Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 23 - Chapter 14

<w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Apo%2Fplios">Πόπλιος</w> <w lemma="filodoch%2Fsas">φιλοδοξήσας</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="a%29ristokratikw%3D%7C">ἀριστοκρατικῷ</w> <w lemma="politeu%2Fmati">πολιτεύματι</w> <w lemma="thlikau%2Fthn">τηλικαύτην</w> <w lemma="periepoih%2Fsato">περιεποιήσατο</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fxlois">ὄχλοις</w> <w lemma="eu%29%2Fnoian">εὔνοιαν</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="sunedri%2Fw%7C">συνεδρίῳ</w> <w lemma="pi%2Fstin">πίστιν</w> <w lemma="w%28%2Fst%27">ὥστ᾽</w>,

<w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="dh%2Fmw%7C">δήμῳ</w> <w lemma="kri%2Fnein">κρίνειν</w> <w lemma="tino%5Cs">τινὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29pibalome%2Fnou">ἐπιβαλομένου</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fqh">ἔθη</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="polla%5C">πολλὰ</w> <w lemma="kathgorh%2Fsantos">κατηγορήσαντος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pikrw%3Ds">πικρῶς</w>, <w lemma="a%29%2Fllo">ἄλλο</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29qe%5Cn">οὐθὲν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dpe">εἶπε</w> <w lemma="proelqw%2Fn">προελθών</w>,

<w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffh">ἔφη</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pre%2Fpon">πρέπον</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="dh%2Fmw%7C">δήμῳ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="ou%29qeno%5Cs">οὐθενὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29kou%2Fein">ἀκούειν</w> <w lemma="kathgorou%3Dntos">κατηγοροῦντος</w> <w lemma="%2Apopli%2Fou">Ποπλίου</w> <w lemma="%2Akornhli%2Fou">Κορνηλίου</w> <w lemma="%2Askipi%2Fwnos">Σκιπίωνος</w>, <w lemma="di%27">δι᾽</w> <w lemma="o%28%5Cn">ὃν</w> <w lemma="au%29th%5Cn">αὐτὴν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="le%2Fgein">λέγειν</w> <w lemma="e%29cousi%2Fan">ἐξουσίαν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxousin">ἔχουσιν</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="kathgorou%3Dntes">κατηγοροῦντες</w>.

<w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="a%29kou%2Fsantes">ἀκούσαντες</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="polloi%5C">πολλοὶ</w> <w lemma="paraxrh%3Dma">παραχρῆμα</w> <w lemma="dielu%2Fqhsan">διελύθησαν</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29kklhsi%2Fas">ἐκκλησίας</w>, <w lemma="a%29polipo%2Fntes">ἀπολιπόντες</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="kathgorou%3Dnta">κατηγοροῦντα</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w>. —

<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Apo%2Fplios">Πόπλιος</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="sunedri%2Fw%7C">συνεδρίῳ</w> <w lemma="xrei%2Fas">χρείας</w> <w lemma="pote%5C">ποτὲ</w> <w lemma="xrhma%2Ftwn">χρημάτων</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fshs">οὔσης</w> <w lemma="ei%29%2Fs">εἴς</w> <w lemma="tina">τινα</w> <w lemma="katepei%2Fgousan">κατεπείγουσαν</w> <w lemma="oi%29konomi%2Fan">οἰκονομίαν</w>, <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tami%2Fou">ταμίου</w> <w lemma="dia%2F">διά</w> <w lemma="tina">τινα</w> <w lemma="no%2Fmon">νόμον</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="fa%2Fskontos">φάσκοντος</w> <w lemma="a%29noi%2Fcein">ἀνοίξειν</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="tamiei%3Don">ταμιεῖον</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnhn">ἐκείνην</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="h%28me%2Fran">ἡμέραν</w>, <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffh">ἔφη</w> <w lemma="labw%5Cn">λαβὼν</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="klei%3Ds">κλεῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29noi%2Fcein:">ἀνοίξειν·</w>

<w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="ai%29%2Ftios">αἴτιος</w> <w lemma="gegone%2Fnai">γεγονέναι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="klei%2Fesqai">κλείεσθαι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="tamiei%3Don">ταμιεῖον</w>.

