BOOK 343 B.C. Samnites met for the first time as enemies in open war. The Romans had been, as we have already seen,' allied with the Samnites since the year 354 B.C. Of what nature the alliance was we do not know, but it is extremely probable that it was not merely a declaration of mutual friendship, but that there was a distinct object in view. This object we may venture to suppose was to reduce the hostile nations dwelling between Rome and Samnium, especially the Volscians and the Sidicinians. The Romans had, therefore, no sort of excuse for mixing themselves up in a quarrel between the Samnites and their neighbours. This was felt by the annalists, who made it their task to represent the policy of Rome not only as successful, but as just and magnanimous. They expect us to believe, therefore, that the senate declined the request of the Campanians, because Rome would not stand in the way of their allies, the Samnites. Thereupon the Campanians, it is related, surrendered themselves in due form as subjects to the Romans, and now the senate determined to take steps in favour of the town of Capua, which had become Roman. This story is confessedly false, for Capua remained, what it had been, an independent town. The Roman senate, if it found occasion to adopt the cause of the Campanians and Sidicinians, had probably a better plea than a fictitious surrender of Capua and her territory to Rome. At any rate war was declared.' The Roman annalists related long stories of fierce combats, and three hard-fought but decisive victories. But all these reports are either manifest and reckless exaggerations or downright fictions.3 Mommsen (Röm. Gesch., i. 358) says: Perhaps no portion of the annals of Rome is in a worse condition than the story of the first Samnite war, as related by Livy (p. 359). Intelligent and honest readers cannot fail to observe that this report is full of all sorts of impossible things. . . The repetitions are perhaps even more startling . . . On the whole the style of narrative in this chapter betrays a different period and a different hand from the other more trustworthy annalistic reports. The story is full of detailed battle scenes, of anecdotes, and of exhaustive and sometimes startling archæological digressions." СНАР. IV. 343 B.C. Samnite A connected history of the war cannot be made out of the contradictory and confused accounts. It appears that the Samnites were not equal to the Romans and their allies. At least they could not maintain their position in The Campania, and at the end of a campaign of one year's wars. duration, a Roman army kept possession of Capua. The time seemed to have come when the republic could plant a firm foot beyond the bounds of Latium. Campania, the apple of discord between the Samnites and the Romans, seemed to have fallen to the share of the latter; and the pretended surrender of Capua seemed to turn out a real conquest, when suddenly an internal dispute arose which arrested the Romans in their bold career of victory, and conjured up indirectly a desperate contest for their existence with their oldest and most faithful allies and kinsmen, the Latins. BOOK 342 B.C. Contests of and plebeians. CHAPTER V. THE MUTINY OF THE YEAR 342 B.C. AFTER the settlement of the civil contest, and the passing of the Licinian law, 367 B.C., Camillus, we are told, consecrated a temple to Concord.' But it was an illusion to patricians hope that discord would henceforth be banished for ever. It is true, the contest was not renewed with the animosity that had been displayed before, but patricians and plebeians were equally far removed from the true spirit which should animate the members of one community. The consciousness of defeat on the one side, and on the other the feeling of having gained but half a victory, could produce an apparent peace only during the time of mutual exhaustion. The patricians had not yet entirely given up the hope of regaining what they had lost; nor could the plebeians stop half way, and rest satisfied with a reform which reserved for the old nobility the highest judicial and other offices. Non-ob servance of the Licinian laws. It is not reported whether the provisions of the Licinian laws regarding the relief of debtors and the common land were conscientiously carried out. We may reasonably doubt it when we learn that, twelve years after the solemn peace between the two classes (355 B.C.), the most important reform of the Licinian laws, the division of the consulate between patricians and plebeians, was violated. The reactionary party of the nobility carried the election of two patricians, and the same open breach of the law was repeated in the next ten years not less than six times. It was a bad time for the plebeians, and it is natural that, 1 Plutarch, Cam., 42. under such circumstances, the material interests of the plebeian class should suffer, in spite of the provisions of the Licinian laws. The agrarian law, we may be sure, was not carried out where it interfered with the patrician interests. But it is very probable that the ruling party made concessions to the people in minor matters, so that in the main they might keep the advantage. measures. 1 CHAP. V. 342 B.C. of the plebeians. Thus we hear that in the year 357 B.C. the rate of in- Distress terest was fixed at one-twelfth of the capital per annum,' and ten years later a further reduction to one-half of this rate took place. It is further mentioned that in the year 352 B.C. a commission of five, three of whom were plebeians, was formed, who, by advancing money out of the public treasury, were to assist debtors who were in difficulties, but could give security to the state for repayment of an advance. We are unable, owing to the scantiness of our information, to ascertain exactly the effect of such It is not impossible that, as Livy2 relates, debtors and creditors were satisfied; but we ought to know much more of the existing circumstances to feel quite sure that this was really the case. We can imagine reasons why the creditors made a sacrifice from political motives, and abated a portion of their legal demands, in order that, on the other hand, they might be allowed to have their own way in the appropriation of the state lands and in the administration of the republic. But the state continued to suffer from the great amount of indebtedness of the plebeians, and from various other evils. This was brought to light by the mutiny of 342 B.C., which was not merely This foenus unciarium, i.e., one ounce or the twelfth part of an as, makes 8 per cent. per annum. Niebuhr (Röm. Gesch., iii. 66; English translation, iii. 58) thinks that the old year of ten months was taken for this calculation. Reduced to a year of twelve months it is exactly 10 per cent. This is a very low rate of interest for those early times, and it is difficult to understand how money was actually lent at that rate at the time in question, 357 B.C. Yet Tacitus reports (Annal., vi. 16) that this rate of interest was fixed already by a law of the Twelve Tables. If that was so, how was it possible to re-enact this law, as if it had never existed? The whole of this matter is beset with difficulties, which still await their solution. BOOK 342 B.C. Uncertainty of the history. The the symptom of an accidental passing discomfort, but the outbreak of a long-repressed and deeply-seated malady of the state. The accounts of this mutiny differ so materially that, according to Livy,' nothing is certain but that a mutiny took place and was put down. The different reports are indeed singular and obscure, partly on account of their brevity and incompleteness, partly as contradicting one another; but to such things we are accustomed in our authorities for the history of the time of which we are speaking. It has even happened that, in several reports of the same event, differing materially the one from the other, we have been able to discover a more genuine historical tradition than in perfectly smooth and rectified accounts. Completeness of the narrative we are, at this stage, very far from expecting. We have still to deal with fragments, and may be well satisfied if among these fragments we discover here and there traces of genuine historical testimony. Let us try to discover such in the accounts of the mutiny of 342 B.C. After the victorious campaign against the Samnites, legions in 343 B.C., it is said the Roman legions wintered in CamCampania. pania, in order to protect Capua and Suessula against the attacks of the Samnites during the winter. The luxurious life in that favoured country made the Roman soldiers forget their fatherland, and they conceived the treacherous plan of attacking the Capuans, of murdering them, and thus taking possession of their land, just as the Capuans themselves, eighty years before, had acted towards the former inhabitants. The plan became known, and was frustrated by the consul C. Marcius Rutilus. He discharged the most dangerous of the mutineers, and sent them home either singly or in small troops. Thus the army was purified of the most licentious soldiers. Meanwhile the men who had been discharged banded themselves together, marched against Rome, and placed 2 Livy, vii. 38. 1 Livy, vii. 42. |