² These views, even if elaborated in detail in light of later events, should be regarded as representing essentially contemporary opinion: Scullard, Roman Politics 242 f. But see now Hoffmann, W., Historia IX (1960), 309 ffGoogle Scholar. and especially 340 ff.

³ cf. K. Bilz, Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (1935) 51, n. 133 (hereafter quoted by author's name alone): Scipio stood for the aedileship of 147 when he was thirty-seven years old and was probably put into the Senate by the censors of 154. He was more probably military tribune (Livy, Perioch. 48) than legate (Appian, Iber. 49): see Broughton, MRR 1, 455.

⁴ Münzer, Röm. Adelsparteien (cited below as RA) 235 ff. has argued that Scipio's colleague, C. Livius Drusus, was probably his first cousin (i.e. they were sons of brothers), who would co-operate and take second place. Livius' request for the use of lot will have been designed only to preserve appearances.

⁵ See Livy, Per. 51; cf. Val. Max. 11, 7, 13. On humanitas see De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani IV, ii, i, p. 36Google Scholar, and the literature there cited. One recalls Terence's ‘homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto’.

⁶ For this view of Paullus, cf. H. H. Scullard, JRS 1945, 59 and 64, but contrast S. I. Oost, Roman Policy in Epirus (1954), 133 f.

⁷ δοκῶν δὲ σύμβουλος γεγόνεναι τοῦ πολέμου, Polybius 35, 4, 8. He was scarcely important enough yet to be the leader of a war-party, as suggested by Meyer, Ed., Kl. Schr. 1, 401Google Scholar, and Kahrstedt, U., Neue Wege z. Antike IV, 107Google Scholar. cf. Bilz, 52.

⁸ The view of Aemilianus as a reluctant warrior has been rejected by Gelzer, M., Vom röm. Staat I, 111 f.Google Scholar; Bilz; Aymard, A., Mélanges de la Société toulousaine d'études classiques II, 1948, 101 ff.Google Scholar; C. O. Brink and F. W. Walbank, CQ 1954, 104; so also A. E. Astin, Latomus 1956, 159 ff., who goes so far (too far ?) as to argue for a rapprochement between Cato and the supporters of Aemilianus, with Aemilianus actively backing Cato's policy. But even if this were so, it must be remembered that Aemilianus was away from Rome much of the time and was also probably too young to have taken any very effective part in the debates that preceded the declaration of war: if he gave his help, it will surely have been mainly through the usual private channels of political patronage. If he had actively and openly advocated, with Cato, the destruction of Carthage before 149, it is perhaps unlikely that no trace of this should have survived. But that is not to say that he may not have approved the policy. E. Badian, on the other hand, believes (Foreign Clientelae 132, n. 1) that “Scipio Aemilianus' policy at this stage is essentially similar’ (sc. to that of Nasica). ‘At this stage’ presumably refers to 153–3 (cf. 130, n. 1), but continued identity of view is implied.

⁹ Walbank, F. W., Hist.Comm. on Polybius, I (1957) 19Google Scholar; C. O. Brink and F. W. Walbank, CQ 1954, 104.

¹⁰ e.g. Antiochus and Achaeus, Polybius VIII, 20, 10.

¹¹ See Brink and Walbank, CQ 1954, 97 ff., and Walbank, Polybius, for full discussion. cf. also Walbank, JRS 1955, 151.

¹² Plut. Ti. Gr. 8. The general evidence of Cicero and the contemporary reference by Lucilius to ‘Laelius σоφòς ille’ (apud Cic. de. fin II, 24) suggest that the cognomen was derived rather from Laelius' philosophic interests. Plutarch's explanation may be due to a later invention either of the Populares, who ironically dubbed his hesitation as Wisdom, or of the Optimates, whose fear of agrarian reform resulted in paying him this somewhat dubious compliment: see P. Fraccaro, Studi sull' etá dei Gracchi (1914) 77 ff., and in general Münzer, P-W, s. v. ‘Laelius’, col. 406–7.

¹³ G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum 1950, 183 ff.; esp. 234 ff. For his views on latifundia see X congresso internaz. di sc. stor., Relazioni II (1955), 235 ff.

¹⁴ There was also land available for settling deported peoples on a large scale: each of the deported Campanians settled in or near Latium itself in 210 received up to 50 iugera (Livy XXVI, 34) and in 180 no less than 47,000 Ligurians were settled in the heart of Italy (Livy XL, 38, 41). Also some hundreds of iugera of Roman territory were easily found as a reward for a comparatively unimportant Macedonian, Onesimus (Livy XLIX, 16, 7).

¹⁵ So De Sanctis calculates (Storia dei Romani IV, i, 424).