<w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="de%2F">δέ</w> <w lemma="pote">ποτε</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w> <w lemma="a%29paitou%3Dnto%2Fs">ἀπαιτοῦντός</w> <w lemma="tinos">τινος</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="sunedri%2Fw%7C">συνεδρίῳ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="xrhma%2Ftwn">χρημάτων</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Flabe">ἔλαβε</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxou">Ἀντιόχου</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="sunqhkw%3Dn">συνθηκῶν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="stratope%2Fdou">στρατοπέδου</w> <w lemma="misqodosi%2Fan">μισθοδοσίαν</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fxein">ἔχειν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffh">ἔφη</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="logismo%2Fn">λογισμόν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cn">αὐτὸν</w> <w lemma="u%28posxei%3Dn">ὑποσχεῖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29deni%5C">οὐδενὶ</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon:">λόγον·</w>

<w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pikeime%2Fnou">ἐπικειμένου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="keleu%2Fontos">κελεύοντος</w> <w lemma="fe%2Frein">φέρειν</w> <w lemma="h%29ci%2Fwse">ἠξίωσε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29delfo%5Cn">ἀδελφὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29negkei%3Dn:">ἐνεγκεῖν·</w> <w lemma="komisqe%2Fntos">κομισθέντος</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="bubli%2Fou">βυβλίου</w>, <w lemma="protei%2Fnas">προτείνας</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5C">αὐτὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kataspara%2Fcas">κατασπαράξας</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntwn">πάντων</w> <w lemma="o%28rw%2Fntwn">ὁρώντων</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29paitou%3Dnta">ἀπαιτοῦντα</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="zhtei%3Dn">ζητεῖν</w> <w lemma="e%29ke%2Fleuse">ἐκέλευσε</w>,

<w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fllous">ἄλλους</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Freto">ἤρετο</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="trisxili%2Fwn">τρισχιλίων</w> <w lemma="tala%2Fntwn">ταλάντων</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w> <w lemma="e%29pizhtou%3Dsi">ἐπιζητοῦσι</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="e%29dapanh%2Fqh">ἐδαπανήθη</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fnwn">τίνων</w>, <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="muri%2Fwn">μυρίων</w> <w lemma="kaqo%2Flou">καθόλου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pentakisxili%2Fwn">πεντακισχιλίων</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="par%27">παρ᾽</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxou">Ἀντιόχου</w> <w lemma="lamba%2Fnousin">λαμβάνουσιν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29ke%2Fti">οὐκέτι</w> <w lemma="zhtou%3Dsi">ζητοῦσι</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="ei%29sporeu%2Fetai">εἰσπορεύεται</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fnwn">τίνων</w>,

<w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29asi%2Fas">Ἀσίας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Alibu%2Fhs">Λιβύης</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fas">Ἰβηρίας</w> <w lemma="kekurieu%2Fkasin">κεκυριεύκασιν</w>.

<w lemma="w%28%2Fste">ὥστε</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w> <w lemma="kataplagh%3Dnai">καταπλαγῆναι</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntas">πάντας</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="zhth%2Fsanta">ζητήσαντα</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w> <w lemma="a%29posiwph%3Dsai">ἀποσιωπῆσαι</w>.

<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2Atau%3Dta">Ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="h%28mi%3Dn">ἡμῖν</w> <w lemma="ei%29rh%2Fsqw">εἰρήσθω</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="methllaxo%2Ftwn">μετηλλαχότων</w> <w lemma="a%29ndrw%3Dn">ἀνδρῶν</w> <w lemma="eu%29klei%2Fas">εὐκλείας</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fneken">ἕνεκεν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29piginome%2Fnwn">ἐπιγινομένων</w> <w lemma="parormh%2Fsews">παρορμήσεως</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kala%5C">καλὰ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Frgwn">ἔργων</w>. —

<head>Scipio</head>Publius Scipio, who pursued fame in an aristocratic state, gained so completely the affection of the people and the confidence of the senate

that when some one attempted to bring him to trial before the people according to the Roman practice, making many bitter accusations,

he said nothing more when he came forward to defend himself, but that it was not proper for the Roman people to listen to anyone who accused Publius Cornelius Scipio, to whom his accusers owed it that they had the power of speech at all.

All the people on hearing this at once dispersed, leaving the accuser alone.

