BOOK 390-343 B.C. The second invasion of the Gauls took place six years later, in 361 B.C.' They advanced as far as the Anio, a few miles from Rome. Here it was that a gigantic Gaul challenged the best man among the Romans to single combat, and was vanquished by the young T. Manlius, who stripped Torquatus. the barbarian of his golden necklace (torques) and thus gained the surname Torquatus. Terror seized the army of the enemy. They fled under the cover of night.2 Story of Alleged third Gallic invasion. The third invasion of the Gauls took place in the following year, 360 B.C., the thirtieth after the burning of Rome, i.e. the same year in which, according to Polybius, the Gauls returned for the first time. But while Polybius knows of no engagement during this year, and only says that the Romans did not venture to march against their enemies, Livy3 tells of a victory of the dictator Q. Servilius and of a triumph of the consul C. Pœtelius over the Gauls and Tiburtines. Two years later, 358 B.C., the Gauls were again beaten at Pedum, and the dictator C. Sulpicius triumphed. The same story is repeated in the year 350 B.C., under the consul M. Popilius Lænas. At last, in the year 349 B.C., the son of Camillus, L. Furius Camillus, gains a decisive victory over the Gauls, after which they do not renew their attacks. The pretended victory of L. Furius Camillus coincides chronologically with the second invasion of the Gauls mentioned by Polybius, when, according to this writer, no engagement took place, but the enemy retreated like a band of robbers on finding the Romans prepared to receive them. Livy, however, by way of a prelude to the victory of the Romans, relates the single combat of M. Valerius with the Gallic champion, in which 6 of Camillus. The story of Manlius Torquatus, which, like all popular tales, had no fixed place in the annals, was referred by some writers to this last war of Camillus with the Gauls. 'Livy, vii. 9. 2 According to Livy's account, no battle was fought. Nevertheless the mendacious Capitoline Fasti report a triumph of the dictator T. Quinctius Pennus over the Gauls. 3 Livy, vii. 11. Livy (vii. 13-15) gives a detailed account of the battle. › Livy, vii. 23. 6 Livy, vii. 26. a raven descends on the helmet of the Roman, and with his claws and beak gashes the face of the Gaul during the fight. That the whole battle and the victory of L. Furius Camillus are as authentic as this single combat is more than probable. At all events the account of Polybius throws grave doubts on a victory which is not the less suspicious as sharing the legendary character of all accounts of Gallic wars in which a Furius Camillus is mentioned.' CHAP. I. 390-343 B.C. Gallic wars un The result of our investigations is, that the whole of the These six wars with the Gauls, as Livy relates them, are not much more than stop-gaps marking points at which the historical. empty annals of the old time have been filled up with edifying and patriotic matter. We can therefore infer that a considerable part of the other wars is equally apocryphal, and we may perhaps have the satisfaction of thinking that there were no wars to relate, and that the Romans had now and then a little breathing time. The first event in the history of Rome which came to the knowledge of contemporary Greeks was the destruction of Rome by the Gauls. Aristotle mentions it, and calls the deliverer of Rome Lucius. Niebuhr (Röm. Gesch., iii. 93; English tr., iii. 80) supposes that by this Lucius is to be understood L. Furius Camillus, the son of the great M. Furius Camillus, and that the battle of 349 B.C. was so decisive that it could be looked upon as the act of deliverance which finally put an end to the danger of Gallic invasions. We do not venture to decide how the statement of Aristotle is to be explained. But if, as we think, the victory of 349 B.c. is fictitious, it follows that Aristotle cannot have referred to L. Furius Camillus. BOOK III. 384 B.C. Exaggerated accounts of the Gallic wars. CHAPTER II. M. MANLIUS, 384 B.C. 3 It has been already said' that in the received account of the devastation caused by the Gauls, the mischief done by the barbarians has been very much exaggerated. The narrators have had a sort of pleasure in representing the distress of the Romans as quite overwhelming. The Gauls are said to have destroyed not only all that was combustible, but to have demolished the fortifications and the town walls.2 We are even assured 3 that the greater number of citizens perished, and that, after the retreat of the Gauls, the pressure of famine led to the desperate resolution of throwing all the old men from sixty years upwards into the Tiber. A popular legend related that Fidena, Ficulea, and other insignificant neighbouring towns were encouraged by the distress of Rome to desire a number of Roman virgins in marriage, and advanced with an army to the town, to back their demand by the display of force; that the Romans, unable to refuse the demands of their neighbours, sent a number of female slaves, dressed as Roman virgins, into the hostile camp before the gates, and that these, having made the enemy drunk, deprived them of their arms, and gave a signal to the Romans, who rushed out of the city and cut them down in their sleep. 