town for their own sakes. The private houses were probably slightly constructed and roofed with shingles, as they continued to be down to the war with Pyrrhus,1 and hence the fire may probably have destroyed a great part of them. But it is known that some at least of the temples and public buildings escaped, since we read in Livy 2 of the senate meeting in the Curia Hostilia after the fire; and such, perhaps, was also the case with several temples on the Aventine and other places, in which were preserved down to the imperial times treaties and other public muniments which had been made before the fire. The Capitol with its temples was also of course preserved from the flames, since it was held by the Roman soldiers. Hence it follows that a considerable number of records must have been preserved. The Vestal virgins also appear to have secured some of the books of Numa, pertaining to religion, by burying them in the Doliola, and other objects of the same kind were conveyed to neighbouring towns.8

The Gauls, being repulsed in an assault upon the Capitol, turned the siege into a blockade. Nevertheless, C. Fabius Dorso contrived to pass their sentinels in order to perform an hereditary family sacrifice on the Quirinal, and to return without molestation. The Gauls now felt the ill effects of their barbarous act in burning the city, by which a great quantity of provisions had been destroyed; and they were consequently obliged to send a large part of their force to scour the surrounding country and procure the means of subsistence for the army. Having observed, however, that the Capitoline Hill was tolerably easy of access at its southern extremity near the Carmental gate, to which point their attention is said to have been drawn by the footmarks of a messenger between the

Romans at Veii and on the Capitol, the Gauls attempted a surprise in that quarter. So stealthily was it effected that neither the sentinels nor even the dogs were alarmed; but the sacred geese of Juno, which, even in that dearth of provisions, the garrison had abstained from eating, gave notice by their cackling of the approach of the enemy. Manlius, a consular, now rushed from his house in the Arx, and cast down a Gaul who had already gained the summit; the man in his fall overthrew several who were following him; and the Romans, being now completely roused, easily repulsed their assailants.

After the Gauls had held the city more than six months, famine at length compelled the Roman garrison to capitulate. The Gauls themselves had indeed also suffered severely; numbers of them had perished from pestilence and want of food, and their bodies, being collected together, were burnt either by themselves or by the Romans after the recovery of the city, at a spot which obtained the name of BUSTA GALLICA.1 By a decree of the senatefor we must suppose that a new senate had been organised on the Capitol the military tribune, Q. Sulpicius, was authorised to treat with Brennus, the Gallic leader, who consented to evacuate Rome on receiving 1,000 pounds of gold. Such, observes Livy, was the ransom of a people who were soon afterwards to rule the earth. The scales were set up, the gold produced; but when Sulpicius complained that the weights were false, the insolent Gaul threw his sword into the scale, with the exclamation, intolerable to Roman ears, Væ victis! Woe to the conquered!' 2

At this critical juncture Camillus appears upon the scene. He had been appointed dictator by the Romans at Veii, with the consent of the senate on the Capitol, which had been obtained through Pontius Cominius, the messenger already alluded to; and he appeared at Rome

with his forces before the disgraceful bargain could be completed by the delivery of the gold. He rejects the compact made by Sulpicius as unsanctioned by himself, the superior magistrate; drives the Gauls from Rome in a hasty skirmish; overtakes them again at the eighth milestone on the road to Gabiæ; engages them in a more regular battle, and exterminates their whole host, so that not a man was left to tell the disaster. Such is the account given by Livy,' which appears to have been generally received among the Romans. He may perhaps have adopted the most striking version of the story, just as he makes the Sabine women rush in between the combatants, in preference to representing them as going on an embassy; but the main point is whether Camillus, in whatever manner, recovered the gold. Livy is followed, with some minor variations, by Plutarch,2 Appian,3 and Eutropius.4 Diodorus also mentions the payment of the thousand pounds of gold to the Gauls, and its recovery by Camillus ; not however at Rome, but at some other place which cannot be identified. Polybius mentions nothing about Camillus ; but his account is inconsistent. In one passage he represents the Gauls as abandoning Rome after making a treaty with the Romans; while in another it is stated. that they gave up the city without entering into any conditions whatsoever." Suetonius mentions a report that Livius Drusus, a maternal ancestor of the Emperor Tiberius, recovered in Gaul-more than a century after!— the money which had been paid for the redemption of Rome, which must therefore have been carried off; but can so absurd a rumour be placed against the weight of testimony in favour of Camillus? Drusus may perhaps have extorted money from the Gauls under such a pretence; or

1 Lib. v. c. 49.

2 Camill. 29.

3 Hist. Rom. iv. 1.

4 i. 20.

