scipio aemilianus and the crisis of 129 b.c

Scipio Aemilianus and the Crisis of 129 B.C.Author(s): J. Lea BenessSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 54, H. 1 (2005), pp. 37-48Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436754 .

Accessed: 03/09/2013 20:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 20:16:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436754?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SCIPIO AEMILIANUS AND THE CRISIS OF 129 B.C.*

If Livy's fifty-ninth book and Plutarch's Life of Scipio Aemilianusl had survived we would undoubtedly have a clearer understanding of the extent to which the crisis of 133 persisted into the following years and the centrality, within that burgeoning crisis, of Scipio Aemilianus' activities and role.2 Surviving items and particularly the narrative of Appian speak to the growing sense of crisis in 129.3 Moreover, serious portents were

$ This paper arose from research undertaken on the Macquarie Dictionary of Roman Biography Project, generously funded by Dr C. McCullough-Robinson. I am most grateful to Tom Hillard for his collaboration throughout, to Edwin Judge for his critical comments and to Ann Major for her research assistance. On Scipio Aemilianus as the subject of Plutarch's lost Scipio, the biography paired with the Epaminondas, see K. Herbert, "The Identity of Plutarch's Lost Scipio", AJPh 78 (1957) 83-88; cf. K. Ziegler, RE Plutarchos, cols. 895-6. That Plutarch covered these events in some detail might be suggested by the material that he clearly had to hand at mor. 201 E-F and is professed by himself at C. Gracch. 10.4.

2 The crisis of 129 which culminated in the death of Aemilianus is, unfortunately, not covered satisfactorily (in loco) in Plutarch's Life of Gaius Gracchus where a full coverage might have been both relevant and appropriate. There are perhaps two reasons for this: (i) Plutarch may have instinctively sought, when writing his biography, to keep Gaius Gracchus out of such an unsavoury context (note that he relegates any elaboration of Aemilianus' 'assassination' to C.Gracch. 10 - and to a discussion of Flaccus' moral turpitude [where it becomes part of the tragedy of Gracchus' association through force of circumstances with such criminal elements]); and (ii) a full treatment (in appropriate sequence) of the criticisms which Aemilianus suffered in 129 (and with which Plutarch knew Gaius Gracchus to be connected [apophth. Scip. 22-23 (= mor. 201 E-F)]) and of Aemilianus' death, with regard to which Plutarch knew that suspicion attached to Gaius Gracchus (C. Gracch. 10.4), would have run counter to the theme with which Plutarch opens the Life, that is that the young man was for some time politically inactive (1.1-2). (Plutarch does not date Gracchus' defence of Vettius [1.31, which might be placed at any time between 132 and 127 [cf. M.C. Alexander, Trials in the late Roman Republic, 149 BC-SO BC (Toronto 1990) 11 (no. 19)] but could have been as early as 132 [cf. J.L. Beness, "The Punishment of the Gracchani and the Execution of C. Villius in 133/132", Antichthon 34 (2000) 1-17, at 3 & n. 13], and otherwise signals the beginning of Gaius' political life with his quaestorship in 126 [1.41.) The actuality of Gaius' political activity as early as 131/130 is proved by his support for the lex Papiria de tribunis plebis reficiendis (Liv. perioch. 59); and indeed Plutarch was perfectly aware that Gaius was active by at least 129 (cf. mor. 201 E-F). Plutarch has, then, sidestepped an unattractive episode of Gracchus' early life; and in fact acknowledges that he has introduced it out of sequence at C. Gracch. 10.5: TaVca g?v oiUv ?yey6vet np6'repov.

3 See, for example, Tubero's words to Aemilianus at rep. 1.14: te autem permagnum est nancisci otiosum, hoc praesertim motu rei publicae; also the observations of Laelius at Cic. Lael. 41: Videre iam videor populum a senatu disiunctum, multitudinis arbitrio res maximas agi. Tensions may have been exacerbated by a possible grain crisis in Rome at this time (see P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone, "The Background to the Grain Law of Gaius Gracchus", JRS 75 [1985] 20-25, at 22 & 25) and by the promulgation of the plebiscitum reddendorum equorum. It is perhaps not possible to pin down precisely what the latter sought to effect (other than the nova largitio that Scipionic/Ciceronian polemic asserted) - Lintott has recently extended the range of interpretation possible (CAH2 9.75) - but there is no doubt as to the tension it generated (Cic. rep. 4.2). For those of Scipio's mind, it represented a disruption of the social order (loc. cit.). See T.P. Wiseman ("The

Historia, Band 54/1 (2005) ?) Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart



38 J. LEA BENESS

recorded. Obsequens (28a) reports that two black snakes entered the sanctuary of Minerva's temple, presaging a slaughter of citizens (civilem caedem portenderunt). And two suns appeared, warning the Roman people of great wars and deadly revolu- tions (quibus portentis magna populo Romano bella perniciosaeque seditiones denun- tiabantur).4

The triumvirate, active since 132, but now with the membership of C. Papirius Carbo and M. Fulvius Flaccus, added to tensions, possibly by targeting lands in allied hands.5 One can only imagine the reaction to a call to informants to turn in recalcitrant possessores who had been less than forthcoming.6 We see the rhetoric of the times preserved (or recreated) by Cicero in the de re publica. Petitioned by wealthy Italians, Scipio took up their cause,7 suggesting, if not the abrogation of the lex Sempronia agraria,8 that the judicial powers of the triumviri, possibly only in cases involving citizens of the allied states, be transferred to consular authority,9 probably confident in the conservative inclinations of Sempronius Tuditanus and the likelihood that Grac-

Definition of 'Eques Romanus' in the Late Republic and Early Empire", Historia 19 [1970] 67-83, at 79 n. 64 = Roman Studies [Liverpool 1987] 57-73, at 69 n. 64) and E. Badian (Publicans and Sinners [Oxford 1972] 56-57 & 131 n. 27) for the rejection of C. Nicolet's argument (L'ordre tquestre a l'tpoque republicaine [312-43 av. J.-C.] 1 [Paris 1974] 513-514) that the plebiscite must have been passed after 123.