Publius Scipio once in the senate when funds were required for an urgent outlay, and the quaestor owing to some law refused to open the treasury on that day, took the keys and said he would open it himself;

saying it was owing to him that it was shut.

On another occasion when some one in the senate asked him to render an account of the moneys he had received from Antiochus before the peace for the pay of his army, he said he had the account, but he was not obliged to render an account to anyone.

When the senator in question pressed his demand and ordered him to bring it, he asked his brother to get it; and, when the book was brought to him, he held it out and tore it to bits in the sight of every one, telling the man who had asked for it to search among the pieces for the account.

At the same time he asked the rest of the house why they demanded an account of how and by whom the three thousand talents had been spent, while they had not inquired how and by whose hands the fifteen thousand talents they were receiving from Antiochus were coming into the treasury,

nor how they had become masters of Asia, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Africa&groupId=300&placeId=294">Africa</a>, and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>.

So not only were all abashed, but he who had demanded the account kept silence.

I have related these anecdotes for the sake of the good fame of the departed and to incite their successors to achieve noble deeds.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

23.12.1 - 23.14.12

Death of Philopoemen: the characters of Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus This section, a combination of extracts from de uirt. et uit., de sent., and Suidas, belongs to res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, and was the basis of Livy, xxxix. 49–50 (see p. 15). That Philopoemen, Hannibal, <milestone unit="page" n="235">[235]</milestone> and Scipio died in the same year is a fact widely recorded (cf. Livy, xxxix. 50. 10; Iustin. xxxii. 4. 9; Diod. xxix. 18–21, by implication); that Livy and Diodorus mention the deaths in the same order as does P. shows that they drew on him. Clearly P. mentioned the Carthaginian and the Roman in the context of Philopoemen's death. The position of the fragments of P. shows the year in question to be Ol. 149, 2 (183/2), despite Livy, xxxix. 49–50, who puts Philopoemen's death in A.U.C. 571=183. It has been argued (cf. Niese, iii. 52 n. 4; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 246; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 389 n. 438) that this date must take precedence over that deduced from the order of the Polybian fragments, which could be out of place. But this argument ignores a decisive fact (cf. Aymard, tudes, 36), that here the order is confirmed by the coincidence of two separate selections. In the exc. de uirt. et uit. 10. 1–15 (on Philip's crimes and disasters) is followed by 12. 3–7 and 12. 8–9 (on Philopoemen) and by 13. 2 (on Hannibal) and 14. 1–4 (on Scipio), and in the exc. de sent. 10. 3 (on Philip's conscience), 10. 15–16 (on his treatment of his enemies' children), and 11. 1–8 (his address to his sons) are followed by 12. 3–6 (on Philopoemen) and 14. 5–12 (on Scipio). Thus a displacement of fragments is excluded, and there can be no doubt that P. described the three deaths under Ol. 149, 2 (183/2). Consequently it must be Livy who has brought forward the account of Philopoemen's death; and indeed in xxxix. 48. 6 Livy explains that he proposes to neglect causas et ordinem of the Messenian war as irrelevant to Roman affairs: but one euentus memorabilis, Philopoemen's death, is given in chs. 49–50 because of its dramatic interest (cf. Aymard, tudes, 22). At the end of the section Livy found it recorded in P. that Hannibal and Scipio, as well as Philopoemen, died eo anno (Livy, xxxix. 50. 10), and this probably led him to consult Claudius (Nissen, KU, 340), for it was no doubt from him that he drew the information that P. Rutilius Rufusthe consul of 105, whom he nowhere else quotes (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 387)had the same date for Scipio's death as had P. (Livy, xxxix. 52. 1). Such is the implication of the statement (Livy, xxxix. 50. 10) that 'ab scriptoribus rerum Graecis Latinisque tantum huic uiro (sc. Philopoemeni) tribuitur ut a quibusdam eorum uelut ad insignem notam huius anni memoriae mandatum sit tres claros imperatores eo anno decessisse, Philopoemenem, Hannibalem, P. Scipionem'; cf. Livy, xxxix. 52. 1, 'Scipionem et Polybius et Rutilius hoc anno mortuum scribunt.' Clearly the scriptores Latini are Rutilius; and Livy seems to imply, not only that, like P., he mentioned the deaths as occurring in the one year, but also (to judge from the following phrase: Livy, xxxix. 50. 11, 'adeo in aequo eum [sc. Philopoemenem] duarum potentissimarum gentium summis imperatoribus posuerunt') that he related this to Philopoemen's death. To what consulship Rutilius assigned this we <milestone unit="page" n="236">[236]</milestone> do not know, for Livy's repeated references to 'this year' apply of course to the year in which he has put Philopoemen's death, viz. A.U.C. 571 = 183; but it is very likely that Rutilius was following P. (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 391–2, against Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 484, who regarded Rutilius' datehe assumes it to be 183as important independent evidence for that year). Livy was, however, aware that the synchronism raised problems, which is no doubt why he consulted Claudius. For earlier, following Valerius Antias (Livy, xxxviii. 50. 5) he had put Scipio's death in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 53. 8), and added (Livy, xxxviii. 56. 1–2): 'non de accusatore conuenit . . . non de tempore quo dicta dies sit, non de anno, quo mortuus sit, non ubi mortuus aut elatus sit.' He could therefore be convicted of inconsistency if he followed P. in putting Scipio's death in the year of Philopoemen's without comment. Hannibal's death raised no problem; and Livy, xxxix. 51 probably follows P. (cf. Nissen, KU, 227 ff.) in his account of Flamininus' embassy to Prusias' court. P. had related the early stages of this embassy in connection with Deinocrates (5. 