Ab urbe condita

With a portion of his army the consul attacked the camp of the Aequi, the rest he lent to the Tusculans for the recapture of their citadel. This could not be approached by direct assault.

Ultimately, famine compelled the enemy to evacuate it, and after being reduced to the last extremities, they were all stripped of their arms and clothes and sent under the yoke. Whilst they were making their way home in this ignominious plight, the Roman consul on Algidus followed them up and slew them to a man.

After this victory he led his army back to a place called Columen, where he fixed his camp. As the walls of Rome were no longer exposed to danger after the defeat of the enemy, the other consul also marched out of the City.

The two consuls entered the enemies' territories by separate routes, and each tried to outdo the other in devastating the Volscian lands on the one side and those of the Aequi eon the other. I find it stated in the majority of authorities that Antium revolted this year, but that the consul L. Cornelius conducted a campaign and recaptured the town, I would not venture to assert, as there is no mention of it in the older writers.

[*](Internal Disturbances — Peace concluded with the Aequi.) When this war had been brought to a close, the fears of the patricians were aroused by a

war which the tribunes commenced at home. They exclaimed that the army was being detained abroad from dishonest motives; it was intended to frustrate the passing of the Law; all the same they would

carry through the task they had begun. L. Lucretius, the prefect of the City, succeeded, however, in inducing the tribunes to defer action till the arrival of the consuls. A fresh cause of trouble arose. A. Cornelius and Q. Servilius, the quaestors, [*](quaestors —There were two sets of officers bearing this title, the commissioners of the treasure, and the “trackers of murder” —as their title may be literally translated —whose duty was to search for and bring up for prosecution those who had been guilty of capital crimes. These latter are those mentioned in the present passage.) indicted M. Volscius on the ground

that he had given what was undoubtedly false evidence against Caeso. It had become known from many sources that after the brother of Volscius first became ill, he had not only never been seen in public, but had not even left his bed, and

his death was due to an illness of many months' standing. On the date at which the witness fixed the crime, Caeso was not seen in Rome, whilst those who had served with him declared that he had constantly been in his place in

the ranks with them and had not had leave of absence. Many people urged Volscius to institute a private suit before a judge. As he did not venture to take this course, and all the above mentioned evidence pointed to one conclusion, his condemnation was no more doubtful than that

of Caeso had been on the evidence which he had given. The tribunes managed to delay matters; they said they would not allow the quaestors to bring the accused before the Assembly unless it had first been convened to carry the