4 Cic. div. 1.97; cf. nat. deor. 2.14; rep. 1.15, 31. The phenomenon of a second sun is well- recognized by modern astronomers. It might either have been a parhelion or perhaps more likely an anthelion (see N. Rudd/J. Powell [eds.], Cicero. The Republic and The Laws [Oxford 1998] 177-178; cf. R.G.G. Coleman, "The Dream of Cicero", PCPhS 190 [n.s. 10] [19641 1-14, at 4-5). Dio records a rain of stones resulting in casualties and a weeping statue of Apollo. On the advice of the soothsayers the Roman people voted that the latter should be hewn into pieces and sunk in the sea (24, frag. 84.2). Cicero's original intention to locate the de re publica during the Novendialia in 129 (Cic. ad Q. fr. 3.5, 6.1), a nine day festival to expiate an extraordinary prodigium (for the first of which Livy 1.31.1-4; cf. P.L. Schmidt, "The Original Version of the De Re Publica and the De Legibus" in J.G.F. Powell/J.A. North [eds.], Cicero's Republic BICS Supplement 76 [London 20011 7-16, at 11), must have been intended to underline the sense of crisis.

5 App. civ. 1.18. For a succinct summary of the triumviral commission's activities, E. Gabba (Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus [Florence 1958]) 55-57. Obsequens (28a) mentions discord over the passage of laws, possibly in the context of triumviral activity (... M. Fulvii Flacci triumviri ... dissensione in legibus ferendis ... [where the lacunae are of indeterminate length]).

6 App. civ. 1.18. 7 App. civ. 1.19; Schol. Bob. p. 118 Stangl. On the wealth of the Italians who approached Scipio, see

Gabba, Appiani (as in n. 5) 59; cf. J.S. Richardson, "The Ownership of Roman Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians", JRS 70 (1980) 1-11, at 10. Scipio and his associates no doubt shared hospitium and/or other highly advantageous connections with these men.

8 Or at least the lex Sempronia agraria altera conferring judicial powers on the Gracchan land commissioners (Liv. perioch. 58; cf. Vell. 2.2.3; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 13.1). Aemilianus' speech against the lex iudiciaria of Tiberius Gracchus presumably belongs in this context (ORF3, Scipio Aemilianus, frag. 30 = Macr. Sat. 3.14.6-7 for the only surviving excerpt).

9 So E.G. Hardy, Six Roman Laws (Oxford 1911) 39; followed by H. Last (CAH 9.42-44) and A.E. Astin (Scipio Aemilianus [Oxford 1967] 239-240, esp. 240 n. 1); cf. Gabba, Appiani (as in n. 5) 60-62 and J. Molthagen, "Die Durchfuhrung der gracchischen Agrarreform", Historia 22 (1973) 423-458, esp. 430 n. 46 (arguing that the judicial functions of the commissioners were suspended entirely). See also the solutions proposed by R.A. Bauman ("The Gracchan Agrarian Commission: Four Questions", Historia 28 [1979] 385-408, at 403-408) and D.J. Gargola (Lands, Laws and Gods. Magistrates and Ceremony in the Regulation of Public Lands in Republican Rome [Chapel Hill/London 1995] 162).



Scipio Aemilianus and the Crisis of 129 B.C. 39

chan 'excesses' would thus be curtailed.10 It was a move which enjoyed some success - at least in the senate, and possibly beyond. "I If Aemilianus' manoeuvre was cynical, his faith in Tuditanus was vindicated. Daunted by the work at hand, Tuditanus departed to Illyria.12 With the commission reduced to inactivity, the unpopularity of Scipio reached new heights '3 - and the situation turned ugly. 14 Seemingly at this point the cry went up against Scipio "Kill the tyrant". Plutarch describes those who uttered this deadly threat in a circumspect way (T&v ... icept TOv rdtov I3o6vtow).'5 Was he referring to those associated with Gaius Gracchus, to Gracchus and those about him, or simply to Gracchus himself? The last option suggests an extraordinary scene (yet it is almost certain that Plutarch wishes to convey Gaius Gracchus' direct involvement).16

10 Appian (civ. 1.19) specifies Tuditanus as the consul appointed to give judgement. Gabba (Appiani [as in n. 5] 60) believes that the judicial powers of the commissioners were transferred to both consuls (followed by Molthagen [as in n. 9] 430-431, 431 n. 47). On Tuditanus' probable conservative leanings, F. Miinzer, RE Sempronius 92 (col. 1442); Gabba, Appiani (as in n. 5) 61; cf. Astin, Scipio (as in n. 9) 238 n. 5. It was nevertheless a coup to have the cooperation of the gens Sempronia, which doubtless played its part in the success of Aemilianus in convincing the Roman community of the reasonableness of his proposal (see below on Appian's account).

11 See Appian (civ. 1.19) for the acceptance of Aemilianus' arguments in the senate. For the belief that judicial power in cases concerning the Italians was transferred to consular fiat via a senatorial decree, see Hardy, Six Roman Laws (as in n. 9) 39; followed by Last (CAH 9.44) and Astin (Scipio [as in n. 9] 239-240, esp. 240 n. 1); cf. Bauman, Gracchan (as in n. 9) 403-408. J. Carcopino (Autour des Gracques [Paris 1928/1967] 86-87; cf. 151 n. 80) believes that the people revoked the judicial powers of the triumvirs. P. Fraccaro ("Studi sull'eti dei Gracchi", Stud. Stor. per l'Ant. Class. 5 [19121 317-448, at 393) suggests that Scipio secured the passage of an abrogatio; Gabba (Appiani [as in n. 5] 60) an obrogatio (followed by C. Nicolet, "Le de republica [VI, 12] et la dictature de Scipion", REL 42 [1964] 212-230, at 223); cf. R.M. Geer, "Notes on the Land Law of Tiberius Gracchus", TAPhA 70 (1939) 30-36, at 32-36.

12 App. civ. 1.19. 13 ibid. Scipio's increasing unpopularity since his return from Numantia in 132 is most strikingly

demonstrated in his failure to be chosen for the command against Aristonicus (Cic. Phil. 1.18; cf. R. Werner, "Die gracchischen Reformen und der Tod des Scipio Aemilianus" in R. Stiehl/H.E. Stier [eds.], Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Festschrift fur Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968 vol. I [Berlin 1969] 413-440, at 436). Further on Scipio's unpopularity at this time, see the fine discussion of Astin, Scipio (as in n. 9) 231-235 (with references). It should be noted that Scipio scored a major success in convincing the people to reject Carbo's bill permitting reiteration of the tribunate (Cic. Lael. 96; Liv. perioch. 59; cf. Astin, op.cit., 233 for a not entirely satisfactory explanation). For Plutarch it was Scipio's partial loss of popular favour that marred the end of that hero's life. He records that the demos began to interrupt Scipio as he spoke, a thing unprecedented: 6 pV 6 io; avr6Kpou;ev aik& Xyovt, g6eo 'roi5o not iaa; xp6tepov. Plutarch reports that this he covered in full in his life of Scipio (Ti. Gracch. 21.5). On Scipio's retorts, see below.