¹⁶ cf. Forum Fulvii, founded by the consul either of 179 (Pais, Dalle guerre puniche 537) or of 125 (as Fraccaro, P., Opuscula II, 79 f.Google Scholar, and III, 127 f.). Further, Mediterranean Liguria was opened up by the Via Postumia in 148 and Transalpine Gaul after the defeat of the Salassi in 140. When Cethegus in 160 reclaimed some of the Pomptine Marshes (Livy, Per. 46), this land obviously will not have been left uncultivated, to return again to marshland.

¹⁷ Athenaeum 1950, 232 ff.

¹⁸ G. Cardinali, Studi Graccani 114; Fraccaro, Studi sull' etá dei Gracchi 1, 76; Tibiletti, Athenaeum, 1950, 235.

¹⁹ A. H. J. Greenidge, History of Rome, B.C. 133–104, 102. Cardinali, o. c. 113 ff., rejected the year 145 on the ground that Licinius Crassus, Laelius’ political opponent, had proposed an agrarian measure during that year. But this view is based on the very obscure passage of Varro, Res Rust. 1, 2, 9: ‘C. Licinius … primus populum ad leges accipiendas in septem iugera forensia e comitio eduxit.’ But although Columella interpreted this (1, 3, 10) as ‘Liciniana ilia septena iugera quae plebis tribunus viritim diviserat’, this view is too radical and Tibiletti (236 ff.) may be followed in his belief that Varro was not here dealing with agrarian distribution: somehow or other the passage has to be linked with Cicero, De amicit. 96. Thus Cardinali's objection to 145 as the year of Laelius' proposal cannot be sustained.

²⁰ Münzer, P-W, s. v. ‘Laelius’; Broughton, MRR 1, 479.

²¹ E. Gabba, Athenaeum 1949, 173 ff., especially 192. cf. R. E. Smith, Service in the post-Marian Army (1958) 8.

²² Plutarch, Ti. Gr. 9. That these sentences are genuinely Gracchan, reaching Plutarch via Nepos, is suggested by Fraccaro, P., Stud. Stor. V, 423Google Scholar. cf. F. Taeger, Tiberius Gracchus (1928), 16 ff.

²³ After Pydna, at Paullus' triumph, each infantryman received 100 denarii; at this time a year's pay, though subject to normal stoppages, was perhaps 180 denarii; cf. G. R. Watson, Historia 1958, 113 ff.

²⁴ As E. G. Hardy, Six Roman Laws 39; H. Last, CAH IX, 42 ff.; cf. F. B. Marsh, Hist. of Roman World, 146–30 B. C. ² (1953) 408.

²⁵ The date of Panaetius' arrival in Rome has been put at various dates between 149 and 132: see Pohlenz, P-W, s. v. ‘Panaetios’, col. 424; M. Van Straaten, Panétius (1946) 10 ff.; Brink and Walbank, CQ 1954, 103, n. 3.

²⁶ On this exemption, whether only from the lack of the requisite age-limit or, as is more probable, from the additional fact that Scipio had not been praetor, see A. E. Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla (1958) 22.

²⁷ Of the two consuls of 149, however, who opened the campaign, M'. Manilius was a member of the Scipionic ‘Circle’; L. Marcius Censorinus also had philosophic interests and may have been friendly.

²⁸ Mancinus' official position is not certain: he may have been a legatus (Livy, Per. 51), but since Appian's account suggests greater independence, he may have been propraetor, having held the praetorship in 149 (cf. Broughton, MRR 1, 462, n. 3, and 465, n. 3). Florus (1, 31, 10), followed by CAH VIII, 481, wrongly names Mancinus consul in 148.

²⁹ The tradition (non-Polybian) preserved in Livy (Per. 51) is more generous to Mancinus: ‘Carthago … obsessa et per partes capta est, primo a Mancino legato, deinde a Scipione consule.’ This might suggest that his contribution to victory was not so negative as Appian records and such a possibility is strengthened by the fact of his success at the polls, which was clearly against the wishes of the popular hero, Aemilianus. If Mancinus was praetor in 149 and if the view of Münzer (P-W, Hostilius n. 20) could be accepted, namely that Mancinus' uncle Aulus (pr. 180 and cos. 170) and his cousin Gaius (pr. c. 148 and cos. 137) both had to wait ten years after their praetorships for their consulships, Mancinus' success would be all the more remarkable; but the epigraphical evidence, while not excluding 149 for Gaius' praetorship, shows that a date as late as 140 is possible (see Broughton, MRR II, 643).

³⁰ See Malcovati, Orat. Roman. Frag. ² 121.

³¹ On this speech see Malcovati, ORF ² 117 f. cf. Cic. de nat. deor. 3, 43.

³² Soon afterwards Galba probably betrothed his daughter to Scipio's opponent, P. Licinius Mucianus: Cic. de orat. I, 239. cf. Münzer, RA 264, but see Broughton, MRR 1, 476, n. 2, for a less likely possibility.

