of Rome is stated by Polybius at seven months. (142) According to Plutarch, these seven months extended from about the middle of July to the middle of February.(143) Other accounts limit it to six, (144) or extend it to eight months.(145)

As soon as Camillus returns to Rome, after the destruction of the Gauls, he is described as directing his first attention to the religious duties of repairing temples, performing expiations, and celebrating games, now incumbent on the state. A temple was likewise built to Aius Locutius, in memory of the divine voice which had warned Cædicius of the coming of the Gauls, but which the Senate had ventured to neglect. (146) It is moreover chiefly by an appeal to religious motives, that Camillus restrains the wish of the people to remove to Veii, and to abandon the ruins of Rome. The words of a centurion, who halted his men in the Comitium, and said that it was the best place for them to abide in, were accepted as an omen, and contributed to confirm the decision. (147) The rebuilding of Rome now began: the inhabitants were allowed to take stone and timber where they chose, and tiles were given at the public expense. No plan was

(142) ii. 22. The same period is stated by Zonaras, vii. 23.

(143) He says that they entered Rome a few days after the ides of Quintilis (July), and were expelled about the ides of February; Cam. 30. The ides of July are the 15th. The 18th of July was the anniversary of the battle of the Allia. The ides of February are the 13th.

(144) Florus, i. 13; Orosius, ii. 19; Varro de Vit. Pop. Rom. lib. ii. ap. Non. ix. 6. Ut noster exercitus ita sit fugatus, ut Galli Romæ Capitolii sint potiti, neque inde ante sex menses cesserint. With this exception, the writers are unanimous in stating that the Capitol never was taken by the Gauls. Either therefore the word Capitolii ought to be expunged in this passage, or some words have fallen out. In the Bipont edition of Varro, vol. i. p. 243, this passage is printed ut Galli Romæ, nisi Capitolii, sint potiti.' This use of nisi, though unusual, is not incorrect.

(145) Serv. Æn. viii. 652. See above, p. 331, n. 119.

(146) Eodem anno M. Cædicius de plebe nunciavit tribunis, se in novâ viâ, ubi nunc sacellum est, supra ædem Vestæ, vocem noctis silentio audisse clariorem humanâ, quæ magistratibus dici juberet, Gallos adventare; Livy, v. 32, cf. 30; Plut. Cam. 14, 30; De Fort. Rom. 5; Zon. vii. 23. According to Cicero, De Div. i. 45, ii. 32, the voice warned the Romans to repair their gates and walls, lest the city should be taken by the Gauls. Varro, ap. Gell. xvi. 17, says that the altar of Aius was erected, quod in eo loco divinitus vox edita erat.'

(147) Niebuhr thinks that this omen had no doubt been prudently preconcerted; ib. p. 577. He therefore assumes that the story is true.

laid down for the course of the streets: the houses rose up as individual convenience dictated; hence it happened that the ancient sewers often passed under private houses; and that the arrangement of the town was deficient in regularity.(148) The share which Camillus bore in the rebuilding of Rome gave him the title of the second founder of the city, and another Romulus. (149)

§ 83 It now remains for us to consider the results of our examination of the extant accounts respecting the capture of Rome by the Gauls. As to the time of their arrival in Italy, there are three statements-one, which makes them cross the Alps, and settle in Cisalpine Gaul, during the reign of Tarquinius Priscus; for which, as was shown in a previous chapter, there is no satisfactory attestation:(150) another, which supposes them to have occupied the region of the Po some years before their irruption into Etruria and Latium: and the third, which represents them as crossing the Alps in order to attack Clusium. The second account is that given by Polybius; and it is that which is preferable on grounds of internal probability. The story of the Clusine, who, from motives of private jealousy, entices the