14 App. civ. 1.19. If nothing else, the actions of Scipio, attacks on the competence and integrity, in short the dignity, of his brother-in-law Gaius Gracchus, Papirius Carbo and Fulvius Flaccus, were geared to ensuring their lasting enmity. We know of the potential long-term political ramifications of such invidia (Cic. har. resp. 43; cf. W.J. Tatum, The Patrician Tribune. Publius Clodius Pulcher [Chapel Hill 1999] 12-14).

15 Apophth. Scip. Min. 23 (= Mor. 201F). On the dating of the dictum to 129, Fraccaro, Studi (as in n. 1 1) 391; cf. F. Munzer, RE Cornelius 335 (cols 1456-57) (placing it in 131) and A.E. Astin, "Dicta Scipionis of 131 B.C.", CQ n.s. 10 (1960) 135-139, at 139 n.3 (assigning it to the "post-Numantine period of Scipio's life").

16 It is generally understood that the use of the plural article plus ipepi before a name may be a periphrastic way of referring to a single individual - but not always; see LSJ, s.v. iepi, C.2. The unpalatability of a reference to Gaius alone might commend the alternative readings. Could Gaius,



40 J. LEA BENESS

The Roman demos, according to Appian, felt particularly betrayed in the case of Scipio, whose earlier political opportunism had led it to expect differently of him and whose highly irregular political career it had supported in the face of senatorial disapprobation.'7 Scipio responded by denouncing those now hostile to him though making it very clear at the same time or playing up for effect - or both - his own perilous position.18

Scarce wonder that Scipio's sudden death immediately provoked suspicions of foul play, ill-founded or otherwise. That such suspicions were contemporary, as played upon by Cicero at de re publica 6.12, is suggested by Metellus Macedonicus' dramatic outburst on receipt of the news (Val. Max. 4.1.12), though Laelius in the laudatio funebris he scripted for Scipio's nephew Fabius seems to have avoided any allegation

fiery orator though he was, have really gone that far in his attack on his cousin and brother-in-law? Thus, Astin (Scipio [as in n. 91 240) implicitly distances Gaius from the action by glossing the passage as a reference to "a Gracchan mob". Likewise, F.C. Babbitt (Plutarch's Moralia vol. 3, Loeb Classical Library 245 [Cambridge, Mass. 1931] 197) when he translates "the men about Gracchus". This is the one option, if the guidance of S.L. Radt is followed ("Noch einmal Aischylos, Niobe Fr. 162 N.2 (278 M.)", ZPE 38 [1980] 47-58). Wherever context supplies certainty, the idiom (even when intended closer to its literal sense) is inclusive (immer inklusiv) of the individual named. Plutarch may be designating Gaius and his partisans (as M. Renard ["L'assassinat de Scipion Emilien", RUB 37 (1932) 483-498, at 485] and Nicolet [De Republica (as in n. 11) 2241 read the passage) or may be referring simply to Gaius (as F. Munzer, RE Cornelius 335 [col. 14571 and Carcopino [Autour (as in n. 11) 88-89; cf. 98] believe). What is certain, however, is the involvement of Gaius, suggesting in turn that the violent language, not emanating solely from the 'rowdier elements', was considered - if not carefully chosen. It is feasible that Gaius was throwing back into the faces of his political enemies the charges of regnum that had been levelled against his brother with whose cause he now clearly identified (ORF3, Gaius Gracchus, frag. 17 = Char. p. 313, 18; Liv. perioch. 59; see Cic. Lael. 39 [cf. 411 for Gaius' political activism in 129). The charge of aiming at regnum had been customarily levelled at those of popularis hue (see J.L. Beness, "The Urban Unpopularity of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus", Antichthon 25 [1991] 33-62, at 50 n. 78). The populares might have been repaying in kind while changing the vocabulary (the charge of tyranny, for instance, emerges against Sulla in the speech which Sallust puts into the mouth of Lepidus [or. Lep. 1 (= hist. 1.55.1 M)]). But it may be that we are not hearing here an echo of the sloganry of mob-'rhetoric' but a point that Gaius was making about a contemporary constitutional issue (on which, see further below). If Cicero in the de re publica is accurately portraying the language and sentiments of the time (i.e. of 129) and if Macrobius' commentary is accurately conveying the language of Cicero then Gaius Gracchus (and perhaps those about him) might have been taking up in angry response the language of those like Laelius who decried the lack in Rome of honorific statues to Scipio Nasica "on account of his having killed the tyrant" (in interfecti tyranni remunerationem): Macr. somn. 1.4.2. According to Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 21.3), the demos had already applied the label to Nasica.

17 Civ. 1.19. On the opportunistic quality of Scipio's career, see Astin, Scipio (as in n. 9) passim (but esp. 242-243).

18 Apophth. Scip. Min. 23 (= Mor. 201F); Oros. 5.10.9. Scipio's taunt to a crowd that for them Italy was noverca possibly belongs in this context. Plutarch's version (apophth. Scip. Min. 22 [= mor. 201 E-F) places it in the setting of public anger over a dispute between Scipio and Gaius Gracchus concerning the Senate and the allies, that is to say in 129 - albeit Velleius Paterculus (2.4.4), Valerius Maximus (6.2.3) and the de viris illustribus 58.8 place it in the context of Papirius Carbo's interrogation of Aemilianus concerning the latter's attitude to the death of Tiberius Gracchus. Scipionic apophthegms were slippery (Fraccaro, Studi [as in n. 111 388-393, ultimately favouring the placing of this dictum in 129). Cf. Polyain. 8.16.5 (giving no chronological context at all) and see Astin, Dicta (as in n. 15) 137-139 (arguing that the apophthegm belongs during the public discussion of Carbo's bill concerning re-election to the tribunate).




of that sort. 19 What is remarkable is that, though these suspicions (whether well-based or groundless) circulated at the time, no public inquiry was held into the incident - because, according to Plutarch, of the obstruction of the multitude.20 The tide of public

