Introduction

The year that is conventionally designated at 325/4 BC was the second of the four so-called dictator years, a difficult concept that I discuss in my page on Dictator Years (334/3; 325/4; 310/9; and 302/1 BC): in summary:

1. ✴A scholar who was working in the late Republic ‘corrected’ the annalistic record in order to resolve difficulties with the Roman calendar by inserting four fictitious years in which a dictator held office without consuls,  Andrew Drummond (referenced below, 1978, at pp. 556-63), in his fundamental paper on the dictator years, suggested that the ‘guilty’ scholar was probably T. Pomponius Atticus, in a work published in 47 BC.
   

2. ✴Although these fictitious years were recorded (for example) in the Augustan fasti Capitolini and  fasti Triumphales, they were ignored by all of our surviving annalistic sources (including Livy). 
   

I described Livy’s account of the events of this year in my page 2nd Samnite War I (326-321 BC): in this page, I consider how the ‘discovery of the dictator year of 301 BC might have affected Livy’s narrative.

Livy’s Chronology for 325/4 BC

As note above, the Augustan fasti recognised the four dictator yeas.   The entries in the fasti Capitolini for the period under discussion here no longer survive, although the corresponding information survives in the much later ‘Chronography of 354 AD’, which seems to have been largely based on them:

1. ✴For 429 AUC (325 BC):
   

2. •the Chronography of 354 AD recorded:
   

3. -Consuls: Camello II et Bruto, (identified L. Furius Camillus (II) and D. Junius Brutus from ‘History of Rome’, 8: 29: 2)
   

4. •the fasti Triumphales recorded no triumphs
   

5. ✴For 430 AUC (324 BC)
   

6. •the Chronography of 354 AD recorded that hoc anno dictatores non fuerunt (this year, there were no dictators).  However, this can be corrected from the entry for 309 BC in the fasti Capitolini to read: there was [an unnamed] dictator with no consuls; and
   

7. •the fasti Triumphales recorded that L. Papirius Cursor triumphed as dictator over the Samnites.
   

I also noted above that Livy (who would have been aware of the antiquarian ‘discovery’ of this dictator year) he did not insert it into his account: instead, he assumed that all of the magistrates above had served in a single consular year (conventionally designated as 325/4 BC), in which:

1. ✴L. Furius Camillus (II) and D. Junius Brutus served as consuls (‘History of Rome’, 8: 29: 2);
   

2. ✴While Brutus was fighting the Vestini, Camillus marched into Samnium but, soon after he arrived there, he: 
   

3. “... became dangerously ill and was forced to relinquish his command; L. Papirius Cursor, who was by far the most distinguished soldier of the time, [took over his command] as dictator, ... with Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus as his master of the horse”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 29: 8-9).
   

In other words, Livy accepted Papirius’ dictatorship but placed it in the year in which Brutus and Camillus were consuls.

L. Papirius Cursor in 325/4 BC

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, at p. 518) described Papirius as:

1. “... the most important Roman commander in the period 325-309 BC.”
   

At the time of his putative appointment as dictator in 325/4 BC, he had served as:

1. ✴master of horse to the dictator L. Papirius Crassus in 340 BC; and
   

2. ✴consul (for the first time) in 326 BC.
   

Oakley argued (at p. 695) that:

1. “There is no good reason to doubt that Papirius  ... was dictator in this year.  ... [This is, for example], presupposed by the legend of his quarrel with [his master of horse,  Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus - see below] ...”
   

This is an important point: as we shall see, Papirius’ dictatorship was documented at least a century before the invention of his fictitious dictator year. Oakley(as above)  also observed that:

1. “... there is no especial reason to doubt that [he] was appointed because of [Camillus’ illness] ... : such matters could be invented, but ... there is no particular reason to suspect [that this was the case here].”
   

However, he pointed out that:

1. “Our evidence for the fighting against the Samnites ... in this year is ...  [less than] satisfactory: [for example:
   

2. ✴we do not even know whether [Papirius and his master of horse] were fighting in the Liris valley or in Campania”, (at pp. 695-6); and
   

3. ✴“[ ... although it] is just possible that the Samnites [sued] for peace and were granted indutiae at the end of the year [as Livy recorded - see below], ... the continued fighting in 323 BC ... [undermines] the credibility of the report”, (at p.697)
   

Having said that, Oakley argued (at p. 697) that:

1. “The basic facts that Papirius ...  won a victory and celebrated a triumph [during this dictatorship] need not doubted: they are supported by:
   

2. ✴the fasti Triumphales [above]; and
   

3. ✴the fact that [he] must have won a military reputation [at about this time] in order to have been elected as consul in the year after the disaster at the Caudine Forks [of 321 BC]. 
   

