viction to appear as he generally does, for
he treats the whole of the early history with a sort of irony, half
believing, half disbelieving it.

According to another account in Diodorus, the Gauls besieged a town
allied with Rome--its name seems to be mis-written, but is probably
intended for Vulsinii--and the Romans relieved it and took back from the
Gauls the gold which they had paid them; but this siege of Vulsinii is
quite unknown to Livy. A third account in Strabo and also mentioned by
Diodorus does not allow this honor to the Romans, but states that the
Caerites pursued the Gauls, attacked them in the country of the Sabines,
and completely annihilated them. In like manner the Greeks endeavored to
disguise the fact that the Gauls took the money from the Delphic
treasury, and that in a quite historical period (Olymp. 120). The true
explanation is undoubtedly the one found in Polybius, that the Gauls
were induced to quit Rome by an insurrection of the Alpine tribes, after
it had experienced the extremity of humiliation.

Whatever the enemy had taken as booty was consumed; they had not made
any conquests, but only indulged in plunder and devastation; they had
been staying at Rome for seven or eight months, and could have gained
nothing further than the Capitol and the very money which they received
without taking that fortress. The account of Polybius throws light upon
many discrepant statements, and all of them, not even excepting Livy's
fairy-tale-like embellishment, may be explained by means of it. The
Romans attempted to prove that the Gauls had actually been defeated, by
relating that the gold afterward taken from the Gauls and buried in the
Capitol was double the sum paid to them as a ransom; but it is much more
probable that the Romans paid their ransom out of the treasury of the
temple of the Capitoline Jupiter and of other temples, and that
afterward double this sum was made up by a tax; which agrees with a
statement in the history of Manlius, that a tax was imposed for the
purpose of raising the Gallic ransom: surely this could not have been
done at the time of the siege, when the Romans were scattered in all
parts of the country, but must have taken place afterward for the
purpose of restoring the money that had been taken. Now if at a later
time there actually existed in the Capitol such a quantity of gold, it
is clear that it was believed to be a proof that the Gauls had not kept
the gold which was paid