19 ORF3, Laelius, frag. 22 = Schol. Bob. p. 118 Stangl. See E. Badian's emendation of this corrupt passage and the suggestion that here lies a reference to a natural death ("Review of H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae", JRS 46 [1956] 218-221, at 220 = Studies in Greek and Roman History [Oxford 1964] 249); cf. Werner, Die gracchischen Reformen (as in n. 13) 413-440 (arguing that circumstances prevented Laelius from making an explicit statement that Aemilianus was murdered - and in this vein, see the words put into Laelius' mouth at Cic. Lael. 12: quo de genere mortis difficile dictu est; quid homines suspicentur videtis). The modern debate concerning the cause of Scipio's death dates back at least to Mommsen's confident assertion (The History of Rome vol. 3 [trans. W.P. Dickson] [London/New York 19111 98) that the instigator of the assassination "must have belonged to the Gracchan party". For the most substan- tial modern contributions to the controversy, see Carcopino (Autour [as in n. 11] 85-127) (arguing for a natural death) and Renard (L'assassinat [as in n. 161 483-498) (attempting to prove assassination). Cf. the speculation of I. Worthington, "The Death of Scipio Aemilianus", Hermes 117 (1989) 253-256 (unaware of Renard and seemingly without access to Carcopino). There may have been an attempt to suggest foul play or that something was amiss in that, according to Velleius Paterculus (2.4.6), Scipio was borne to his grave with head covered (see also Auct. Vir. ll. 58.10; cf. Plut. Rom. 27.5 [recording that Scipio's body was exposed for all to see]). Modem scholarship has tried to suggest that there was nothing in this other than Velleius' literary artifice (F.W. Shipley [ed.], Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History and Res Gestae Divi Augusti Loeb Classical Library 152 [Cambridge, Mass. 1979] 56 note b), though such a covering of the head at a funeral sits uneasily with the description of the customary display at Polyb. 6.53.1; cf. J. Bodel, "Death on Display: Looking at Roman Funerals" in B. Bergmann/C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle Studies in the History of Art 56, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts Symposium Papers 34 (New Haven/London 1999) 259-281. See also M. Lauria's quest ("II capo, il volto, gli occhi coperti", Index 9 [1980] 1-23) for the significance in head covering (registering the case of Scipio at 7). The author of the De viris illustribus (58.10) felt that the phenomenon required explanation, suggesting that it was to conceal the bluish colour of Scipio's face (perhaps an uninformed gloss). It might be noted also that, in context, Velleius believed that Scipio had been strangled. Whether or not the intention to conceal any such disfigurement was the reason for the coverlet and whether Velleius was attempting to convey such an impression through his reference to the coverlet are another matter - but it might not be rash to suspect a connection. On other occasions it was to be found advantageous to display the signs of unnatural death (cf. Ascon. 32C for Fulvia's display of Clodius' corpse and App. civ. 2.146 for Antony's of Caesar's; and, closer to the time, Plut. Ti. Gracch. 13.4 for a politically-charged funeral in 133). The hint might have been more potent than the reality. In a reverse case, Nero found it expedient to expose the entire body of Britannicus, deceptively smeared with gypsum to conceal the discolora- tion occasioned by poison (Dio Epit. 61.4 [Xiphilinus]). An innocent explanation might have been to hand, if Lucilius, close to the source, was indeed referring to Scipio (as is sometimes assumed) when he spoke of one carried away, unexpectedly, by quinsy (1093 M = 1005 W [Non. 50 LI; cf. Lauria 21). (That might have led to an unbecoming facial distortion; cf. Sen. epist. 101, 3.)

20 C. Gracch. 10.5; see also Cic. Mil. 16; Liv. Perioch. 59; Vell. 2.4.6; Val. Max. 5.3.2d; Plin. nat. 10. 123. Some sort of inquest was held (App. civ. 1.20). Its date (or at least the date of the episode to which Appian alludes) is disputed. Carcopino (Autour [as in n. 11] 98-101, esp. 100; cf. 116-117), while not denying that some sort of (presumably private) inquiry occurred at the time, believes that the inquest to which Appian refers belongs to 119 BC when C. Papirius Carbo was prosecuted by L. Licinius Crassus; but P. Fraccaro ("Review of Carcopino, Autour des Gracques", Athenaeum 9 [1931] 302-320, at 311 n. 1) (followed by Gabba, Appiani [as in n. 5] 65) does not see any reason why Appian could not be referring to 129 and the immediate aftermath of Scipio's death - and I agree. The point is that no official public inquiry was mounted at the time (so Carcopino, Autour [as inn. 11] 113).



42 J. LEA BENESS

opinion had swung against Scipio in no uncertain terms. What is even more remarkable is Appian's claim that (presumably in the context of the same hostile climate) Scipio Aemilianus, twice consul, censor and destroyer of Carthage (and Numantia), did not receive a state funeral (Thctciov gL?v 6i' TEOV#IKSt Kai o05&? &ioaiaag Ta4i; i4tof)io, geytaca 8i tv iyp-oviav 6'eXVaa;): an item upon which many modern commenta- tors have surprisingly not seen fit to remark.21 Most are distracted by the evidence relating to the funeral rites which were obviously celebrated in public.22 But Scipio might have been accorded a public funus indictivum without having the honour of a state one at public expense (funus publicum).23 If Scipio was denied the latter (and no evidence contradicts this) the situation dictating that was grave indeed.24

But what had lain behind the charge of tyranny? Cicero preserves in the de re publica a remarkable item, almost universally dismissed by modern scholarship. He has Scipio Africanus Maior prophesy to Aemilianus, a prophecy which Cicero then has Aemilianus pass on to his intimates in the dialogue, that, should Aemilianus escape the treachery of his own relatives (in itself a remarkable Ciceronian contribution to the mystery surrounding Scipio's death), the whole Roman community would call upon him to be a dictator: "the senate, all upstanding citizens, the allies, and the Latins will look to you; you will be the one person on whom the safety of the state rests. To be brief: you will have to restore the commonwealth as dictator - if you escape the impious hands of those close to you" (trans. Zetzel)25 - though the idea that a

21 Civ. 1.20. F. Munzer (RE Cornelius 335 [col. 1459]) only registers Appian's statement. Gabba (Appiani [as in n. 5]) and Astin (Scipio [as in n. 9]) are silent on the matter; but cf. J.G.F. Powell (Cicero: Laelius, On Friendship [Laelius De Amicitial & The Dream of Scipio [Somnium Scipi- onis] [Warminster 1990] 82). Carcopino (Autour [as in n. 11] 114-115) and Werner (Die gracchischen Reformen [as in n. 13] 432 n. 64) reject Appian's testimony as anachronistic; but cf. T.W. Hillard, "Popilia and laudationesfunebres for women", Antichthon 35 (2001) 45-63, at 60. Pliny (nat. 10.123) tantalizingly refers to the lack of vengeance exacted for the death of Scipio (a reference to the lack of any judicial inquiry) in the context of publicly celebrated funerals (and retribution exacted for unjust deaths). In the same context he alludes to multi principes who received no funeral at all. The direction of his thought is interesting, but no more can be made of this.