14 n.), but he seems to have related its later stages in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> in connection with Philopoemen's death instead of in its normal place in res Asiae; this fits the attested displacement of Hannibal's and Scipio's deaths from res Asiae and res Italiae to that position. (Livy does not commit himself on the question whether Flamininus or the Senate had decided to hunt Hannibal down; if the attribution of responsibility to Flamininus (cf. Plut. Flam. 20. 2–3; App. Syr. 11; Paus. viii. 11. 11) was in P. (so De Sanctis, iv. 1. 259 n. 44; cf. Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (2)', col. 1103), he could have altered this.) Flamininus left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> late in 183, reaching <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> either just before or after Philopoemen entered on his generalship in autumn 183 (5. 15 n.); hence his arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> was at the earliest well into autumn 183, and Hannibal's death, whether then or in 182, would fall under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2. Nepos, Hann. 13. 1 records that 'quibus consulibus interierit, non conuenit'; for Atticus put his death under M. Claudius Marcellus and Q. Fabius Labeo (183), P. under L. Aemilius Paullus and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus (182) and an unknown Sulpicius Blitho under P. Cornelius Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus (181). The last is clearly wrong; but although it is unlikely that P. specifically assigned Hannibal's death to a consulship, 182 would be the normal equivalent of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2. With Scipio Livy had more difficulties; and he therefore gave reasons for rejecting the dates of both P. (and Rutilius) and Valerius Antias (despite his earlier acceptance of his date in Livy, xxxviii. 53. 8). Valerius' date of 187 was ruled out because Scipio's accuser was M. Naevius, tribune in 184 (Livy, xxxix. 52. 3), 'aduersus quem oratio inscripta P. Africani est'. Against P. and Rutilius was the fact <milestone unit="page" n="237">[237]</milestone> that the censors M. Porcius Cato and L. Valerius Flaccus, who entered office in 184 after the consuls of that year had left for their provinces (Livy, xxxix. 41. 5), and so about April, recorded L. Valerius as princeps senatus, though in the previous two lustra P. Scipio had held the position. Only a nota of disgrace could have caused P. Scipio's removal during his lifetime; and as none is recorded, there was none. Hence P. Scipio must have died before the censors took office. That a princeps senatus normally held that rank until he died, unless disgraced, has been confirmed by Willems, i. 245; cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 387. But Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 488–9, points out that, although the senatorial list was normally made up at the beginning of a censorship, revision could continue until its end, and in the case of a death, would do so; thus Scipio could have been princeps senatus in early 184 and having died before the 18 months' censorship was over have been replaced in the final official list by L. Valerius. This enables his death to have taken place at any time between April 184 and October 183. Scullard, Pol. 152 n. 1, assumes that it was in 183, and if he in fact died after August 183, his death would fall under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, which would fit P.'s synchronism. A difficulty arises because of Cicero, de sen. 19, which contains some precise but confused chronological statements (almost certainly drawn from Atticus' Liber annalis; cf. Mnzer, Hermes, 1905, 61 f.; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 142–3). The dramatic date of the dialogue is 150, and Cato is made to say that Scipio 'cuius a morte tertius hic et tricesimus annus est . . . anno ante me censorem (184/3) mortuus est, nouem annis post meum consulatum (195)'. The thirtythird year before 150 is 183, the year before 184 is 185, and nine years after 195 bring one to 186. Cicero cannot have written such a jumble of nonsense, and it looks as if some of the figures have suffered textual corruption (so Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 388), though the manuscripts reveal no trace. The first date, 183, would fit Nepos' statement that Atticus put Hannibal's death in 183; but the only phrase in which corruption would be unlikely to occur is the statement that Scipio died anno ante me censorem (so Fraccaro, loc. cit.), which supports 185 or early 184 for his death: which brings us back into Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4. The discrepancy supports Livy's statement that there were discordant views current about the date of Scipio's death, but it does not invalidate the conclusion reached concerning the date assigned to this by P. For Cicero (or Atticus) could well have reached his date by some such argument as that set out in Livy, xxxix. 52. 1–2 (L. Valerius princeps senatus), and that, as we have seen, is indecisive. Summing up, it has been argued that P.'s synchronism referred to Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, and that this is met by dating Scipio's death <milestone unit="page" n="238">[238]</milestone> before Oct. 183, Hannibal's late in 183 or early in 182, and Philopoemen's in May or June 182 (cf. Paus. iv. 29. 11, <w lang="el-GR">περὶ ἀκμὴν σίτου)</w>; that Livy in his references to 'this year' means the year of Philopoemen's death, which however, through his displacement of the chapters describing it, is A.U.C. 571 = 183 to him; but that in Livy xxxix. 52. 1–2 an attempt is made to substitute 185 for Scipio's death. Both Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. ii. 391) and Hoffmann (Hermes, 1938, 246) argue that by 'a year' P. may mean 'a period of twelve months', and Errington, 245, envisages this. It is more likely that the year is the olympiad year in which Philopoemen died; but Fraccaro (Opuscula, i. 391–2) rightly observes that P.'s purpose in this synchronism is to raise Philopoemen's glory to a level comparable with that of Hannibal and Scipio, and that he is unlikely to have been over-scrupulous, if he needed to stretch his year a month or two especially as his 'olympiad year' was in practice a somewhat flexible period. It is then at least possible that Scipio's death fell a little, though hardly much, before August, 183. See Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 482–7; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 385–92; Aymard, tudes, 22, 35–39; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 244–8; Scullard, Pol. 152 n. 1; Scipio Soldier, 240 n. 179; Errington, 241–5.

