. Thus the year 397

is remarkable for Rome’s having renewed the old relations with Latium

and the Hernicans. Festus, in the article _Prætor ad portam_, which is

borrowed from Cincius, speaks as if the Romans, since the fall of Alba,

had always been on a footing of equality with the Latins. This was the

case from the peace of Sp. Cassius to the year 290, and from 397 to

the consulate of Decius Mus; but the intervening period is overlooked.

Cincius has certainly stated what was correct, and indeed has only been

misunderstood by Verrius Flaccus. A very broad distinction is here to

be made between the different times: I was mistaken in this respect for

many years.[128] A Roman and a Latin _imperator_ held by turns, for a

year, each the chief command of the combined army: they offered their

sacrifice in Rome on the Capitol, and were there greeted at the gate.

The new league of the three states had undoubtedly sprung from the fear

of the Gauls, who, although they did not make their appearance that

year on the Tiber, were still very near. It would serve no purpose

to tell in detail how the contest was carried on. It was a dreadful

time for the Romans. The struggle with the Gauls lasted until 406 and

407; and Latium and Campania, especially, had to suffer for twelve or

thirteen years from the continual devastation of the Gauls. Once the

enemy was seen before the Colline gate: the Romans stood their ground

against them, or at least it was a drawn battle. It was on the same

spot where Sylla afterwards defeated the Samnites, and which is now

within the city. It is a prolongation of the Quirinal into table land:

on the left, there is a deep valley; beyond the table ground, there are

other hills, on which the city-wall now stands. It was there, without

doubt, that the Gauls and the Samnites posted themselves.

One of the changes, occasioned by the establishing of the new Latin

league, is this: that, as the older Latium had, according to Cato (in

Priscian), a dictator, this new Latium had also for its chiefs two

prætors, as Livy expressly mentions. A league between the Samnites

and Romans, which is likewise to be found in Livy, belongs to this,

or to a somewhat later period: that, however, before that time, such

relations had already existed between the Samnites and the Romans,

may be surmised, but cannot be asserted with certainty, inasmuch as

a notice of Festus, under the head of _Numerius_, is too vague. As

early as the battle at the Cremera, according to that quotation, one

of the Fabii, who was sent as a hostage to the Gauls, was married

to the daughter of a Samnite of Beneventum; but without a treaty no

_connubium_ took place. It is yet possible that this relation was

instituted between Sabines and Romans alone, and that it was extended

by the Sabines to their Samnite colonies. The motive of the league was

a double one; partly the threats of the Gauls, and in this case it is

to be placed between the second and the third Gallic inroads, those

to the Anio and the Alban mount; and partly, according to a highly

probable supposition, jealousy against Latium. The latter state, when

joined by the Volscians and Æquians, was so powerful, that Rome had

cause to be jealous. The Latins bordered immediately upon the Samnites,

and these tried to spread themselves out on the upper Liris; so that

a league between the Romans and Samnites was very natural, whereas

Rome and Latium were allied indeed, but did not trust one another. A

league of this kind must not of necessity be understood to mean one

of mutual assistance; it is not at all to be looked upon as such. It

is rather a treaty, than an alliance; and in fact there was in such

leagues of the ancients an honest clause, wherein the contracting

parties, on both sides, prescribed to each other the bounds of their

intended encroachments upon other nations. Such was the league of Rome

with Carthage; that of the Carthaginians under Hasdrubal with Spain;

and likewise of Rome with the Ætolians. It is mere declamation, when

in moral disquisitions the division of countries in the new world, as

laid down by Pope Alexander VI., between Spain and Portugal, has so

often been reviled: it was nothing else but such a line of demarcation

for eventual conquests. Even thus was a limit afterwards drawn in the

first actual peace between the Romans and the Samnites, and it was its

want of precision which occasioned the second war.

Notwithstanding the general peace with the Latins, the Tiburtines were

at enmity with the Romans; they seem to have formed a distinct state,

and they took the Gallic armies in their pay. A war against the people

of Tarquinii brought the Roman arms along the coast to Etruria. It was

carried on with great exasperation. The Etruscans advanced even against

Rome; but the plebeian consul C. Marcius utterly routed them, and

compelled them to make a long truce.

At home, there was continual distress in consequence of debt. One

commission after the other was appointed; respites were granted; and

the state again took the matter in hand. The latter, owing to the

tithes which came in from the public fields, was now so well off that

it could effect a general arrangement. The debts were inquired into

by a commission; and all those who owed money, but were able to give

security, received an advance from the treasury to enable them to

discharge their liabilities. This was a wise measure; as by the paying

off of principals the rate of interest was lowered, so that money

became exceedingly plentiful, and it was requisite to find out where

to place it. On the other hand, it was ordered that those who had

property, should not be obliged to sell it, as in that case the price

of estates would have fallen; but that they should be allowed to give

it up for the debt, according to a fair valuation. By this means, the

value of landed property must have risen, and the rate of interest

have been lowered; a most prudent and judicious financial calculation.