4 Festus, s. v. sexagenarius, p. 334, ed. Müller. i. 11, 36 ff. Polyænus, viii. 30. explain historically the origin of 6 Diodorus. xiv. 116. Plutarch, Rom., 29; Camill., 33. Macrobius, The story is an ætiological myth, intended to a religious festival, celebrated every year on the nones of July. See Schwegler, Röm. Gesch., i. p. 38, Anm. 2; p. 533, Anm. 16, 18; iii. 272. • Fidena had been long destroyed, see above, p. 238. CHAP. 384 B.C. Real ex tent of the Such stories, of course, deserve no credence. Nevertheless it is certain that the retreat of the Gauls was followed by a time of misery and great distress. Wherever the barbarians had penetrated, they had no doubt destroyed or carried off all the corn, killed the cattle, and burnt the mischief. houses. When the Romans returned to their homes, they were in the position of men who have been visited by murrain, failure of the crops, and conflagration all at once. Yet the organism of the commonwealth was unhurt. The spirit of the Roman people still lived, and soon began to reinvigorate the body of the state, and to repeople the old sacred place. Nor was the courage of the senate broken. Only one idea animated the best men of Rome. They set to work to establish the state anew, to rebuild the town, and to reassert their commanding position among their allies and neighbours. of the proposed to Veii. Yet if we can believe our authorities, the people were Story by no means unanimous in their resolution to restore the destroyed town, and to cling to the old centre of the state, emigration with which the memories of the past and the hopes of future greatness were connected. The plebs, instigated by the tribunes, wished to leave the heap of ruins on the Tiber, and to emigrate to Veii. There a new Rome was to arise in a healthy, strong situation and a fruitful country, where they could hope to found a free commonwealth on new principles, free from the trammels and traditions of the past. In vain Camillus brought the power of his eloquence and the weight of his authority to bear against a plan which betrayed the un-Roman and impious spirit of its authors. The question was about to be put to the vote in the senate, and perfect stillness reigned in the curia. Then the voice of a centurion, calling to his soldiers, was heard from the Forum, 'Here we will remain.' These words were accepted by the senate, and also by the people, as an omen and a divine decision. The work of restoration was cheerfully begun and finished within a year. Every citizen built according to his fancy, and took the materials wherever he could find them. The BOOK 384 B.C. The story a repetition. The land question. Thus it hap direction of the old streets had disappeared among the 2 The story of the intended emigration to Veii we have already met with immediately after the conquest of this town, when the question arose, how the patricians should manage to have the newly acquired lands for their exclusive use and benefit. We have already expressed the suspicion that it is only a misrepresentation of facts by the annalists, when they speak of the intention of the plebeians of dividing the Roman state into two parts, and of making Veii the seat of half the senate and of half the Roman nation. Such an absurd plan never was conceived by the practical plebeians. What they wanted was to have a share in the Veientine land, a desire which the ruling class at last were obliged to agree to, by giving to the plebs allotments of seven jugera a head. But, after their usual custom, the patricians had tried to take away with one hand what they had given with the other; and so it appears that the seven jugera of the Veientine land were handed over to the plebeians, not as full property, but incumbered with a tithe.3 Now, after the destruction of the city by the Gauls, the question in dispute, which had not yet been solved, came up again. The plebeians once more urged their claim of freehold property, but it was again rejected, and it seemed that the first brilliant conquest of the Roman arms This was a good opportunity to introduce into the temples alleged monuments of the bygone ages. Who knows what sculptures, inscriptions, and relics were made now, or subsequently, under the plea of restoration? |