4. The possibility of annalistic invention cannot be excluded, but seems here not to be very strong.”
   

In the sections below, I look at Livy’s account of Papirius putative dictatorship in an attempt to identify more clearly those parts that might have been included in the historical record only at the time of the invention of the dictator years.

Papirius Command in Samnium

As we have seen, according to Livy, in 325/4 BC, the consul Brutus was assigned responsibility for dealing with the Vestini and his colleague, Camillus, was tasked with the continuation of the war with the Samnites.  However, soon after he arrived in his province, Camillus: 

1. “... became dangerously ill and was forced to relinquish his command; L. Papirius Cursor, who was by far the most distinguished soldier of the time, [took over his command] as dictator, ... with Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus as his master of the horse”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 29: 8-9).
   

As noted above, there is no particular reason to doubt that Papirius was indeed appointed to take over Camillus’ command.  After a long account of his subsequent dealings with Fabius, his master of horse, which (as we shall see) mostly took place in Rome, Papirius apparently returned to his camp, which the Samnites attacked on the following day.  Livy described (at ‘History of Rome’, 8: 36: 3-7) at length the trouble that Papirius took to restore the morale of his men, following which:

1. “... [with his] army was restored, he met the enemy, and there was no doubt as to what the result would be, either on his own part or on that of his soldiers: so complete was his defeat and rout of the Samnites that this was the last time that they joined battle with the dictator.  The victorious army then marched on where the prospect of booty beckoned them, and traversed the territories of the enemy without encountering any armed resistance: ... [Papirius] had increased the zeal of his troops by announcing that all of the booty should be theirs. ... [Discouraged by these reverses], the Samnites sought peace  and agreed with Papirius to give every soldier a garment and a year's pay.   He directed them to [make their proposals] before the Senate, but they replied that they would attend him there, committing their cause wholly to his honour and integrity.  [On the basis of this agreement, the Roman] army was withdrawn from Samnium”, ‘History of Rome’, 8: 36: 8-12).
   

Livy ended his account of Papirius’ dictatorship as follows:

1. “Having entered  Rome in triumph, [Papirius] would have resigned his office, had the Senate not ordered that he should first preside over the elections for [the consuls of 323 BC].  He [duly] announced that C. Sulpicius Longus had been chosen for the second time, together with Q. Aemilius Cerretanus.  [The Samnites presumably came before the Senate but the treaty with them] was not completed, owing to a disagreement over terms: instead, the Samnites left Rome with a truce for a year, and they did no even hold faithfully to that, so encouraged were they when they learned that Papirius had resigned [his command]””, ‘History of Rome’, 8: 36: 8-12).
   

Livy did not explain why the Senate asked Papirius to hold the consular elections before resigning his dictatorship, a task that would normally have fallen to one of the serving consuls:

It is possible that Camillus had died during his consular year: the only later reference in our surviving sources that might refer to him is in 318 BC, when Livy (‘History of Rome’, 9: 20: 5) recorded that the praetor L. Furius gave laws to the Campani (see below).  However, even if he was not killed in 325/4 BC, he might have remained severely incapacitated at the time of the elections.

There is no particular reason to think that Brutus was detained by the military situation in the Vestini, but we cannot exclude the possibility that he had pressed on into northern Samnium.

In other words:

it is possible that Livy had a reliable source for the information that Papirius presided over the election of the consuls of 323 BC before resigning his dictatorship; but

it is also possible that his source here was the inventor of the consul-free dictator year.

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 696) observed that:

1. “Many (and perhaps most or all) of these details are likely to be the product of a process of elaboration that ... reached its peak with Livy, and it would be unwise to have confidence in any of them.  Yet, it would be unwise entirely to reject the historicity of the quarrel.”
   

Livy’s reference to the historian Fabius almost certainly indicates Fabius Pictor, an ancestor of the offended in this narrative, whose history of Rome covered the period down to 217 BC: thus, as Oakley pointed out:

1. “... it cannot be the work of later annalists.” 
   

Edward Bispham and Timothy Cornell (in T. C. Cornell, referenced below, 2013, Volume III, at  p. 34, Fragent 17) concluded that details of this feud (including Fabius’ letter to the Senate) had probably been preserved in the family archive, and:

1. “ ... written up by Fabius Pictor, but [left] no record in the [state archives, which] would account for Livy’s comment that, in some annals, the whole incident was left out.”
   

However, this is not certain proof of Papirius’ triumph:

1. ✴the triumph could have been invented by the inventor of the dictator year, which was included in the fasti Triumphales; and
   

2. ✴as we shall see, it is possible that Papirius secured his election in 320 BC on the basis of his political relationship with the politically astute Q. Publilius Philo. 
   

War in Samnium

While Brutus was fighting the Vestini, Camillus marched into Samnium in order to prevent them from aiding the Vestini.  However, according to Livy, soon after he arrived in Samnium, he: 

1. “... became dangerously ill and was forced to relinquish his command; L. Papirius Cursor, who was by far the most distinguished soldier of the time, [took over his command] as dictator, ... with Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus as his master of the horse”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 29: 8-9).
   