It had lasting and excellent consequences, although fresh misery was

caused soon afterwards by new disasters. If the misfortune of an age

is once made decisive by extraordinary events, the wisest of rulers

cannot ward off a state of pressure and distress. Such a calamity,

which befell Rome at that time, was the third Gallic invasion in the

year 405, a much more frightful one than the second. The Gauls appeared

before the city, the Romans did not venture to give them battle; for

though their military science had been brought to a high perfection,

yet it was well judged to confine themselves to the defence of the

town: the consequence of this, however, was the devastation of the open

country. The Gauls, that time, remained long in Latium, even throughout

the winter. If we may believe the account of the Romans, they were then

in the same plight as the barbarians under Radagaise, whom Stilicho

pushed on to the Apennines not far from Fiesole;--even now the name

which the peasants have given to those heights, still refers to that

period:--[129] they must have retired to the Alban hills, that is to

say, the _Monte Cavo_. It is possible, but inconceivable, that they

should have gone of their own accord to mountains covered with snow.

Certain it is, that L. Furius Camillus, a nephew, not a son of the

great Camillus, marched against the Gauls as a distinguished general:

he was in other respects a headstrong patrician who broke the peace

between the two orders, yet _bono publico natus_. It is manifest that

the Romans and Latins combined sent a large force into the field; they

formed ten legions, a number which could have never been raised by

the Romans alone. A very clever campaign was carried on against the

barbarians. The Romans fought no battles, but brought them into great

straits by their entrenched lines. To this perhaps refers the notice of

a grammarian, that the Gauls concluded a treaty with the Romans. They

were allowed to march off; on which they spread over Campania, and

ravaged the country, still going lower down.

Many important changes date from the beginning of the fifth century.

As early as 397, we meet with an account of the tribes deciding on

war. This right we found belonging at first to the curies, then to the

centuries, and now to the tribes. It was natural that when the nation

had grown into more vigorous life, the old customs were no longer kept,

according to which, for instance, the deliberations were to be stopped

because there was a flash of lightning, or because a bird of evil omen

was flying past, and the like; so that no army could then be levied,

and, in short, no resolution of the centuries be passed. Very properly

then was recourse had to the assembly of the tribes, which from the

very first was an institution based on a practical plan, and adapted to

the real wants of the commonwealth.

The enlargement of the plebeian rights is linked to the name of C.

Marcius Rutilus, the first plebeian censor and dictator. He preserved

the peace of the two orders; and we remark in his case a change in the

mode of electing the dictator, which Zonaras also mentions, but which

Livy has entirely overlooked. Down to that time, the patricians had

always had the actual choice of the dictator; that is to say, they had

to select one out of candidates proposed to them. We have a passage

in Livy which expressly states this. Sulpicius was the last dictator

nominated by the curies; there would otherwise have been no occasion

for particularly mentioning it. Livy has merely copied it in a heedless

manner: he has many more notices of the same kind, which appear

superfluous, when one does not know how to explain them from any other

circumstances. Three years later, we find a plebeian dictator, whom

the curies would never have confirmed. Only the senate now decided the

election, and the consul proclaimed it. This is also recorded in the

statement of Dionysius, which has been transferred to an earlier age,

that the nomination of the dictator had been restricted for some time

to the discretion of the consul; I have discussed this in the first

volume of the new edition of my Roman History. The more, therefore,

the curies lose, the more does a power grow up in the senate, which it

had not before. Of very violent commotions which then took place, the

traces have been much obliterated: a mention of it occurs in Cicero,

where he tells us how Popilius Lænas when consul had repressed the

_seditio plebis_, for which he had got a cognomen. This consulship I

place immediately before the election of the plebeian dictator. Thus in

the year 400, the patricians had succeeded in hindering the Licinian

law from being kept, and this lasted for a few years. Another great

change was this: that the nomination of a number of military tribunes

was given to the tribes.

In Etruria, it is said that the town of Cære was obliged to give

up part of its territory in consequence of a truce; so that, what

never happened before, a war must have been waged with Cære. There

is generally a great deal of declamation against this, as a piece of

ingratitude; for Cære had, in the Gallic war, given shelter to the

sacred things of Rome. We do not, however, know any thing positive

about it.