23.14.1 - 23.14.12

Three anecdotes concerning P. Scipio: P. relates these to illustrate Scipio's character, after mentioning his death in connection with Philopoemen's, and after discussing the character of the <milestone unit="page" n="242">[242]</milestone> other two men (cf. 12. 1–14. 12 n.). The anecdotes are at 14. 1–4, 14. 5–6, and 14. 7–11, and their source is uncertain. On Scipio P. used many sourcesfamily tradition, C. Laelius (x. 3. 2, cf. x. 2. 1–20. 8 n.), perhaps the 'historia . . . Graeca scripta dulcissime' (Cic. Brut. 77) of Africanus' son, and the unnamed sources mentioned in x. 2. 3. In addition there were already collections of stories (similar to those about Cato in Plut. Cato mai. 8–9) circulating and P. may have drawn on such a collection for these anecdotes (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 271–2). P. appears not to have dealt separately in his Histories with the trials of the Scipios (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 421; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 268 n. 14).

23.14.1 - 23.14.4

First anecdote: Scipio's reply when standing trial.

23.14.5 - 23.14.6

Second anecdote: Scipio says he will open the treasury. For this anecdote cf. Livy, xxxviii. 55. 13; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1; Plut. Mor. 196 F no. 9; both Livy and Valerius Maximus quote it as an example of his fiducia sui or fiducia animi. The incident must belong to Scipio's second consulship (195), for it is unthinkable that he would demand the keys from the quaestor while priuatus (so Val. Max. iii. 7. 1); cf. Scullard, Scipio Soldier, 194; von Fritz, Constitution, 437 n. 15; Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 132 n. 2.