At this time, the young Fabius had featured only once before in Livy’s narrative (as curule aedile in 331 BC), but he was reach the consulship for the first of five times in 322 BC. 

Papirius’ Feud with Fabius

Livy now introduced the main theme of his account of 325/4: Papirius and Fabius:

1. “... were a pair famous for the victories won while they were magistrates; but their quarrelling, which almost went the length of a mortal feud, made them more famous still”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 29: 10).
   

Fabius’ Offence

The scene was set when it became apparent that:

1. “The expedition into Samnium [had been] attended by ambiguous auspices ...”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 30: 1).
   

As Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 707) explained:

1. “... the army had [apparently] set out without its being clear whether or not the auspices were favourable.”
   

Papirius had presumably taken over Camillus’ camp in or on the border of Samnium by the time that the problem was discovered, and was forced to return to Rome, leaving Fabius in command. 

Livy recorded that:

1. “As Papirius was setting out for Rome ... to take the auspices afresh, he warned Fabius not to engage in battle with the enemy in his absence.  However, when Fabius [subsequently] ascertained from his scouts ... that the enemy were  ... [behaving] as if there had been not a single Roman in Samnium, ... he put the army in fighting trim and, advancing upon a [now-unknown] place they call Imbrinium, engaged in a pitched battle with the Samnites.  This engagement was so successful that no greater success could have been gained, had [Papirius] been present; ... It is said that [20,000 Samnites] were killed that day”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 30: 2-7). 
   

Livy now addressed the inconsistency that he had found in his sources for this incident:

1. “I find it stated by certain writers that Fabius fought the enemy twice while Papirius was absent, and twice gained a brilliant victory.  {however],:
   

2. ✴he oldest historians give only this single battle; and
   

3. ✴in certain annals the story is omitted altogether”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 30: 7).
   

He then returned to the main narrative: he concluded that, whether after one or two engagements, Fabius:

1. “... found himself, after so great a slaughter, in possession of extensive spoils.  He piled the enemy's arms in a great heap ... and burnt them:
   

2. ✴this may have been done in fulfilment of a vow to one of the gods; or
   

3. ✴if one chooses to accept the account of [the historian] Fabius (see below), it was done] in order to prevent Papirius from reaping the harvest of his [i.e. Fabius’] glory and inscribing his name on the arms or having them carried in his triumph. 
   

4. Fabius sent the dispatch reporting the success to the Senate rather to [Papirius], which certainly suggests that he had no mind to share the credit with Papirius.  At all events, [Papirius] so received the news that, while everyone else was rejoicing at the victory, he showed only signs of anger and discontent”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 30: 8-10).
   

And so, a feud was born. 

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 696) observed that:

1. “Many (and perhaps most or all) of these details are likely to be the product of a process of elaboration that ... reached its peak with Livy, and it would be unwise to have confidence in any of them.  Yet, it would be unwise entirely to reject the historicity of the quarrel.”
   

Livy’s reference to the historian Fabius almost certainly indicates Fabius Pictor, an ancestor of the offended in this narrative, whose history of Rome covered the period down to 217 BC: thus, as Oakley pointed out:

1. “... it cannot be the work of later annalists.” 
   

Edward Bispham and Timothy Cornell (in T. C. Cornell, referenced below, 2013, Volume III, at  p. 34, Fragent 17) concluded that details of this feud (including Fabius’ letter to the Senate) had probably been preserved in the family archive, and:

1. “ ... written up by Fabius Pictor, but [left] no record in the [state archives, which] would account for Livy’s comment that, in some annals, the whole incident was left out.”
   

Papirius’ Retribution

Fabius had committed at least two grievous offences: he had engaged the enemy while the auspices were uncertain; and (more importantly for what was to follow) he had ignored the explicit command of a dictator.  Papirius wanted the death penalty and Rome was in crisis.  Matters came to a head when:

1. “... the Roman people ... entreated and adjured [Papirius] to remit the punishment of Fabius for their sake.  The tribunes, too, fell in with the prevailing mood and earnestly besought Papirius to allow for human frailty and for the youth of  Fabius, who had suffered punishment enough.  First [Fabius] himself and then his father, M. Fabius Ambustus, forgetting their previous animosity, threw themselves at Papirius’ feet and attempted to avert his anger”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 35: 1-3).
   

No one denied that Fabius was guilty as charged.  However, Papirius probably had no choice but to agree to his reprieve.  Thus, he pronounced:

1. “Live, Q. Fabius, more blest in this desire of your fellow citizens to save you than in the victory over which you were exulting a little while ago !  Live, though you dared a deed which not even your own father would have pardoned, had he been in the place of L. Papirius !  You shall be reconciled with me when you will”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 35: 6-7).
   