22 That is, references to items such as Macedonicus' sons carrying Scipio's bier (Plut. apophth. Caec. Met. 3 [= mor. 202A]); Val. Max. 4.1.12; Plin. nat. 7.144), the laudatiofunebris (Schol. Bob. p. 1 18 Stangl; Cic. Mur. 75; cf. Cic. de orat. 2.341) and the epulum (refs. below); cf. Astin, Scipio (as in n.9) 243-244. The populus, according to Cicero, bitterly resented the stoic parsimony with which Q. Aelius Tubero celebrated the funeral banquet of Scipio - so much so that it (or, at least, that part of the populace which voted in the comitia centuriata) vented its anger shortly afterwards on the electoral aspirations of Tubero (Mur. 75-76; cf. Val. Max. 7.5.1; Sen. epist. 95.72; T.R.S. Broughton, MRR 3.5; id., Candidates Defeated in Roman Elections: Some Ancient Roman "Also- Rans" Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 81.4 [Philadelphia 19911 35); see also Laelius at Cic. Lael. 11 on the civic grief displayed at Scipio's funeral.

23 On the distinction, see J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (London 1971) 45, 55-56; Hillard, Popilia (as in n. 21) Appendix 1; cf. Festus p. 94L = 106M onfunus indictivum.

24 Funus publicum seems to have been voted by senatorial decree; cf. Cic. Phil. 9.14 albeit in a post- Sullan context.

25 Te senatus, te omnes boni, te socii, te Latini intuebuntur, tu eris unus, in quo nitatur civitatis salus, ac, ne multa, dictator rem publicam constituas oportet, si impias propinquorum manus effugeris (rep. 6.12). It is of interest that those whom Cicero represents historically at Lael. 12 as having escorted Scipio home on the last evening of his life (cum senatu dimisso domum reductus ad vesperum est a patribus conscriptis, populo Romano, sociis et Latinis) are those whom he depicts as looking towards a dictatorship for Scipio.




dictatorship for Scipio was even discussed has not proved popular in modem studies (despite doughty champions).26

The reasons for the rejection of the item are easy enough to fathom. It seems inconceivable that such an extraordinary offer (even if only mooted) would not have appeared in other sources; inconceivable that such a precedent, even if only discussed, would not have surfaced in the discussions of Sulla's unprecedented appointment (even if only as an example of such an option having been rejected);27 inconceivable that we are meant to take seriously that the whole Roman community would have turned, at this fractured moment, to Scipio, especially given the hostility manifest in some quarters.

Are we the recipients of a Ciceronian fabrication? It has been noted that in both the de re publica and the de oratore Cicero has chosen to locate his discussions of political

Firmicus Maternus (math. 1.7.39), probably taking his cue from Cicero, actually refers to Scipio's blameless performance as dictator (dictaturae inreprehensibiles actus). On the basis of Firmicus' apparent debt to Cicero, and the assumption of a dictatorship actually held, Powell (Cicero [as in n. 211 152) dismisses this evidence; cf. R. Montanari Caldini, "Cicerone, Firmico e la dittatura di Scipione Emiliano", Prometheus 10 (1984) 19-32 which Powell rejects as misguided (though it should be allowed that Caldini does not make this suggestion carelessly and is alert to the type of caveats that Powell will raise [26-27]). Her argument that Firmicus had access to a source independent of Cicero, as well as to Cicero, is sustained (27-30) and the suggestion that Firmicus had drawn on an explicit set of exempla contrasting Aemilianus and Sulla (30-31) is intriguing - though her acknowledgement of the likely rhetorical derivation of the item is likely to make scholars cautious of its use. It does perhaps, however, suggest that Aemilianus was spoken of in antiquity in association with the dictatorship (the historical actuality of which Caldini does not posit) beyond the pages of the de re publica - leaving open, of course, the possibility that such a discussion derived originally from words which Cicero has Aemilianus put into the mouth of Scipio Africanus.

26 Munzer (RE Cornelius 335 [col. 1457]; Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien [Stuttgart 1920/19631 100) accepted that such plans were seriously considered but remains remarkably uncited; see also Nicolet, De Republica (as in n. 11) 212-230; M. van den Bruwaene, "L'opposition a Scipion Emilien apres la mort de Tiberius Gracchus", Phoibos 5 (1950-1) 229-238, at 230; cf. Carcopino (Autour [as in n. 11] 87) (canvassing the possibility). Appian in his discussion of 133 BC (civ. 1.16) is certainly unaware of any mooted dictatorship in 129 (see below); see also K. Bilz (Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus [Stuttgart 1935]) making this point at 76-77 n. 212. A dictatorship for Scipio is also rejected by Astin, Scipio (as in n. 9) 240 n. 2; Werner, Die gracchischen Reformen (as in n. 13) 438-439 n. 90; Powell, Cicero (as in n. 21) 152; W. Kunkel/ R. Wittmann, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der romischen Republik. Die Magistratur Hand- buch der Altertumswissenschaft X, 3.2.2 (Munich 1995) 702. J. Evrard-Gillis ("Historicite et composition litteraire dans le Somnium Scipionis: quelques observations", AncSoc 8 [1977] 217- 222, at esp. 222 n. 21) is sceptical; so too J.E.G. Zetzel (ed.), Cicero. On the Commonwealth and On the Laws (Cambridge 1999) 96. Cicero may provide a distorting medium, but Cicero's portrait depicts Scipio's circle as attracted (through their study of the Greek world) to the concept of Pericles as princeps civitatis (rep. 1.25) - on the grounds, it must be noted, not of office but the qualities one would expect honourable principatus to be based upon: et auctoritate et eloquentia et consilio. To Scipio's admirers, again through Cicero, Scipio was homo divinus (Mur. 75). And Scipio, in his last years (and after the heady elevation that followed the destruction of two cities) was less inclined to underplay his own importance. Rome would not perish while Scipio stood (Plut. apophth. Scip. Min. 23 [= mor. 201F]). Q. Fabius Maximus took up this refrain in the funeral laudation. Rome was fortunate to have had Scipio born within; imperium would reside where Scipio did (Cic. Mur. 75; cf. Schol. Bob. p. 118 Stangl).

27 It would seem that Appian did not know of such a debate. He expresses surprise at civ. 1.16 that the Romans did not turn to a dictatorship in 133, asserting that the office did not come to the minds of the people "either at that time or later".