5 xiv. 116, 117.

6 See ii. 18 and 22. The former passage is perhaps alluded to by Strabo, vi. 4, § 2.

7 Tiber. iii.

the report may have been invented to flatter Tiberius. It is hardly worth while to sift the testimony of such writers as Justin, Frontinus, and Polyænus; some of whom, however, are not at variance with the commonly received account.

The current tradition is strongly confirmed by an anecdote of Crassus, told by Pliny the elder.1 In his second consulship with Pompey, B. c. 55, Crassus carried away from the throne of the Capitoline Jupiter, where it had been concealed by Camillus, 2,000 pounds of gold, half of which had been given to the Gauls as ransom, and the other half plundered by them from the Roman temples. That Crassus took this gold cannot be doubted, unless we are to reject all ancient testimony in a lump. The act was done in the historical times, and the abstraction of so large a sum could not have failed to be recorded in the proper registers. Whether it had been dedicated by Camillus might admit of more question. Sir G. C. Lewis allows that the passage in Pliny 'proves that 2,000 pounds of gold were actually taken from this temple by Crassus, and that it was currently believed to have been the deposit of Camillus.' But Pliny says nothing of a' current belief.' He states that the gold was placed there by Camillus. It may be presumed that so valuable an anathema would not have been left unrecorded; and as the temple was not burnt by the Gauls, such a record might at least have existed till the first destruction of the temple by fire in B.C. 83, and therefore till the historical times, when its purport must have been duly remembered. Nay, as the gold was doubtless preserved in a secure repository, like the stone vault in which Sulpicius subsequently consecrated some gold also conquered from the Gauls, the inscription as well as the gold may have escaped the action of the fire.

1 H. N. xxxiii. 5. Some edd. omit

the name of Crassus.

2 Credibility &c. vol. ii. p. 336.

3 'Auri satis magnum pondus, saxo quadrato sæptum, in Capitolio sacravit.'-Liv. vii. 15.

6

Livy's account of this gold is consistent with that of Pliny, except that he states that the amount over and above the sum paid to the Gauls was not recovered from the plunder which they had perpetrated, but had been carried in the first alarm of their invasion from other temples, and placed in that of Jupiter. Livy, however, is here charged by Sir G. C. Lewis with being obscure and confused. Everything,' he observes, which concerns the Gallic gold is, however, in a state of confusion and obscurity. Livy first states that this gold had been collected from various temples; but he adds that when the quantity in the public treasury was insufficient, the matrons contributed their golden ornaments, in order that the sacred gold might not be violated; whereas, a few lines before, he had stated that the gold was taken from the temples.' Now this is altogether a misconception of Livy's words. He does not say that this gold, that is, the gold paid to the Gauls, had been collected from various temples. What he really says is as follows: The gold which had been recovered from the Gauls, and that which during the alarm (inter trepidationem) had been taken from other temples, and placed in the cell of Jove, as it was not exactly known to what temples it should be restored, was all adjudged to be sacred, and was buried. under the throne of the deity. The religious feelings of the people had been already manifested by the circumstance that, as there was not enough gold in the public treasury to make up the sum agreed to be paid to the Gauls, that contributed by the matrons had been accepted in order that the sacred gold might not be touched.'1 Nothing can be clearer than this statement, and it is only surprising how it should occasion any confusion. Not an ounce of the gold paid to the Gauls had been taken from the temples. On the contrary, Livy expressly says that the sacred gold was spared; that the necessary sum was

1 Lib. v. c. 50.