Then:

1. “When  [Papirius] had:
   

2. ✴placed L. Papirius Crassus in charge of the City;  and
   

3. ✴forbidden Q. Fabius, the master of the horse, to exercise his magistracy in any way;
   

4. he returned to the camp [in Samnium]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 36: 1). 
   

In other words, while it seems certain that Papirius campaigned in Samnium as dictator, with Fabius as his master of horse, it is entirely possible that neither of them achieved very much, except for the enduring fame that they achieved by their ‘mortal feud’.

Digression: Crassus as Praefectus Urbi

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 745) argued that Livy’s description of Crassus’ appointment:

1. “... can only mean that [he] was appointed praefectus urbi [Urban Prefect/Prefect of Rome].  This office was not elective: prefects [of this kind] were appointed by the consuls (or a dictator) when all the senior magistrates were absent from Rome.”
   

Like Stephen Oakley (as above), Corey Brennan (referenced below, at p. 73) pointed out that the office of praefectus urbi is not attested in the Republic after the mid-5th century BC.  He also noted (at p. 72) that:

1. “The primary role of the early praetors was probable the defence of the City.”
   

Thus, one would have expected Papirius Cursor to rely on the serving praetor for the defence of Rome.  However, Brennan observed (at p. 73) that:

1. “Crassus was a relative of the dictator ... [His appointment] as praefectus urbi might be explicable if:
   

2. ✴the consul [Camillus, whom had Papirius replaced in Samnium] was too ill to act [as defender of Rome]; and
   

3. ✴Papirius had taken the praetor into the field as a substitute for the disgraced Fabius, who was debarred ... from further action.
   

4. [In these circumstances, Papirius might well have] put a man he could trust in charge of the City, and ordered all the regular magistrates [there] not to interfere.”
   

He acknowledged (at p. 72)  that this record of Crassus’ appointment as praefectus urbi might not be genuine, but pointed out that:

1. “... at the very least, [it shows that] such an appointment was conceivable in the later historical period.”
   

We hear no more about the appointment of a praefectus urbi until 47 BC, when M. Antonius (whom Caesar, as dictator,  had appointed as master of horse with responsibility for Rome and Italy while he himself continued the civil war in Spain) appointed his  uncle, L. Caesar, to take charge in Rome while he (i.e. Mark Antony) dealt with a mutiny of Caesar’s veterans in Campania.

Digression: M. Valerius as Legate ?

Livy provides a name for the legate who replaced Fabius:

1. “It happened in that year that, every time that Papirius left the army, there was a rising of the enemy in Samnium.  But, with the example of Fabius before his eyes, M. Valerius, the lieutenant who commanded in the camp, feared the dread displeasure of Papirius more than any violence of the enemy.  And so, when a party of foragers had fallen into an ambush and ... had been slain, it was commonly believed that [Valerius] might have rescued them, had he not quailed at the thought of those harsh orders”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 35: 10-11).
   

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 744) observed that:

1. “Presumably Livy and his sources imagined that this legate to have been either:
   

2. •M. Valerius Maximus Corvus (consul for the first time in 348 BC); or
   

3. •his son, M. Valerius Maximus (consul for the first time in 312 BC).
   

4. But, it is most unlikely that there was authentic evidence for the role of [either] M. Valerius in the events of this year ... .”
   

Papirius’ Victory 

Livy then embarked on an elaborate account of how the dispirited Roman army was defeated by the Samnites, and how Papirius personally directed the treatment of his wounded men and took other measures to restore their morale.  With his army re-motivated, Papirus then:

1. “... engaged [again] with the Samnites, ... and  routed and dispersed them to such an extent that this was the last time they joined battle with him.  His victorious army then  ... traversed their territory without encountering any resistance ... Discouraged by these reverses, the Samnites sought peace of Papirius and agreed to give every [man in his army] a garment and a year's pay.  Papirius told them to go before the Senate, but they replied that they would wait for him there, committing their cause wholly to his honour and integrity.  So the army was withdrawn from Samnium”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 36: 8-12).
   

Livy then recorded that Papirius returned to Rome in triumph (‘History of Rome’, 8: 37: 1).  The fasti Capitolini record that he triumphed over the Samnites as dictator for the first time in the fictitious dictator year of 324 BC.  Livy then noted that Papirius:

1. “... would have laid down his office, but was commanded by the Senate first to hold a consular election [see below]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 37: 1)
   

In his final remarks on the events of this year were, Livy noted that:

1. “The treaty [with the Samnites] was not completed, owing to a disagreement over terms, and the Samnites left the City with a truce for a year; nor did they scrupulously hold even to that; so encouraged were they to make war, on learning that Papirius had resigned”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 37: 2).