³³ Cic. de rep. I, 31. cf. pro Scauro 32: ‘quid, avus eius (sc. Appii Claudii) P. Africano non fuit (inimicus)?’

³⁴ On the problems involved in the identification of Porcina (who was probably very fat: cf. Physcon), the date of his praetorship, and his political position, see Münzer, RA 238 ff., and Broughton, MRR I, 473, n. 1.

³⁵ Both Metellus, who may have shared the political views of his brother Macedonicus, and the two brothers of Fabius Servilianus (Cn. and Q. Servilius Caepio) gave evidence against Q. Pompeius in 138/7.

³⁶ For the sources of t he censorship see Broughton, MRR i, 474. For the eques, Plut. Apophth. II; the centurion, Cic. de orat. 2, 272; Sacerdos, Cic. pro Cluent. 134, Val. Max. 4, I, 10. From the passage of Scipio's speech (apud Aul. Gell. 5, 19, 15 f.), it appears, though the interpretation is difficult, that he condemned the advantages which an adoptive father was coming to gain by adopting a son: these included the ‘praemia patrum’ (whatever these were at this time; cf. the πоλνπαίας ἄθλα of Caesar in Dio Cassius 43, 25, 2) and the fact that the father and the adopted son might vote in different tribes. Though Scipio himself was an adopted son, he seems to have been condemning the possibility that one family might have influence in more than one tribe (cf. P. Fraccaro, Studi Graccani 368 ff.); this might be in line with his later support of the Lex Cassia.

³⁷ See Malcovati, ORF ² 126. For Scipio and the mos maiorum, Gellius 4, 20,10; 5, 19, 15.

³⁸ The anecdote, which was rejected by F. Marx in 1884 (Rhein. Museum), has found many supporters since, because not all his arguments are equally cogent. A. Aymard, however, completely rejects the story (Mél. de la soc. toulousaine II (1948), 101 ff.) on the issue of Cicero versus Valerius Maximus; in Valerius' time a policy of ‘coercendi intra terminos imperii’ was very topical. (Aymard does not, however, believe that Marx's argument that Scipio could not vary the prayer must be accepted: a distinction must be drawn between the invariable formulary part and the rest.) Yet the passage of Cicero is not explicit: ‘ut Asello Africanus, obicienti lustrum illud infelix, “noli,’ inquit, “mirari; is enim qui te ex aerariis exemit lustrum condidit et taurum immolavit.” (Tanta suspicio est ut religione civitatem obstrinxisse videatur Mummius quod Asellum ignominia levavit).’ The bracketed sentence is generally regarded as a gloss and although editors have interpreted the text in different ways (cf. Aymard 115) it is clear that it was Mummius who ‘Asellum ignominia levavit’. But is it necessary to assume, as is usually done, that it must therefore have been Mummius who ‘lustrum condidit’? A possible solution might be based upon our ignorance of the precise procedure when censors differed and one annulled or vetoed an action of the other (cf. Mommsen, Droit publ. I, 333). As the two censors presumably had to present a final agreed list, may it not be that Scipio, who had placed Asellus among the aerarii and then had to accept Mummius' objection to this, had to replace the name on the list of the Equites, i.e. he had to accept the veto and withdraw his own previous action (rather than that Mummius himself enforced his veto by replacing the name himself)? In this case the point of Scipio's taunt would have been even stronger: how could Asellus wonder that the lustrum was infelix (not because Mummius, who had restored such a villain, lustrum condidit, but) because Scipio himself, who had been forced to restore him, now lustrum condidit. Scipio, while criticizing Mummius as the real cause of the restoration of Asellus, would then be sarcastically implying that the lustrum must have been infelix because he himself had perforce helped to make it so. Such a suggestion may seem somewhat strained and might well have to be ruled out if more were known about censorial conduct, but it would at least help to reconcile Cicero and Valerius Maximus. (That Cicero was using Lucilius in this passage is not certain, but even if true this would not in itself automatically establish his version, as usually interpreted, against Valerius, since Cicero himself elsewhere makes mistakes about Scipio, as Aymard (o. c.) and Bilz (o.c. 43, n. 110) recognize.)

³⁹ As Fabius Servilianus was in Spain, the elections must have been conducted by L. Metellus, unless he too was in Spain (as Livy, Oxyr. Perioch. 53).