(148) Livy, v. 50-5; Plut. Cam. 31, 32; Diod. xiv. 116; Zon. vii. 23; Val. Max. i. 5, § 1. Livy says: Tegula publice præbita est; c. 55. Diodorus, δημοσίας κεραμῖδας ἐχορήγουν, αἱ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πολιτικαὶ καλοῦνται. Tacitus, Ann. xv. 43, says that after the Neronian conflagration, urbis quæ domui supererant, non ut post Gallica incendia, nullâ distinctione, nec passim erecta, sed dimensis vicorum ordinibus et latis viarum spatiis.' Livy speaks of the haste with which the rebuilding was carried on; and says that it was completed within a year; vi. 4. Plutarch and Zonaras also make the same statement. Dr. Arnold, vol. ii. p. 6, calls attention to the statement of Cornelius Nepos, in Plin. N. H. xvi. 15, that Rome was roofed with wooden shingles (scandula) down to the time of Pyrrhus. Tegula can hardly be understood to mean anything but a tile of baked clay. (The word ziegel is by an oversight rendered bricks, instead of tiles, by the translators of Niebuhr, vol. ii. p. 579.)

(149) Plut. Cam. 1, 31. Dignus habitus quem secundum a Romulo conditorem urbis Romanæ ferrent; Livy, vii. 1.

(150) Above, ch. xi. § 24. Niebuhr allegorizes the account of Livy. The two great migrations under Bellovesus and Sigovesus, which are mentioned by Livy, must (he says) be regarded as true, although the leaders are perhaps nothing but personifications;' Lect. vol. i. p. 257. Dr. Arnold adopts a different course: The geographical part of this account (he says) appears to deserve our full belief; but it does not follow that its chronology is equally trustworthy;' vol. i. p. 517.

Gauls across the Alps by a present of wine, has a fabulous air ;(151) whereas the statement of Polybius, that when the Etruscans occupied the country near the Po, the Gauls, being their neighbours, visited it occasionally, and envied them the possession of it; until at last, on some slight pretext, they descended upon it with a large army, and ejected the Etruscans, is in itself probable. (152) This account, however, differs from the version of the Gallic advance upon Rome, which seems to have been commonly received among the Roman historians; and as we are wholly ignorant of the grounds upon which it is given by Polybius, we must be content to remain in uncertainty on the subject.

The desertion of Clusium by the other Etruscan cities, and the Clusine embassy to Rome, are points not clearly explained. All the Etruscan states had a common interest in repelling this barbarous invader; Clusium is seventy geographical miles from Rome in a direct line; and the reason assigned for the application-namely, that Clusium had not assisted Veii against Rome-is not of great force. The violation of the law of nations by Fabius the ambassador was an act more likely to strike the Romans, than to offend the Gauls, who were little better than savages, (153) and probably had scarcely any notion of a law of

(151) Niebuhr says: Whether this account is true, must remain undecided; and if there is any truth in it, it is more probable that the offended Clusine went across the Apennines, and fetched his avengers ;' Lect. vol. i. p. 260. This supposition renders the present of wine inappropriate; the country between the Apennines and the Alps was a winebearing region.

(152) Polyb. ii. 17. The account given by Justin of the immigration into Italy of the Gauls who took Rome, agrees with that of Polybius: His autem Gallis causa in Italiam veniendi, sedesque novas quærendi, intestina discordia et assiduæ domi dissensiones fuere; quarum tædio, cum in Italiam venissent, sedibus Tuscos expulerunt, et Mediolanum, Comum, Brixiam, Veronam, Bergomum, Tridentum, Vicentiam condiderunt;' xx. 5. After the Gauls had occupied the north of Italy, they were themselves exposed to attacks from Transalpine Gauls, similar to those which they are stated to have made upon the Etruscans in that region; Polyb. ii. 18.

(153) See the account of their social state and habits in Polyb. ii. 17. Niebuhr, Lect. vol. i. p. 261, points out the improbability of supposing the Gauls to be offended by a violation of the law of nations: and he adds that no such violation had in fact taken place, for the Romans stood in no kind of connexion with the Gauls. The latter remark is, to a certain degree, well founded, if we adopt the version of Diodorus, who says that the ambassadors were sent to the Clusines, in order to watch the movements

nations.

