Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:19:00.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scipio Aemilianus' Eastern Embassy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Harold B. Mattingly
Harold B. Mattingly
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The famous eastern tour of inspection undertaken by Scipio Aemilianus, L. Metellus Calvus and Sp. Mummius is now generally dated 140/39 b.c., where Diodorus seems to put it. The accepted view, however, involves discounting an explicit statement by Cicero. It also presents historical difficulties. In 140 b.c. there was no need for such a high-powered Roman initiative, and scholars can discover only very minor political results. Sherwin-White indeed criticised the envoys severely, especially Scipio; they were culpably blind to the new menace of Parthia, which was steadily dismembering the Seleucid Empire east of the Euphrates. This is fair criticism only on the 140/39 b.c. dating. Did Scipio and his colleagues fail to see what is patent to us today? It is time to reexamine rigorously the underlying assumption.

In Acad. prior. 2.5 Cicero defends a Roman noble's love of Greek learning in the following terms:

ego autem cum Graecas litteras M. Catonem in senectute didicisse acceperim, P. autem Africani historiae loquantur in legatione illa nobili, quam ante censuram obiit, Panaetium unum omnino comitem fuisse, nec litterarum Graecarum nee philosophiae iam ullum auctorem requiro.

The date of the embassy must be 144/3 b.c., if we follow the logic of this passage. Scipio was censor with L. Mummius in 142/1 b.c. and their public quarrel was hardly less notable than the embassy, in which L. Mummius' brother shared. Another Ciceronian passage – written some six years earlier – seems to contradict the dating offered in 45 b.c. In de republica 6.11 the elder Africanus prophesies his grandson's future greatness in the famous dream:

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , December 1986 , pp. 491 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an earlier generation of scholars see Marx, F., RhM 39 (1884), 68–71Google Scholar and Lucilius (Leipzig, 1905), ii.171–4Google Scholar; Unger, G. F., Philologus 55 (1896), 97–9Google Scholar; Münzer, F., Klio 5 (1905), 135–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the most thorough recent study along lines laid by these men see Astin, A. E., CPh 54 (1959), 221–7Google Scholar. Only Justin (38.8.8) gives the envoys' names, but Cicero (de rep. 3.48) confirms Sp. Mummius.

2 See Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), pp. 127, 138f. and 177Google Scholar; Gruen, E. S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, 1984), pp. 280, 669 and 714fGoogle Scholar. Recognising rightly the importance of the embassy Astin can show only that Scipio probably helped somehow with the accession of Antiochos VII and Attalos III.

3 Roman Foreign Policy in the East (London, 1984), pp. 57f. and 82fGoogle Scholar. For Parthian expansion see le Rider, G., Suse sous les Seleucides… (1965), pp. 369fGoogle Scholar. (Ekbatana was lost c. 147, Seleukeia c. 144, Babylon in 141 and Mesopotamia soon after 140).

4 Scipio and Sp. Mummius were both away or busy in 146/5 and Scipio was still in Rome at the beginning of 144 (Val. Max. 6.4.2); L. Metellus must have been back in Rome in summer or autumn 143, when he was elected consul for the following year. See on all this Broughton, , Magistrates i.467–76Google Scholar. On these grounds Astin (op. cit. (n. 1), 221 and 226) rightly rejected Cavaignac, E.'s 143/2 dating for the embassy (RN Ser. V, 13 (1951), 131–8Google Scholar). Cavaignac's case otherwise deserved more respect than it has received, since he handled the numismatic evidence impressively. I here acknowledge my own debt. For Panaitios' presence see also ‘Plutarch’, Apophth. Scipionis Min. 13. Polybios visited Ptolemy VIII in Alexandria on another occasion without Scipio. See Walbank, , Commentary i.5 n. 11 and iii.630 and 749fGoogle Scholar. In 144 he must still have been busy helping to stabilise and organise Greece after the Mummian settlement.

5 For the date of the Academica see Cic. ad Att. 13.13–14; 19.1; 25.3 and 32.3. For the de republica (summer 51 b.c.) see ad Att. 5.12.2 and Ad fam. 8.1.4 (Caelius). Gerlach, F. D. pressed the de republica passage rather too far for chronological sequence (Hist. Stud. 1884, p. 222)Google Scholar; he assumed from absens that Scipio was still abroad on the embassy in summer 135, when elected to his second consulship! He was followed by Neumann, K. J. H., Hist. Rom. (1881), p. 151Google Scholar and Marx, , Stud. Lucil. (1882), p. 81Google Scholar. Marx, wisely changed his mind later, RhM 39 (1884), 70Google Scholar.