23.14.7 - 23.14.11

Third anecdote: Scipio tears up the accounts in the Senate. See also Gell. iv. 18. 7–12; Diod. xxix. 27; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1. The story belongs to the first episode in the campaign of the Scipios' enemies and probably dates to 187, since according to Gellius the demand came from the tribunes Petillii (who are mentioned by Valerius Antias ap. Livy, xxxviii. 50. 5, as leading the prosecution of Africanus, which Antias falsely dated to that year: above, 12. 1– 14. 12 n.), suborned by Cato. The likelihood is that the campaign was directed against L. Scipio, who as commander was legally responsible, but that Africanus intervened (Scullard, Pol. 292; Scipio Soldier, 216–17); also that after Africanus' action the matter was dropped. According to Gell. iv. 18. 7, Scipio was required to render account 'pecuniae Antiochinae praedaeque in eo bello captae'; but it is unlikely (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 281–2; contra Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 426 ff.) that the mention of booty is genuine, for a general was under no obligation to account for this. The real issue seems to have been whether the 500 talents paid as a preliminary instalment by Antiochus (cf. xxi. 17. 5) counted as public money or, as Scipio claimed, as praeda (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 443; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 367–8; Scullard, Pol. 292–3), and the phrase added in Gellius seems to derive from an annalist. At this stage the issue does not appear to have involved any charge of misuse of funds, but was one of definitions and procedure.

Specifics

23.14.1 - 23.14.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Πόπλιος φιλοδοξήσας ἐν ἀριστοκρατικῷ πολιτεύματι</w>:</emph> 'who pursued fame in an aristocratic state' (in contrast to Philopoemen, 12. 8 n.). This must be the sense, rather than Schweighaeuser, 'cum optimatum partes in republica esset amplexus'.

23.14.2 - 23.14.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν . . . τῷ δήμῳ κρίνειν τινὸς ἐπιβαλομένου</w>:</emph> Gellius (iv. 18. 3–6), probably drawing on Nepos, as in Gell. vi. 19 (cf. Nissen, KU, 214) gives as his accuser the tribune M. Naevius, and states that Scipio was accused of receiving money from Antiochus in return for obtaining an easier peace settlement 'et quaedam item alia . . . indigna tali uiro'. Scipio observed that it was the anniversary of Zama and invited the whole assemblage to accompany him to the Capitol to give thanks to Iuppiter. Gellius adds that Scipio's speech was extant (though believed by some to be a forgery). Livy, xxxviii. 50. 5–51. 14, has a version derived from Valerius Antias, which makes the accusers two men, the Q. Petillii, and contains much falsification. See also Val. Max. iii. 7. 1; App. Syr. 40; Dio, xix, fg. 63; Zon. ix. 20; Diod. xxix. 21; Plut. Cato mai. 15; Mor. 196 F no. 10; de uir. ill. 49. 17. The reality of this trial has been queried (as by De Sanctis, iv. 1. 591–8), and when accepted some scholars would date it to 187 and others to 184 (to fit Naevius' tribunate: Livy, xxxix. 52. 3–4). For discussion see Scullard, Pol. 298–303; Scipio Soldier, 210–24 (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 393–415), who makes a good case for accepting the trial and putting it in 184; it will have been the climax of Cato's attack, launched a little before or a little after his election to the censorship of that year. The charge against Africanus is not easily disentangled from the sources. P. says <w lang="el-GR">πολλὰ κατηγορήσαντος καὶ πικρῶς</w>, Gellius (iv. 18. 3–6) bribery to obtain a more favourable peace for Antiochus, Appian (Syr. 40) <w lang="el-GR">δωροδοκίας καὶ προδοσίας</w>; others mention the bribes, Antiochus' return of his son, his autocratic behaviour, res repetundae. Scullard, Pol. 302, suggests that the formal charge was proditio, and <milestone unit="page" n="243">[243]</milestone> that the case was heard in the comitia tributa (with a fine as the proposed sentence): but certainty is impossible. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολλὰ κατηγορήσαντος καὶ πικρῶς</w>:</emph> Diod. xxix. 21 paraphrases <w lang="el-GR">κατηγορούμενος . . . ὑπ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτῶν δεινῷ θανάτῳ</w> (going beyond P.).

