risoners, spoils, and deserters should be restored, and that they
and the Romans who had joined them should receive the franchise. The
Senate refused, and the Samnites at once joined Cinna and Marius, who
were pledged not only to give the franchise, but also to enrol all
the new voters in the old tribes; a measure which was ratified by the
Senate in the year of Cinna's last consulship, 84 B.C. On Sulla's
return to Italy they with the Lucanians, who had meanwhile been
practically independent, were the most eager supporters of Marius's
son. [Sidenote: Pontius of Telesia.] In 82 Pontius of Telesia, at the
head of a Samnite force, with the desperate hardihood inspired by
centuries of hatred, marched straight on Rome, and the city was saved
only by Sulla's victory at the Colline Gate. Three days after the
battle Sulla massacred all his prisoners. He knew that death alone
could disarm such implacable foes. The Samnite name, he said, with
his cold ferocity, must be erased from the earth, or Rome could never
rest. The Samnites evacuated Nola in the year 80 B.C., and then their
last great leader, C. Papius Mutilus, having fled in disguise to his
wife at Teanum, was disowned by her and slew himself. [Sidenote:
Fate of Samnium.] Sulla carried his threats into effect. He captured
Aesernia, and spread a desolation all around, from which the country
has never recovered to this day. Then, and not till then, the stubborn
resistance of the most relentless foes of Rome was finally suppressed.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IX.

SULPICIUS.

The terrible disintegration which the Social War had brought on Italy
was faithfully reproduced in Rome. There, too, every man's hand was
against his neighbour. Creditor and debtor, tribune and consul, Senate
and anti-Senate, fiercely confronted each other. Personal interests
had become so much more prominent, and old party-divisions were so
confused by the schemes of Italianising politicians, aristocratic in
their connexions, but cleaving to part at least of the traditional
democratic programme, that it is very hard to see where the views of
one faction blended with those of another and where they clashed.
[Sidenote: The Sulpician revolution difficult to understand.] Still
harder is it to dissect the character of individuals; to decide, for
instance, how far a man like Sulpicius was swayed by disinterested
principles, and how far he fought for his own hand. We need not