6 See ad Att. 13.30.2 and 32.3 with 33.3 (also letters 4.1, 5.1 and 6.4) on the decem legati at Corinth in 145; 12.5b and 16 with 16.13 a(b).2 on the two C. Fannii and other figures in the 140s; ad Att. 12.23.2 for the Athenian philosophers' embassy to Rome in 155 b.c. (needed for the Academica itself). For good discussions of Cicero at work in this way and of Atticus' reliability see Badian, E., Hommages à M. Renard i.54–65Google Scholar; Shackleton-Bailey, D. R., Cicero's Letters to Atticus v. 320 (on 12.23.2), 349, 359f. and 400–3 (the Fannii)Google Scholar; Sumner, G. V., Orators in Cicero's Brutus (1973), pp. 161–76Google Scholar (all kinds of facts could be dug out).

7 Astin, op. cit. (n. 1), 226 n. 10.

8 Op. cit. (n. 1), 223–6. In the excerpts de insidiis Tryphon's coup comes after the murder of Viriathus during Q. Caepio's proconsulship (Diod. 33.21 and 28). For the Livian tradition see Epit. 55, ‘Alexandri filius, rex Syriae, a Diodoto, qui Tryphon cognominabatur, tutors suo, per fraudem occisus est…’; Oxyrh. Epit. 55, ‘Diodotus Tryphon An[tioc]hum [regem occi]/dit Suriaque potitus est’. Josephos, also (Ant. Iud. 13.218)Google Scholar put Tryphon's coup after the capture of Demetrios II by the Patheians in 140.

9 See Diod. 33.28a and 28–9. Scholars reasonably agree that within each series of the Constantinian excerpts episodes are drawn in strict order from the full text of Diodoros. See Astin, op. cit. (n. 1), 222–5.

10 On Poseidonios' quality see Jacoby, F., FGr Hist 87 T 1–19Google Scholar with Kommentar, pp. 154–61; RE xxii, coll. 563–75, 623–41 (Reinhardt, K.)Google Scholar.

11 See Diod. 33.20 and Astin, op. cit. (n. 1), 224. In the excerpts de insidiis the coup immediately precedes the murder of Viriathus and in the de virtutibus el vitiis its failure follows that event. The date is secure.

12 Diod. 34/5.3. This follows in the excerpts a long passage detailing the outbreak of the Sicilian Slave War (ch. 2.42–8).

13 Diod. 33.28 (from de insidiis). Note the back-reference to Demetrios' captivity. Josephos, (AJ 13.218)Google Scholar and the Livian tradition (my n. 8) were misled and wrongly dated the coup itself.

14 Coins of Antiochos VI are known from Byblos and Ptolemais of Seleucid Year 171 (Oct. 142 – Sept. 141 b.c.). See Ben-Dor, Stella, Pal. Expl. Quart. 1946/1947, 43f.Google Scholar; le Rider, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 370 n. 2. The latest dated Antioch coins are of Sel. 170 = 143/2 b.c., but undated drachms with TRY and Tryphon's horned helmet reverse could go with the rare Phoenician pieces as Antioch's final issue (Newell, , Seleucid Mint of Antioch (1918), p. 70)Google Scholar. I Maccab. 13.31–42 dates Tryphon's coup Sel. 170 = Year I of Simon as High Priest (see also Joseph, . AJ 13.213Google Scholar). Jews, however, used the Babylonian year for Jewish events and so Sel. 170 here = April 142 – March 141 b.c. See on this Bickerman, E. J., Der Gott der Makkabäer (1938), pp. 155–8Google Scholar and Chronology of the Ancient World 2 (1968), p. 71Google Scholar; le Rider, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 361f. Rare tetradrachms of Herakleia by Latmos and Lebedos were found counter-marked with Tryphon's helmet in a hoard from Aleppo, (IGGH 1562Google Scholar: see Newell, , NNM 82 (1938), pp. 21–4Google Scholar). This should represent Tryphon's very first money, as Newell argued, and the hoard should be dated 142 b.c. by comparison with the hoard from Kirikhan (Cilicia) of very similar composition (see Coin Hoards i.87 and ii.90).

15 See Diod. 33.28. On the coinage and the overall chronology see Seyrig, H., NNM 119 (1950), pp. 3–11Google Scholar: Antiochos VII struck at both Antioch and Tyre in 139/8 b.c. I Maccab. 14.1–3 and 15.1–14, 25 and 37 with 39 fit the numismatic chronology very well. Tryphon, abandoning the Seleucid era, has four dated years of coinage (142–139 b.c.). Baldus, H. tried valiantly to reconcile the numismatic evidence for Tryphon with the literary evidence as a whole (JNG 20 (1970), 217–39)Google Scholar: he postulated a prolonged joint reign of Tryphon and Antiochos VI from 142 b.c, marked by the drachms with the helmet reverse type. Fischer, T. has, I think, demonstrated that this solution of the problem is not viable (Chiron 2 (1972), 201–13)Google Scholar.

16 See Diod. 33.20 and 22 with my n. 11; Astin, op. cit. (n. 1), 224.

17 See Polyb. 36.9.1 and 10 with Walbank, , Commentary iii.668–70Google Scholar; Diod. 31.40a and 32.15 (note περ⋯ αὐτo⋯ πάλιν ἂλλως ⋯ διήγησις); Livy, , Epit. 48Google Scholar (Andriscus…Romam missus) and 49 (Andriscus quidam, ultimae sortis homo…).

18 See Diod. 33.4a; I Maccab. 11.39f. and 54–6; Jos. AJ 13.144. Diodoros noted that the restoration of the young king was a mere cover for Tryphon's bold ambition.

19 For the illness see Livy, , Epit. 55Google Scholar, ‘ …per fraudem occisus est corruptis medicis, qui illum calculi dolore consumi ad populum mentiti, dum secant occidunt’; Jos. AJ 13.218 (Tryphon gave out that the king died under treatment? The MSS are corrupt here).

20 For the generals and Tryphon see Diod. 33.28 and Athen. 8.333b–d = FGr Hist 87 F 29.

21 Diod. 32.28a. Ariarathes V had likewise promptly sent an embassy to Rome on his accession in 163 b.c., which was much better received than Tryphon's. In autumn 160 b.c. another embassy brought his crown worth 10,000 gold staters, the same value as Tryphon's Victory. Demetrios I sent an embassy with a matching crown early in 159 b.c.: though established by 162 b.c. he had waited for strong encouragement from Ti. Gracchus in person before chancing his cause in Rome. Even then he was put on probation and was never, it seems, formally recognised by the Senate. See Polyb. 31.3 and 33 and 32.1–3.13 with Walbank, , Commentary iii.468f., 516f., 518, 521Google Scholar; Diod. 31.28–30.

22 Polybios certainly would have done so, if we may judge by the careful attention which he gives to the timing and contemporary effects of the royal embassies considered in n. 21.

23 Op. cit. (n. 1), 223. Astin refutes A. Schulten's attempt to link Diod. 33.16 with Pompeius, Q. in 140/39 b.c. (Numantia (1914), i.360 n. 3Google Scholar; Geschichte von Numantia (1933), p. 74)Google Scholar. The Diodoran wording is close to the language of Florus 1.34.3f. (2.18) on the start of the war.

24 Diodoros, reconciling various dating systems, was capable of putting two events at least eighteen months apart under the same archon year and not necessarily in the right order. See the shrewd comments of Astin (op. cit. (n. 1), 222f.), who regards it as clear ‘that, if Diodoros’ source placed Scipio's embassy at the earlier date, 144–143, he himself…cannot have placed passage C [his account] any later than under the archon year 143/2 …and therefore that he cannot have placed passage B [Tryphon's embassy] any later than under that same year'.

25 See Diod. 33.5 (Antiochos VI); 5a (‘Molkestes’, ‘Molgetes’:MSS. Editors emend to ‘Moagetes’, to general approval); 20–1 (Galaistes and Viriathus).

26 The decree was first published by Bean, George in JHS 68 (1948), 46–56, no. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; it later appeared as SEG xviii.570. For the Moagetes identification see Bean (pp. 52 and 55); Gruen, op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 732f. n. 9; Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 49–51. Others, putting the decree c. 180 b.c., see its Moagetes as the tyrant of Kibyra who treated with Manlius Vulso. See Larsen, J. A. O., CPh 51 (1956), 155–68Google Scholar; Moretti, L., Riv. Fil. 98 (1970), 326–50Google Scholar; J., and Robert, L., Bull. Epigr. 1950, no. 183, pp. 185–97Google Scholar; Walbank, , Commentary iii.143 and 171Google Scholar.

27 Op. cit. (n. 3), p. 50 with n. 114. For Appius Claudius' embassy see Polyb. 33.13.4–10 and Broughton, , Magistrates i.450fGoogle Scholar. The phrasing in lines 62–6, as Sherwin-White argues, strongly suggests embassies sent on two distinct occasions – not two sub-groups of the decem legati of 189 b.c., a view popular with scholars in the past.

28 The Termessos in Diodorus is probably lesser Termessos, a close neighbour of Boubon and Araxa. Attalos II built a stoa at greater Termessos, (TAM iii.1.9 and 4.20)Google Scholar. For the war of Eumenes II and Attalos with Selge see Inschr. Perg. i.25 and Prologus Trogi 34; for Attaleia see Strabo 14.667. Prusias II had encouraged complaints from the Galatians and Selge against Pergamon in the 160s; see Polyb. 31.1.3 with Walbank, , Commentary iii.456 and 461Google Scholar.

29 For Rhodes see Cic.de repub. 3.48; for Attalos II and Pergamon see ‘Lucian’, Macrob. 12.

30 For Rome and Lykia see Larsen, op. cit. (n. 26), 156ff.: RE xiii. coll. 2274f.; Polyb. 30.5.12 with Walbank, , Commentary iii.183f., 277f. and 427Google Scholar; SEG xviii 570.69–77 (festival). Sherwin-White (op. cit. (n. 3), p. 50) dates the festival either c. 165 (thanks for liberation) or c. 132–129 (creation of the Roman province of Asia).