23.14.3 - 23.14.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἄλλο μὲν οὐθὲν εἶπε προελθών</w>:</emph> this is decisive against the genuineness of the speech allegedly given on this occasion; cf. Gell. iv. 18. 6; Livy, xxxviii. 56. 1. Livy asserts that the index of P. Scipio's speech had the name of M. Naevius (though the speech itself did not mention him by name); the likelihood is that the forger took it from the annalists (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 273–8, 396–7; it is also mentioned in Val. Max. iii. 7. 1) and that it is genuine. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δι</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὃν αὐτὴν τὴν τοῦ λέγειν ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν</w>:</emph> i.e. by his victory at Zama; but the story that it happened to be the anniversary of the battle and that Scipio led the whole court to the Capitol is improbable. 'The annalists probably elaborated the reference to the "crowning mercy" of Zama implied in [Scipio's] words . . .; it would then be a short step to suggest that the accusation actually fell on the anniversary' (Scullard, Pol. 298–9). The Zama story is also in Val. Max. iii. 7. 1 and in Valerius Antias ap. Livy, xxxviii. 51. 7–12; cf. Plut. Mor. 196 F no. 10 (by implication).

23.14.4 - 23.14.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἱ πολλοὶ . . . διελύθησαν</w>:</emph> obviously exaggerated; those behind the accusation will have been unimpressed, and Fraccaro (Opuscula, i. 271) suggests that in fact Scipio and his clientela, along with some of the crowd, simply left the comitia. The result was less favourable to Scipio than the anecdote suggests; for he at once withdrew to Liternum (Livy, xxxviii. 52. 1), where he died soon after, probably in summer 183 (12. 1–14. 12 n.).

23.14.5 - 23.14.5

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">χρείας ποτὲ . . . εἴς τινα . . . οἰκονομίαν</w>:</emph> other sources are equally vague; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7. 1, 'cum ad necessarium rei publicae usum pecuniam ex aerario promi opus esset . . .' <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ δὲ ταμίου διά τινα νόμον οὐ φάσκοντος κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Livy, xxxviii. 55. 13, contra legem. Consuls might spend money from the aerarium 'being accompanied by a quaestor who faithfully executes their instructions' (vi. 12. 8); but there is no evidence of such a right being exercised without a senatus consultum, and P. may here be in error (cf. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 214; Larsen, CP, 1957, 36 f., quoted in Vol. II, p. 646 addenda). Plut. Mor. 196 F no. 9 mentions a senatorial authorization: <milestone unit="page" n="244">[244]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">χρήματα δὲ τῆς συγκλήτου λαβεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ ταμιείου ψηφισαμένης</w>. What law prevented the quaestor from opening the treasury on a particular day is unknown. On the single quaestor in charge see Crawford, RRC, i. 313 no. 299. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">λαβὼν τὰς κλεῖς</w>:</emph> according to Dio, xli. 17. 2 (Caesar's demand that the aerarium be opened in 49) the consuls had the key; but he is probably wrong (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 132 n. 2).

23.14.6 - 23.14.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αὐτὸς γὰρ αἴτιος . . . τοῦ κλείεσθαι τὸ ταμιεῖον</w>:</emph> cf. Plut. Mor. 196 F no. 9, <w lang="el-GR">καὶ γὰρ κλείεσθαι δι</w>f <w lang="el-GR">αὐτὸν πλήσαντα χρημάτων τοσούτων τὸ ταμιεῖον</w>. There the sense is clearerthat it is the wealth brought in by Scipio (from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>) that has made it necessary to lock the doors.

