The History of Rome, Books 37 to the End with the Epitomes and Fragments of the Lost Books. Livy

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was, at that time, a plebeian tribune, and between him and Publius Scipio there was an enmity subsisting. When he had forbidden his name to be subscribed to the determination of his colleague, and every one expected from him a sentence more severe, he pronounced his judgment thus: that “Inasmuch as Lucius Scipio had pleaded sickness in excuse for his brother, that plea appeared to him to be sufficient: that he would not suffer Publius Scipio to be accused until he should return to Rome: and even then, if he appealed to him, he would support him in refusing to abide a trial: that Publius Scipio, by his great achievements, by the honours received from the Roman people, by the joint consent of gods and men, had risen to such a height of dignity, that were he to stand as a criminal, under the rostrum, and afford a hearing to the insults of young men, it would reflect more disgrace on the Romans than on him.” To his decree he added the language of indignation: “Shall Scipio, the celebrated conqueror of Africa, stand at the feet of you, tribunes? Was it for this he defeated and routed, in Spain, four of the most distinguished generals of the Carthaginians, and their four armies? Was it for this he took Syphax prisoner, conquered Hannibal, made Carthage tributary to you, and removed Antiochus beyond Mount Taurus (for Lucius Scipio received his brother Africanus as his associate in this glory); that he should crouch under two Petillii? that you should gain the palm of victory over Publius Africanus? Will men of illustrious characters never, through their own merits, or through honours conferred by you, arrive at a safe and inviolable sanctuary, where their old age may repose, if not revered, at least secure from injury?” Both his decree and additional discourse made a deep impression, not only on the rest of the assembly, but even on the prosecutors; who said that they would consider further what might be consistent with their rights and duties. Afterwards, as soon as the assembly of the people broke up, the senate met, and at that meeting the warmest thanks were bestowed by the whole body, especially by the consular and elder members, on Tiberius Gracchus, for having consulted the public good in preference to private animosity; and the Petillii were assailed with severe insults, because they had endeavoured to become distinguished by exciting odium against another, and were seeking spoils from a triumph over Africanus. After that there was silence concerning Africanus. He passed the remainder of his life at Liternum, without a wish to revisit the city; and it is said that when he was dying he ordered his body to be buried in the country, in that very place, and his monument to be erected there, that even his obsequies might not be performed in his ungrateful country. He was a man of eminent merit; but more conspicuous in the affairs of war than in those of peace. The former part of his life was more illustrious than the latter, because in his early years wars were constantly carried on by him; with old age his exploits faded away, as occasions did not occur to call forth the exercise of his talents. What was his second consulship to his first, even if you should add to it the censorship? What, compared with it, was his commission in Asia, rendered useless by want of health, and clouded by the misfortune of his son, and the necessity to which it subjected him after his return, of either undergoing a trial, or withdrawing himself from that and his country together. However, he enjoyed alone the distinguished honour of putting an end to the Carthaginian war, which was by far the most difficult and dangerous war in which the Roman state was ever engaged.

      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 millions39 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