44 J. LEA BENESS

ideals in times of looming political crisis (an inspiration to which he adhered against advice to transfer the de re publica to a more believable contemporary setting).28 More than that, it has been observed that Cicero plays with the idea that the crisis might have been averted had the two great men respectively at the centre of the two dialogues, Aemilianus and Licinius Crassus, lived. The pessimistic thesis emerges, understanda- ble in the context of the fifties, that fortune conspired so that the best counsel available was thwarted from saving Rome - wisdom was not proof against historical accident. Reason was thwarted by fate. Prior historical judgments (that the physical removal of Scipio had been disastrous to the Roman state) may have prompted Cicero to this theme (or subsequently been influenced by him).29 Whether Crassus, had he lived, would have prevented the war with the Italian allies is debatable, but it was not, according to Cicero's own testimony, Scipio's death which prevented him from acting in a way which might have saved the Roman state; it was the opposition of his senatorial opponents. Cicero the historian has undermined the philosophical dramatist - and must be listened to all the more for the fact that the item uncovered by his historical research undercuts his overarching, imposed theme (i.e., of the pivotal deaths). At rep. 1.31 (where Cicero has Laelius speaking of the Roman people being split into two by Tiberius Gracchus' death and the whole character of his tribunate) is embedded a circumstantial detail which ought not to be too casually dismissed and which has received scant attention in modem discussions.30 Before his death (according to the words Cicero put into the mouth of Laelius) Scipio had been prevented from "coming to (the State's) aid" by P. Mucius (Scaevola) and Metellus (almost certainly Macedon- icus). Their opposition was weighty.31 Mucius (cos. 133, and respected jurist) was now pontifex maximus and Macedonicus was consularis, censorius and triumphator, not to mention augur. Cicero has Laelius say that these two men, having taken up the mantles of Ap. Claudius Pulcher and P. Licinius Crassus Mucianus, lead the obstruction to the 'uniquely qualified Scipio' so that he is not suffered to succour Rome in its 'clear and present danger' (with all the nuances of military relief carried in the word subvenire):

28 Cic. ad Q. fr. 3.5, 6.1-2. 29 See, for example, Liv. perioch. 59: defuncto eo acrius seditiones triumvirales exarserunt; cf. Dio

24, frag. 84.1-2. Orosius (5.10.9) has possibly imbibed the Ciceronian proposition to such an extent that he conflates Scipio and Crassus when he says that had Scipio survived Rome might have been spared the bellum sociale and bellum ciuile.

30 It seems to have been noticed by Munzer (Romische Adelsparteien [as in n. 26] 262-263) with his usual perspicacity but it is a point little noticed by others who are intent on the question of whether or not a dictatorship was being mooted. Montanari Caldini (Cicerone [as in n. 25] 19 n. 2) draws attention to the passage in an attempt to vindicate Nicolet's firm belief in the proposal of a dictatorship for Aemilianus but does not make the point which follows.

31 On the inimicitia between Aemilianus and Macedonicus, see esp. Val. Max. 4.1.12 and Astin, Scipio (as in n. 9) 85, 312-315 (but cf. Mattingly [cited below] for an alternative dating for their encounter at the Cotta trial). L. Comelius Lentulus Lupus was likely appointed over Scipio as princeps senatus by the plebeian censors of 131-130, one of whom was Macedonicus (F.X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate [Stuttgart 1998] 186-187). Lupus was indeed Scipio's senior but the latter's achievements might have been expected to have outweighed this; so van den Bruwaene, L'opposition (as in n. 26) 235-236; Werner, Die gracchischen Reformen (as in n. 13) 438. It may well have been in 131 that Macedonicus successfully defended L. Aurelius Cotta against Aemilianus in a repetundae trial (H.B. Mattingly, "Scipio Aemilianus and the Legacy of Attalus III", LCM 10.8 [1985] 117-119; cf. E.S. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. [Cambridge, Mass. 19681 37-38 & Alexander, Trials [as in n. 2] 7 [no. 9] [both placing the case in 138]). On the opposition of Scaevola, see below.




obtrectatores autem et invidi Scipionis ... tenent ... senatus alteram partem dissidentem a vobis [sc. Scipio] auctore Metello et P. Mucio neque hunc [sc. Scipio again], qui unus potest, ... his tam periculosis rebus subvenire patiuntur. The passage, with reference to the obtrectatores Scipionis is often cited; but I would like to place emphasis on the final sentiment. What is it that Scipio is not permitted to do - by his (senatorial) enemies? The clear implication is that a proposal had been put forward by or concerning Aemilianus which these two men (at the head of many) had been able to block. It was not, I think, the emasculation, or partial emasculation, of the triumvirate's judicial powers. (That proposal, following Appian's narrative, had been successful; it belongs, in 129, to the period of Aemilianus' initial successes.)32 Laelius' reference to Scipio's ability to save Rome (and Scipio being the only man who could do so) refers to something else and something quite specific.33

32 pace M. Pani, "Potere di iudicatio e lavori della commissione agraria graccana dal 129 al 121 A.C.", AFLB 19-20 (1976-77) 131-146 & R.A. Bauman, Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics. A Study of the Roman Jurists in their Political Setting, 316-82 BC (Munich 1983) 275-277, 300. It is not impossible that if the conference 'reported' in the de re publica was historical it fell before the judicial powers of the triumvirs were assigned to consular jurisdiction. (Such a reconstruction, if required, would be enhanced by the claim of 'Laelius' in the de re publica that the allies were roused against Rome [ 1.31 and the feasibility of such timing given the fact that Tuditanus was, in all likelihood, still present at Rome for the celebration of the feriae Latinae.) That would allow, assuming that Cicero knew of Aemilianus' proposal conceming the powers of the triumviri (which is not unlikely), that 'Laelius' was speaking of some frustration in this regard. But it is unlikely that retrospectively Cicero represented Aemilianus as stymied in the senate with regard to an initiative which he knew to have been ultimately successful. The alternative is surely to suggest that Cicero invested his dramatic scene with too high a degree of immediate historicity (that is to say that he had his characters bewailing their frustration in front of a hurdle that he knew, but could hardly have expected even a highly sophisticated readership to recall, Aemilianus was on the point of clearing). Cicero must be referring to a more abiding (and final) obstruction. Such a conviction is strengthened by the clear impression that 'Laelius' is proposing that Aemilianus in himself is the solution. It is easier to believe that 'Laelius" reference to the disaffected allies, if not a careless anachronism, was meant to convey a sense of allied anger at injuries already done (and which could not be remedied, after the event, by the new consular jurisdiction over land distribution). It must be acknowledged that some scholars (for example, Pani and Bauman, as noted above), not without reason, hold to the view that Cic. rep. 1.31 refers to the defence against Aemilianus' attack on the judicial powers of the Gracchan commission but this is not an interpretation of the evidence which I find most persuasive.