23.14.7 - 23.14.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">λόγον ἀπαιτοῦντός τινος ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ</w>:</emph> for the vagueness, probably due to his source, see 14. 2; cf. Gell. iv. 18. 7, 'Petillii quidam tribuni plebis a M., ut aiunt, Catone, inimico Scipionis, comparati in eum atque immissi desiderabant in senatu instantissime, ut . . . rationem redderet.' The tribunes were entitled to raise any issue of public concern, and this might lead on to an inquiry and possibly a prosecution before the people (Scullard, Pol. 292). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν χρημάτων ὧν ἔλαβε παρ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Ἀντιόχου κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Val. Max. iii. 7. 1, 'cum a L. Scipione ex Antiochensi pecunia sestertii quadragies ratio in curia reposceretur'. Here the demand is correctly made of Lucius, <milestone unit="page" n="245">[245]</milestone> not Publius; but 4,000,000 sesterces should be the equivalent of 166.6 talents (if a drachma is equated with a denarius; cf. vi. 39. 12–15 n.) which does not match the sums in question. L. Scipio had received 500 talents immediately, and it will be to this sum, incorrectly calculated, that Valerius refers; but the 4,000,000 sesterces are also in Livy, xxxviii. 55. 12 (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 422– 3 n. 18). Later (§ 9) P. mentions 3,000 talents, but this need not imply that the Senate had required L. Scipio to account for the whole of this sum: see ad loc. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἔχειν μὲν ἔφη τὸν λογισμόν</w>:</emph> inaccurate, since L. Scipio was in command; Gell. iv. 18. 8, tries to explain his possession of the accounts by saying that he had been his brother's legatus, which was true but does not explain why he had them; he then distorts the incident by making Africans say that he had brought them to read out and then deposit in the aerarium'sed enim id iam non faciam'! Valerius Maximus rightly makes L. Scipio produce them. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὐ δεῖν . . . ὑποσχεῖν οὐδενὶ λόγον</w>:</emph> this was the issue: Scipio claimed that the payment counted as praeda (cf. 7–11 n.). As far as is known, the issue had not previously arisen (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 282–3), since hitherto no general had collected part of an indemnity and used it for his own (legitimate) purposes.

23.14.8 - 23.14.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἠξίωσε τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐνεγκεῖν</w>:</emph> in reality he had it (see above). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατασπαράξας</w>:</emph> cf. Gell. iv. 18. 11, 'statim coram discidit suis manibus et concerpsit'; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1, 'discerpsit, indignatus de ea re dubitari, quae sub ipso legato administrata fuerat.'

23.14.9 - 23.14.9

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν μὲν τρισχιλίων ταλάντων</w>:</emph> this comprised the 500 talents paid to L. Scipio (xxi. 17. 5) and the 2,500 collected by Cn. Manlius (xxi. 41. 8); hence, unless P. (or his source) has made a mistake, there must have been some discussion of Manlius' use of the money too (cf. Livy, xxxix. 6. 3–9, where the lateness of his triumph is ascribed to his fear of becoming entangled in the Scipionic disasterperhaps a dubious assertion (Scullard, Pol. 144 n. 2), but one at least which shows that tradition knew him to be under suspicion). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν δὲ μυρίων . . . καὶ πεντακισχιλίων</w>:</emph> cf. xxi. 17. 4, 43. 19 (12,000 after the preliminary 3,000 had been paid).

23.14.10 - 23.14.10

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ἀσίας . . . Λιβύης . . . Ἰβηρίας</w>:</emph> i.e. the Second Punic War and the war with Antiochus; but <w lang="el-GR">Ἀσίας . . . Λιβύης . . . κεκυριεύκασιν</w> is a loose expression to describe the situation at this time; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7. 1, 'cum Africam totam potestati uestrae subiecerim'. <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Africa&groupId=300&placeId=294">Africa</a> could be said to have been mastered in so far as the Carthaginians had been defeated on their home ground; but it was no more a Roman possession than was Asia. See Gelzer, Kl. Schr. ii. 5. P. does not discuss the further attack on L. Scipio culminating in his trial; see for details Scullard, Pol. 293–8, arguing, with Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 376–7, for dating the trial of L. Scipio in 187. The whole <milestone unit="page" n="246">[246]</milestone> question, including the details and outcome of the trial, is controversial.

23.14.12 - 23.14.12

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς . . . τῶν μετηλλαχότων ἀνδρῶν</w>:</emph> i.e. Philopoemen, Hannibal, and P. Scipio. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εὐκλείας ἕνεκεν καὶ τῆς . . . παρορμήσεως πρὸς τὰ καλὰ τῶν ἔργων</w>:</emph> on the moral lessons of history see Vol. I, pp. 6–7.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary