Chapter VIII: Book XXXVIII (4)

54. The death of Africanus increased the courage of his enemies, the chief of whom was Marcus Porcius Cato, who, even during his life, was accustomed to sneer at his splendid character. The Petillii are supposed, both to have commenced the prosecution against Africanus at his instigation while he was alive, and on his death to have proposed a bill against him. The motion for the order was made in these words: “Romans, is it your will and order, with respect to the money taken, carried off, and collected from king Antiochus, and those under his government, and with respect to such part thereof as has not been accounted for to the public, that Servius Sulpicius, the city prætor, shall ask the senate which of the present prætors they will appoint to hold an inquiry concerning those matters?” Quintus and Lucius Mummius at first objected to this motion: they thought it proper that, according to the practice always hitherto observed, the senate should make the inquiry concerning such money as had not been brought into the public treasury. The Petillii represented the great influence, the sovereign power which the Scipios possessed in the senate. Lucius Furius Purpureo, a senator of consular rank, who had been one of the ten ambassadors in Asia, was of opinion that the inquiry ought to be carried to a wider extent; not only as to the money taken from Antiochus, but to what had been taken from other kings and nations, attacking his enemy Cneius Manlius. Lucius Scipio, who, it was evident, was arguing rather in favour of himself than against the order, stood forward to oppose it. He complained heavily of such a motion being brought on after the death of his brother, Publius Africanus, the bravest and most illustrious of men. For “it had not been deemed sufficient that Publius Africanus was not eulogized from the rostrum after his death, unless he should be also the subject of accusation. The Carthaginians had been content with the banishment of Hannibal, but the Roman people would not be satisfied even with the death of Publius Scipio, unless, after he was laid in his grave, his character were mangled, and his brother also sacrificed, another victim to envy.” Marcus Cato supported the motion in a speech on the money of king Antiochus, which is still extant; and, by his influence, deterred the Mummii, the two tribunes, from their opposition to the order. On their withdrawing their intended protest, every one of the tribes voted in favour of the motion.

55. Servius Sulpicius then putting the question to the senate, whom they would appoint, according to the Petillian order of the people, to hold the inquiry, they appointed Quintus Terentius Culleo. Before this prætor, so warmly attached to the Cornelian family, (that those writers, who say that Publius Scipio died and was buried at Rome, for that too is asserted, have left on record, that he walked at his funeral before the bier with a cap of liberty on his head, as he had done before at his triumph; and that, at the Capuan gate, he gave wine and honey to those who attended the obsequies, to show his gratitude for having been recovered by Scipio, among other captives, out of the hands of the enemy in Africa,) or so great an enemy to that family, that on account of his known animosity, he was selected in particular by the faction that supported the proceedings against the Scipios, to hold the inquiry; however that may be, before this prætor, whether too favourable or too much the contrary, Lucius Scipio was immediately arraigned. At the same time charges were presented and received against his lieutenants-general, the two Hostilius Catos, Aulus and Lucius; and his quæstor, Caius Furius Aculeo: and (that all things might appear infected with the contagion of peculation) against his two secretaries and crier, Lucius Hostilius. The secretaries and the crier were acquitted before Scipio was tried. Scipio and Aulus Hostilius, his lieutenant-general, and Caius Furius, were convicted on the following charges, that, “as bribes, for granting more favourable terms of peace to Antiochus, Scipio had received, over and above what he brought into the treasury, six thousand pounds’ weight of gold, and four hundred and eighty of silver; Aulus Hostilius, eighty pounds of gold, and four hundred and three of silver; and Furius, the quæstor, one hundred and thirty of gold, and two hundred of silver.” These sums of gold and silver I find mentioned by Antias. As to what regards Lucius Scipio, I suspect some mistake of the transcriber, rather than a falsehood of the historian, respecting the amount of the gold and silver. For it is more probable that the weight of silver was greater than that of gold, and that the fine was laid at four millions,[37] than at twenty-four millions of sesterces,[38] the more on this account, as they record that an account of that sum was demanded from Publius Scipio himself, in the senate; and that when he had desired his brother Lucius to bring the book of his accounts, he tore it to pieces in the view of the senate, at the same time expressing indignation at being called to account for four millions after he had brought two hundred millions[39] into the treasury. From the same confidence of spirit, when the quæstors would not venture to bring money out of the coffers contrary to law, he demanded the keys of the treasury, declaring that he would open it as he had caused it to be shut.

56. Many other things are at variance respecting the latter part, particularly, of Scipio’s life, that is to say, his trial death, funeral, and sepulchre, so that I cannot determine which tradition or which writings I ought to credit. Writers do not agree as to his accuser; some affirming that Marcus Nævius, others that the Petillii, instituted the prosecution; neither are they agreed as to the time when it was carried on; nor the year in which he died; nor the place; nor where he was buried. Some assert, that he died and was buried at Rome; others, at Liternum; and in both places memorials and statues of him are shown. For at Liternum there was a monument, and on it stood his statue, which we in person lately saw cast down by a storm. At Rome likewise, on a monument of the Scipios outside the Capuan gate, are three statues, two of which are said to be those of Publius and Lucius Scipio, and the third that of the poet Quintus Ennius. Nor do these differences exist between historians only; the speeches attributed to Publius Scipio and Tiberius Gracchus, if they really are theirs, differ widely from one another. The title of Publius Scipio’s speech bears the name of Marcus Nævius, the tribune of the commons; the speech itself does not furnish the name of the prosecutor; it only calls him sometimes a knave, sometimes a trifler. Even the speech of Gracchus makes no mention of the Petillii accusing Africanus, or of the prosecution carried on against him. An entirely different story must be framed consistent with the speech of Gracchus; and those writers must be followed who affirm, that, at the time when Lucius Scipio was impeached, and convicted of having taken money from the king, Africanus was a lieutenant-general in Etruria; whence, on hearing of this misfortune, throwing up his commission, he hastened to Rome; and when he came straight from the gate to the forum, because he was told that his brother was being led into confinement, he drove away the officer from his person; and, on the tribunes attempting to detain him, laid violent hands on them, showing more affection towards his brother than regard for the laws. Of these acts, Gracchus himself complained, saying, that the tribunitian power was annulled by a private person; and at last, when he promises support to Lucius Scipio, he adds, that the precedent would be more tolerable, if both the tribunitian authority and the state appeared to be overpowered by a tribune of the commons, than if by a private citizen. But he loaded him with reproaches for this signal instance of intemperate violence, in such a manner, that while he charged him with having degenerated so far from himself, he gave to him his long-established praises for moderation, self-control, with many-fold increase, so as to make ample amends for the present reprehension. For he said, that the people were formerly severely rebuked by Scipio, because they wished to make him perpetual consul and dictator; that he hindered statues from being erected to him in the comitium, in the rostrum, in the senate-house, in the Capitol, in the chapel of Jupiter’s temple, and that he prevented, a decree being passed, that his image, in a triumphal habit, should be brought in procession out of the temple of Jupiter the supremely good and great. Such particulars as these, which even an enemy acknowledged while censuring him, even if inserted in a professed panegyric, would demonstrate an uncommon greatness of mind, in limiting his honours conformably to his position as a citizen.

57. It is universally agreed, that the younger of Scipio’s two daughters was married to this Gracchus; for the elder was undoubtedly disposed of by her father, to Publius Cornelius Nasica. But it is not so certain, whether she was both betrothed and married after her father’s death, or whether the accounts are true, that Gracchus, when Lucius Scipio was being led to prison, and no other of the tribunes interfered to protect him, swore, that “the same enmity which he had entertained against the Scipios still subsisted; and that he did not perform any act for the sake of gaining their favour. But that, having seen Publius Africanus leading the kings and generals of enemies to prison, he would never suffer his brother to be led to the same place.” They add, that the senators, happening to sup that day in the Capitol, rose up together, and requested of Africanus, before the company departed, to betroth his daughter to Gracchus: that the contract was accordingly executed in due form, in the presence of this assembly; and that Scipio, on his return home, told his wife Æmilia that he had concluded a match for her younger daughter. That she, feeling her female pride hurt, expressing some resentment on not having been consulted in the disposal of their common child, added, that, even were he giving her to Tiberius Gracchus, her mother ought not to be kept in ignorance of his intention; to which Scipio, rejoiced at her judgment concurring so entirely with his own, replied, that she was betrothed to that very man. These circumstances respecting so great a captain, though they might vary, both in traditionary and written relation, ought to be stated.

58. On the proceedings being finished by the prætor Quintius Terentius, Hostilius and Furius, being condemned, gave securities the same day to the city quæstors. Scipio, when he insisted that all the money received by him was in the treasury, and that he had not in his possession any thing whatever belonging to the public, was ordered to prison. Publius Scipio Nasica then appealed to the tribunes, and made a speech fraught with just encomiums, not only on the Cornelian family in general, but on his own branch of it in particular. “His father,” he said, “and the father of Publius Africanus and Lucius Scipio, who was now ordered to prison, were Cneius and Publius Scipio, men of the most illustrious characters; that when, through a long course of years, they had highly enhanced the reputation of the Roman name in the land of Spain, against many commanders and many armies of the Carthaginians and Spaniards, not only by their military exploits, but also by exhibiting to the nations of that country brilliant examples of Roman moderation and fidelity, both, at last, fell in the service of the Roman people. Although it ought to be sufficient to their descendants to support the glory derived from them, yet Publius Africanus so far surpassed his father’s renown, as to occasion a belief that he was not sprung from the human race, but was of divine extraction. As to Lucius Scipio, concerning whom the question then was, to pass over his exploits in Spain and in Africa, (while he was lieutenant-general to his brother,) on his being elected consul, was by the senate considered so worthy, that the province of Asia and the war with Antiochus were assigned him, without leaving it to the decision of the lots; and by his brother, that, after two consulships, the censorship, and a triumph, he attended him into Asia in quality of lieutenant-general. There, that the great and splendid character of the lieutenant might not eclipse the fame of the consul, it so happened, that, on the day when Lucius Scipio conquered Antiochus in a pitched battle at Magnesia, Publius Scipio was absent at the distance of several days’ journey, being sick at Elæa. The army of the enemy, on that occasion, was not inferior to that of Hannibal, when the battle was fought with him in Africa; and the same Hannibal, who was commander-in-chief in the Carthaginian war, was among many other generals of the king. The war indeed was so conducted, that no one could throw blame even on fortune. A ground of accusation is sought for in the peace; it is said that it was sold. The ten ambassadors, in pursuance of whose counsel the peace was concluded, are at the same time included in this charge. Some of the ten ambassadors had even stood forth as accusers of Cneius Manlius, yet their charges were so far from gaining credit that they did not produce even a delay of his triumph.

59. “But truly, in the case of Scipio, the articles of the peace are suspected as being too favourable to Antiochus. For his entire kingdom has been left to him: although conquered, he retains possession of every thing that belonged to him before the war; and though, he had an immense quantity of gold and silver, none of it has been applied to the use of the public: all has been converted to private purposes. Now, was there not a quantity of gold and silver carried before the eyes of the public in the triumph of Lucius Scipio, so great that an equal quantity was not carried in ten of the former triumphs, even if it was amassed together? Why need I speak of the extent of the kingdom of Antiochus, or that he held all Asia, and the adjoining parts of Europe? Every body knows what a large portion of the surface of the earth that is, which stretches from Mount Taurus quite to the Ægean Sea; what a number, not only of cities, but of nations, it comprehends; and that this tract, as far as the summit of Mount Taurus, more than thirty days’ journey in length and ten in breadth, from one sea to the other,—has been taken from Antiochus, who is thereby removed to the most distant corner of the world? Now if peace had been granted him without any pecuniary consideration, could more have been taken from him? Macedon was left to Philip after he was conquered; Lacedæmon to Nabis; yet the grounds of an accusation were never sought against Quinctius on that account. The reason was, that he had not Africanus for a brother, whose high renown ought to have been serviceable to Lucius Scipio; but envy of his merit had done him injury. A quantity of gold and silver was mentioned in the senate to have been conveyed to the house of Lucius Scipio, greater than could be raised from the sale of his whole property. Where, then, was all this royal treasure; where the value of so many estates received? Surely in a house, which extravagance never exhausted, this new accumulation of wealth ought to appear. But what cannot be levied out of his effects, the enemies of Lucius Scipio will exact from his person, and from his very flesh, by vexatious persecution and insult; carried to such a degree that a man of his illustrious character would be shut up in a prison, among midnight thieves and robbers, and forced to breathe his last in a dungeon and in darkness, and his naked corpse thrown before the prison door. Such proceedings will reflect more disgrace on the city of Rome, than they will on the Cornelian family.”

60. In answer to this, the prætor, Terentius, read the Petillian order of the people, the decree of the senate, and the judgment pronounced against Lucius Scipio; and declared that unless the money adjudged were paid into the public treasury, he had no other step to take, than to order the person convicted to be taken into custody, and carried to prison. The tribunes retired to confer together, and in a short time after, Caius Fannius, according to his own opinion and that of all his colleagues, except Gracchus, declared that the tribunes would not interfere with the prætor to hinder his making use of his power. Tiberius Gracchus thus decreed: “that he would not protest against the prætor’s levying the sum adjudged out of the effects of Lucius Scipio; but that Lucius Scipio, who had subdued the most powerful king in the world, had extended the empire of the Roman people to the utmost limits of the earth, had bound under obligations to the Roman people king Eumenes, the Rhodians, and so many other states of Asia, and had led in triumph so many generals of the enemies, and imprisoned them, should himself lie in prison among the enemies of the Roman people, and in chains, he never would suffer; and therefore he ordered him to be discharged.” This decision was heard with such approbation, and the people beheld with so much pleasure the liberation of Scipio, that it could hardly appear that the sentence had been passed in the same community. The prætor then sent the quæstors to take possession of Lucius Scipio’s property, for the use of the public. And not only did no trace appear of money received from the king, but not even so much was made up from the sale as the sum in which he was fined. So large a contribution was made for Lucius Scipio by his relations, friends, and clients, that, if he had accepted it, he would have been much richer than before this misfortune: but he received nothing. Such things as were necessary for his family occasions, were bought back at the sale by his nearest relations. And the public hatred which had been pointed against the Scipios, reverted on the prætor, his advisers, and the accusers.