33 Bilz (Die Politik [as in n. 26] 76-77) saw a determined oligarchic opposition to such enormous power (as something like the dictatorship might have represented) being handed over to "einer rucksichtslosen Personlichkeit" (whether or not the dictatorship was being officially mooted). Van den Bruwaene (L'opposition [as in n. 261 esp. 229) argues, as Bilz had assumed, that the opposition to Scipio was personal, more specifically that antagonism was generated amongst his kinsmen. There was certainly a personal element, but there can be discerned as above and with Nicolet (De Republica [as in n. 11] esp. 223-224), a political dimension - as Bilz puts it, a challenge to the oligarchy's very existence. Scipio was accused (however realistically) of aiming at tyranny. Appian (civ. 1.19) reports that Scipio's enemies claimed that Scipio was on the point of inaugurat- ing armed strife and bloodshed (raiuta & O6ot toi 11xutio)vo; icjav eX6poi Kat86Ovte; 0P6ov co; Xbc;at tov rpOicXou v6jov 0Xw 6teyvwKcwb; pkXot noXiw vin t@Qe C vo Aov 6vov spy aa- a6at; see J. Gohler, Rom und Italien. Die romische Bundesgenossenpolitik von den Anfangen bis zum Bundesgenossenkrieg [Breslau 1939/Aalen 19741 128 [identifying the echthroi with the senatorial opposition]; cf. Gabba [Appiani (as in n. 5)] 63). In what capacity would he do that? What was required, Nicolet (loc.cit.) suggests, was an appointment which would circumvent tribunician provocatio.



46 J. LEA BENESS

It need not have been a dictatorship - but quite plausibly some special appointment - perhaps in the light of Tuditanus' impending departure for Illyria.34 The absence of both consuls from Rome would perhaps have been the cause of anxiety with a crisis unfolding.35 Any proposal for some special office for Aemilianus was bound to require senatorial acquiescence.36 I repeat that the proposed solution need not have been a dictatorship for Aemilianus; but something had been proposed which provoked the strongest senatorial obstruction.37

Scaevola's opposition is likely to have been on constitutional or legal grounds.38 The situation may not have been exactly as Cicero has Laelius portray it at rep. 1.31. There, the emphasis is on the continuity of crisis from the time of Gracchus' tribunate:

The notion of Scipio's frustration (and subsequent sense of impotence) surfaces in the rumour that he had committed suicide because of a realization that he would not be able to effect what he had promised (App. civ. 1.20).

34 Appian (civ. 1. 19) suggests that Tuditanus quit Rome quite soon after his investiture with judicial powers, and in retrospect it is difficult not to see Aemilianus' proposal as cynically based upon the consul's expected absence (though Appian reports that Tuditanus was daunted by the magnitude of the task with which he was confronted). Was the departure 'impending'? This is to assume, of course, that Tuditanus was still in Rome 'as required' for the Latin Games. (Non-consular attendance at the feriae Latinae could produce senatorial outcry [Liv. 21.63.5 & 8 (217 BC)] and on the continuing importance of the consuls' attendance at the Latin Games even in the late Republic, H.H. Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic [Ithaca, New York 1981] 114.) On this occasion, however, a consular absence would have been convenient to those who wanted to see the Gracchan reform stymied. That is to say that although the presence of at least one of the consuls was expected at the feriae Latinae, on this occasion at least, the senate may have been willing to connive, or let pass without protest, the premature departure of the consul(s).

35 While the departure of Tuditanus might have seemed a neat short-term stratagem, with a crisis looming the absence of both consuls might have taken on a different complexion. M'. Aquillius had by all reports taken off to his province in great haste (Justin 36.4.10, suggesting that he wanted to eclipse his predecessor M. Perperna. Possibly, however, this had something to do with Perper- na's ultimately fatal illness [ibid., 36.4.11; Strab. 14.1.38; Eutr. 4.20; Oros. 5.10.5; cf. Val. Max. 3.4.5]). The exact timing of Aquillius' departure is unknown (cf. D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor I [Princeton 1950] 153 & E.V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon [Ithaca/London 1971] 158) but it appears to have been early in the consular year.

36 It might be noted that Cicero proposed in the de legibus (3.9) that the nomination of a dictator required the assent of the senate and W.W. How ("Cicero's Ideal in his De Republica", JRS 20 [1930] 24-42, at 32) rightly highlights this as a departure from custom; but it is highly likely that as a matter of routine a consul, to whom custom gave the sole power to nominate a dictator (Liv. 22.8.5-6; see also Kunkel/Wittmann, Staatsordnung [as in n. 26] 668-670), acted on the authority of senatorial counsel (and on the very occasion where Livy records a departure, under emergency conditions from the custom [i.e., popular election], senatorial authority in the matter is made clear [22.8.7; cf. A.H.J. Greenidge, Roman Public Life (New York 1901/1970) 191-192 on senatorial involvement in the process]).

37 It might be worth noting that a garbled extract from what appears to be Dio's account of 129 by a Byzantine excerptor (Excerpta Valesiana 73 = Dio 24, frag. 84.1) speaks of Scipio pursuing philotimia more than was in keeping with his character.

38 See the excellent discussion of R.A. Bauman, "Five Pronouncements by P. Mucius Scaevola", RIDA 25 (1978) 223-245; also T.P. Wiseman, "A Note on P. Mucius Scaevola", Athenaeum 48 (1970) 152-153; A.H. Bernstein, "Prosopography and the Career of Publius Mucius Scaevola", CPh 67 (1972) 42-46 (all essentially arguing that Scaevola's behaviour was govemed by adher- ence to juristic principle); cf. E.S. Gruen, "The Political Allegiance of P. Mucius Scaevola", Athenaeum 43 (1965) 321-332 (characterising Scaevola, wrongly in my view, as a political opportunist).




the death of Gracchus and manner of his tribunate split the people into two, and Scipio's enemies at first led by Mucianus and Claudius (i.e., foremost Gracchan associates), and now led by Metellus Macedonicus and Scaevola, hold one part of the Senate in opposition to Scipio.

