XIX. was afterwards so strongly opposed to M. Manlius, CHAP. and whose enmity may have already begun before this period. It should be observed that the six military tribunes elected for the following year were all patricians. corruption millus. He Rome, If Camillus had any undue share in effecting the Charge of resignation of the late consuls, he did not long enjoy against Cahis triumph. L. Appuleius 23, one of the tribunes, retires from impeached him for having appropriated secretly to his own use a portion of the plunder of Veii. It was said that some doors of brass, the bullion of a country which at this time used only brass money, were found in his house; and that his numerous clients and friends told him plainly 25, when he applied to them for their aid, that they were ready to pay his fine for him, but that they could not acquit him. We are startled at finding the great Camillus brought to trial on a charge of personal corruption; but that strict integrity which Polybius ascribes to the Romans seems not always to have reached as high as the leaders of the aristocracy, for the great Scipio Africanus was impeached on a similar charge, and his brother, the conqueror of Antiochus, was not only accused, but condemned. Nor were the eminent men of the Spartan aristocracy free from the same reproach; the suspicion attached itself to Leotychides, the immediate predecessor of Archidamus; to Pleistoanax the son of Pausanias; and just before 25 Livy, V. 32. 23 Livy, V. 32. E e 2 XIX. CHAP. the banishment of Camillus, the famous Gylippus, the conqueror of the Athenians at Syracuse, had been driven from his country for a similar act of baseness. Other accounts 26, as was natural, ascribed the condemnation of Camillus solely to the envy and hatred of the commons; while, according to others 27, his punishment was a sort of ostracism, because the arrogance of his triumph, after the conquest of Veii, seemed inconsistent with the conduct of a citizen in a free commonwealth. It seems allowed by all that no party in the state attempted to save him; and it is clear also, that he incurred the forfeiture of all his civil rights in consequence of his not appearing to stand his trial, either as an outlawry, or because his withdrawal was held equivalent to a confession of guilt, and a man convicted of furtum incurred thereby perpetual ignominy, and lost all his political franchise. Perhaps his case was like that of the Spartan Pausanias; and the treasure which he secreted may have been intended to furnish means for making him tyrant of Rome. But at any rate he withdrew from Rome before his trial came on, and retired to Ardea. The annalists reported 28 that as he went out of the gates, he turned round, and prayed to the gods of his country, that if he were unjustly driven into exile, some grievous calamity might speedily befal the Romans, and force them to 26 Dionysius, XIII. 5. Fragm. Mai. Diodorus, XIV. 117. 28 Livy, V. 32. Plutarch, Camillus, 12. Dionysius, XIII. 6. call him back again. They who recorded such a prayer must have believed him innocent, and therefore forgave him for it; they even thought that the gods heard it with favour, and fulfilled its petition by sending the Gauls in the very next year to be ministers of vengeance on his ungrateful country. CHAP. XIX. CHAPTER XX. STATE OF FOREIGN NATIONS AT THE PERIOD OF THE Τὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας πραγματείας ἴδιον . . . τοῦτό ἐστιν· ὅτι καθάπερ ἡ τύχη σχεδὸν ἅπαντα τὰ τῆς οἰκουμένης πράγματα πρὸς ἐν ἔκλινε μέρος, . . . οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῆς ἱστορίας ὑπὸ μίαν σύνοψιν ἀγαγεῖν τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι τὸν χειρισμὸν τῆς τύχης, ᾧ κέχρηται πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὅλων πραγμάτων συνTéλelav.-POLYBIUS, I. 4. CHAP. THE furthest point hitherto reached by the soldiers XX. of any Roman army was scarcely more than fifty to the view miles distant from Rome. The southern limit of Introduction of the state of foreign nations. Roman warfare had been Anxur; its northern was Vulsinii. Nor do we read of any treaties or commercial intercourse by which Rome was connected with foreign powers, since the famous treaty with Carthage, concluded in the first year of the Commonwealth. Still the nations of the ancient world knew more of one another than we are inclined to allow for: we do not enough consider how small a portion of their records has come down to us; how much must have been done, of which mere accident has 1 XX. hindered us from hearing. About thirty years later CHAP. than the Gaulish invasion, the author of that most curious survey of the coasts of the Mediterranean, known by the name of the Periplus of Scylax, mentions Rome and Ancona alone of all the cities of Italy, with the exception of the Greek colonies; and this notice is the more remarkable as Rome is not immediately on the coast, and the survey rarely extends to any place far inland. Aristotle also was not only acquainted with the fact that Rome was taken by the Gauls, but named an individual whom he called Lucius 2, as its deliverer. Heraclides Ponticus even spoke of Rome as a Greek city, which while it shows the shallowness of his knowledge concerning it, proves also, that it was sufficiently famous in Greece, to make the Greeks think it worthy of belonging to their race and name; and we see besides that a wide distinction was drawn between the 3 For the date of the Periplus of Scylax, see Niebuhr's essay in the first volume of his "Kleine Historische Schriften," Bonn, 1828, p. 105; or, as translated by Mr. Hare, in the second number of the Philological Museum. I have said that Scylax mentions no other Italian cities but Rome and Ancona, with the exception of the Greek colonies. It is true that, according to other writers, Ancona itself was a Greek colony, but Scylax does not describe it as such; whereas, in speaking of the cities on the Lucanian and Japygian coast, he expressly notices their Greek origin. 2 Plutarch, Camillus, 22. It need not be said, that in the old |