We We may discern in the Roman narrative several traces of a scheme of divine justice, founded on the theory of nemesis, such as is often visible in the history of Herodotus. Thus the Romans are supposed to be punished for the violation of international law committed by their ambassadors and it is particularly mentioned by Livy, that the persons whose rashness had provoked the war commanded at the battle of Allia. Another view was, that the destruction of Rome by the Gauls was a visitation from the gods for the unjust sentence upon Camillus. (154)

The detailed account of Livy and Plutarch supposes the Gauls to have crossed the Tiber at some distance above its confluence with the Anio, and to have advanced upon Rome on its eastern or left side. There is no stream which falls into the Tiber at the exact place indicated for the Allia, and it has been impossible to identify it with any existing river. All the writers on Roman topography, however, agree in looking for it on the left bank of the Tiber.(155) Diodorus, indeed, gives a detailed description of the battle, but places it on the right bank of the Tiber, and makes no mention of the Allia: he supposes the Romans to swim the Tiber in order to escape to Rome. Niebuhr attempts to combine the two accounts, by supposing the Romans first to cross and afterwards to recross the Tiber; so that the battle is fought on the left bank. (156) The two accounts however are plainly

of the Gauls; xiv. 113. Even in this case, ambassadors, clothed with a public function, were not, according to the rules recognised by civilized nations, justified in taking part in hostilities against a nation with which their country was at peace. But Livy, v. 35, represents the ambassadors as sent to the Gauls themselves qui senatus populique Romani nomine agerent cum Gallis' and they were clearly not justified in taking arms against the nation with whom they were commissioned to treat.

(154) Livy considers it as certain that if Camillus had not been in exile, the battle of Allia and its disastrous consequences would have been prevented. Expulso cive, quo manente, si quicquam humanorum certi est, capi Roma non potuerat; adventante fatali urbi clade, legati, &c. ;' v. 33. (155) See Gell's Topography of Rome, p. 43; Nibby, Dintorni di Roma, vol. i. p. 125; Bunbury, art. Allia, in Dr. Smith's Dict, of Anc. Geogr. ; Abeken, Mittelitalien, p. 79.

(156) Niebuhr says: Our narrative [i. e. the narrative of Diodorus], the correctness of which even in its minute details will not admit of a doubt, relates that the Roman army crossed the Tiber, and marched along its bank to the Alia;' Hist. vol. ii. p. 537. There is however nothing in

independent of one another, and proceed on inconsistent assumptions. We must make our election between them, and one or the other must be rejected. They cannot be both saved by forming a compound of the two.

The abandonment of Rome, and the defence of nothing more than the Capitol, are events consistent with the entire rout of the Allia, a few miles from the gates of the city. Some interval was however allowed: the Capitol was put in a state of defence; a large part of the population was able to escape; and the irruption of the victorious Gauls was not instantaneous. Under these circumstances, the story of the aged senators (said to be eighty in number) who devote themselves to destruction, without any strong motive such as that which animated the two Decii in the Samnite wars, is not probable.(157) Plutarch says that they sat in a body in the forum ; but Livy describes them as remaining in their own houses. If this was their position, it is not easy to understand how the act of Papirius should have led to the immediate slaughter of all the other senators.

The entire town, with the exception of the Capitol, is stated to have been destroyed by fire, and as the houses at that time were doubtless in great part constructed of wood, this may not have been a slow operation. Unless, however, the Gauls expected to be able to carry the Capitol by storm in a few days, their measure was suicidal. Plutarch says that they burnt and demolished the town, out of anger with the defenders of the Capitol (158) this explanation supposes them to be actuated by a blind fury, which perhaps is not unsuited to barbarians. Moscow was probably set on fire by the Russians; but even if (as the Russians themselves affirm) the conflagration was the result of accident, the French used their utmost exertions to

Diodorus about the Allia, or any other river besides the Tiber; and if his narrative is correct in its minute details, we must suppose that the battle was fought on the right side of the Tiber. In his Lectures, vol. i. p. 264, Niebuhr says that the battle of the Allia is, speaking generally, an historical event.'

(157) It is however credited by Niebuhr, Hist. ib. p. 543; Lect. ib. p. 266.

(158) Cam. 22.