It suits the purpose of Laelius/Cicero to stress the obstruction to Scipio as the continuity of a crisis spawned by Gracchus' tribunate. But the identity of those now opposing Scipio indicates that the focus of the crisis may have changed. Macedonicus and Scaevola have succeeded Mucianus and Claudius (that much Cicero clearly wishes to emphasise). Mucianus and Claudius were open promoters of the Gracchan programme.39 Scaevola was not clearly a 'Gracchan' and Macedonicus almost certainly was not. (For Scaevola the evidence is problematic;40 with regard to Macedonicus there is clear evidence of opposition [see below].) For Scaevola and Macedonicus the problem might have been Scipio. The seamlessness of Cicero's presentation of the continuities from 133 to 129 may have distracted even the keenest of observers from noting the new source of crisis in the latter year. Briscoe elucidates this passage with great clarity, but cannot escape the Ciceronian picture that the present crisis "was closely connected with the events of 133".4' He is quite right to say that "the implication of this [passage] is that the murder of Gracchus became and remained an issue between Scipio and his opponents, and that the policy pursued by Gracchus during his tribunate was also a matter that divided them" (my italics).42 But that is not what the prosopography of 129 suggests to me. In the light of this passage (and this passage alone) Briscoe attempts to portray Macedonicus as a qualified supporter of the Grac- chan programme, which flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Macedonicus clearly opposed Gracchus in 133; we know of a speech delivered against Gracchus (Cic. Brut. 81) and we know of its likely content (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.4).43 No evidence suggests otherwise.44 Briscoe puts very clearly what a reading of the de re publica invites, but it was not only in his forensic speeches that Cicero could throw dust in the eyes of his audience. There is no evidence that Macedonicus was opposing Scipio as a supporter or defender of the Gracchan programme; and thus this passage, inadvert- ently perhaps, preserves for us a hint of the nature of the issue in 129.

39 Cic. ac. 2.13; Liv. perioch. 58; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9.1, 13.1, 21.1; Vell. 2.2.3; App. civ. 1 .13; and the relevant boundary stones listed in B. Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary JRS Monograph 9 (London 2000) 452-453. See also CIL 12 pt.2 fasc. 4 (1986), 923-925.

40 Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 9.1) only says he was consulted during the drafting of Gracchus' agrarian law; Cicero expresses doubt about Scaevola's involvement (ac. 2.13). For Scaevola's defence and commendation of Nasica's actions after the killing of Gracchus (Cic. dom. 91; Planc. 88), see the discussion of Bauman, Pronouncements (as in n. 38) 229-238; cf. Bernstein, Prosopography (as in n. 38) 44-45 (doubting Cicero's reliability in this case).

41 "Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus", JRS 64 (1974) 125-135, at 127. 42 ibid., 127-128. 43 = ORF3, Metellus Macedonicus, frags 2 & 3 (evidence which Briscoe cites). 44 Except a possible reading of rep. 1.31; "Cicero's language in the De Re Publica, however, forbids

us to assume that this episode (sc. Metellus' speech) marked a complete break between Metellus and Gracchus" (Briscoe, Supporters [as in n. 411 128). No evidence confirms this speech of Metellus as an aberration, or a divergence from Metellus' general stand. The suggestion of D. Stockton (The Gracchi [Oxford 1979] 81) that Macedonicus' censorial speech on population growth indicates that he was "basically in sympathy with the idea of agrarian reform" fails to convince.



48 J. LEA BENESS

It was the position of Scipio which was the nub of this debate. For Scipio and those who supported him that was an issue which had risen directly from the events of 133; for those who opposed him, Scipio's role in any forthcoming response to the crisis was a different matter altogether. But both friends and enemies probably saw Scipio's future actions as central. Laelius seems to have taken up the subject of Scipio's role in the laudatio which he wrote for Fabius in honour of Scipio: Quiapropter neque tanta diis inmortalibus gratia haberi potest, quanta habenda est, quod is cum illo animo atque ingenio hac e civitate potissimum natus est, neque moleste atque aegre ferri quam ferundum ... in eodem tempore periit cum et vobis et omnibus qui hanc rem publicam salvam volunt maxime vivo opus est, Quirites.45 The reference to the safety of the state and its relationship to Scipio's prosperity is striking,46 and in qui hanc rem publicam salvam volunt there is a clear echo of the words used by Scipio Nasica when inciting the vigilante action which resulted in the death of Tiberius Gracchus - and the formulaic language used in times of an emergency levy (an evocatio or what was to become labelled as an evocatio), which Nasica in his tum had taken up.47 The situation in 129 had also been seen to be critical.48 Something had been in the air with regard to Aemilianus and his potential role was highly contentious.

Macquarie University, Sydney J. Lea Beness

45 "Wherefore it is not possible to give sufficient thanks to the immortal gods for this above all, that he, endowed with that mind and with those talents, was born a citizen of this state; nor is it possible to feel sufficient distress and bitterness that ... he has perished in that very season when both you, citizens of Rome, and all who desire the safety of this state had most need of him alive." (ORF3, Laelius, frag. 22 = Schol. Bob. p. 118 Stangl [trans. Astin]; cf. ORF3, Laelius, frag. 23 = Cic. Mur. 75) The most corrupt section is omitted as it is in Astin's translation (Scipio [as in n. 91 243-244, 244 n. 1; cf. Badian, Review [as in n. 19] 220 = Studies 249). See H.I. Flower (Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture [Oxford 1996] 142) on these concluding comments as the climax of the laudatio funebris. Cf. Cic. de orat. 2.341 (Q. Tuberoni Africanum avunculum laudanti scripsit C. Laelius), a possible slip on Cicero's part (cf. F. MIunzer, RE Cornelius 335 [col. 14601).

46 Though salvam has been interpolated by a second hand - but see Werner, Die gracchischen Reformen (as in n. 13) 421 (who would retain it).

47 On evocatio, see Serv. Aen. 7.614: Nam ad subitum bellum evocabantur, unde etiam consul solebat dicere 'qui rem publicam salvam esse vult me sequatur'; cf. 8.1. For modern discussions, see, for example, F. de Martino, Storia della costituzione romana 2.2 (Naples 1955) 426; A.W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968) 91; W. Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 1995) 61. For Scipio Nasica's words, see Val. Max. 3.2.17: qui rem publicam salvam esse volunt me sequantur.

48 And, as de Martino (Storia [as in n. 47] 426) has remarked, the optimates had shown that the language of emergency could be used against internal enemies.



scipio aemilianus and the crisis of 129 b.c

Documents