⁴⁰ cf. Münzer, RA 248. P. Rutilius Rufus wrote in his autobiography (frg. 7 Peter): ‘Pompeius elaboravit uti populum Romanum nosset eumque artificiose salutaret.’ Münzer has drawn attention to the fact that Scipio and Pompeius had a common enemy in Macedonicus who, knowing that his inimicus Pompeius was to succeed him in Spain, is alleged to have left the army in a bad condition (Val. Max. 9, 3, 7). If Pompeius was praetor in 145 with Laelius during the consulship of Scipio's brother Fabius Aemilianus, he may have incurred Metellus' enmity through helping to thwart his attempt to gain the consulship. Pompeius was clearly a forceful character. A novus homo, who doubtless owed his consulship (141) in part to his being ‘non contemptus orator’ (Cic. Brut. 86), he later avoided the consequences of his shameful treaty with the Numantines (‘Pompeium gratia impunitum’: unfortunately Velleius (2, 1, 5) does not specify those senators whose gratia Pompeius enjoyed). Then (c. 138) he was acquitted on a charge of extortion when evidence was given against him by Cn. and Q. Servilius Caepio (the former his consular colleague) colleague)and by L. (cos. 142) and Q. Metellus (e.g. Cic. pro Font. 23). When he became censor with Macedonicus in 131, Rome for the first time had two plebeian censors.

⁴¹ cf. Livy, Oxyr. Per. 54. The reference to a lictor and a drawn sword suggests that Caepio may have resorted to strong counter-measures, cf. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyr. Pap. IV, p. 112.

⁴² Lucilius apud Aul. Gell. 4, 17, I; Cic. de orat. 2, 268; etc. See above, n. 38. The charge need not have included any reference to the alleged alteration by Scipio of the form of the prayer, but may have related to hunger, pestilence, and other misfortunes which occurred in 142 (Obsequens 22, p. 152; Orosius 5, 4, 8): cf. Fraccaro, Stud. Gracc. 377, n. 3.

⁴³ The date of the embassy falls between the prosecution by Asellus in 140 and two events of 138, viz. Scipio's prosecution of Cotta (Livy, Oxyr. Per. 54–5) and the death of Attalus II (Lucian, Macrob. 12). See further A. E. Astin, CP 1959, 221 ff. The view that the report of the ambassadors led to a resolve to turn to a policy of annexation has been adequately rejected: cf. Bilz, p. 54. Panaetius accompanied his friend Scipio on the tour; it is quite uncertain whether Polybius also was present (Walbank, Polybius 5, n. 11).

⁴⁴ Imprisonment of consuls: Cic. de leg. 3, 29; Livy, Per. 55 and Oxy. Per. 55. Buildings: the Marcian aqueduct and repairs to others carried out by Marcius Rex alone cost 180 million sesterces (Frontinus, Aqu. I, 7); other building included temples to Jupiter and Juno (by Macedonicus, 146), to Hercules (by Mummius, 145–2), repair of Pons Aemilius, ceiling of Capitoline temple and fortification of Janiculum (142). For the view of an economic decline c. 138, cf. H. C. Boren, AJP 1958, 140 ff., Amer. Hist. Rev. 1958, 890 ff. See also Buttrey, T. V. (Museum Notes 7, 1957, 57 ff.Google Scholar) who argues that after 146 the price of silver rose, thus upsetting the ratio of bronze and silver which led to the retariffing of the denarius (at sixteen asses); he interprets this not as a reform by either of the Gracchi, but as a change to the sesterce from the as as a unit of accounting.

⁴⁵ Cic. Brutus 85 ff. (from Rutilius Rufus).

⁴⁶ cf. Fraccaro, Stud. Grac. 383 f. See Cic. Div. in Caec. 69 ff. Cotta was attacked also by Lucilius in verse (Luc. ed. Warmington 440–2). cf. Appian 1, 92: σαφς δεδωροδοκηκότες.

⁴⁷ Pro Mur. 58; cf. Livy, Oxy. Per. 55. Cicero wrongly dates the trial after Scipio's second consulship (cf. also Div. in Caec. 69).

⁴⁸ Gabinius' origin is doubtful. Cicero (de leg. 3, 35) says ‘ab homine ignoto et sordido’. It had been supposed that he might be the son of Gabinius who served in Illyricum in 167 (Livy 45, 26), but Livy, Oxy. Pap. 54 refers to him as ‘verna(e nepos)’. ‘Nepos’ is more probable than ‘filius’: see Grenfell and Hunt, Oxy. Pap. IV, p. 113.

⁴⁹ Cl. Ph. 1954, 10.

⁵⁰ Cic. de leg. 3, 33–9. cf. 34: ‘quis autem non sentit omnem auctoritatem optimatium tabellariam legem abstulisse?’

⁵¹ o. c. 34: ‘neque lator quisquam est inventus nee auctor umquam bonus.’

⁵² Philus: Cic. de rep. 3, 31; but in de offic. 3, 109, Cicero says that the senatorial decree was sponsored by both consuls. Philus as Scipio's friend: Cic. de rep. I, 17; ad Att. 4, 16, 2. cf. Plut., Ti. Gr. 7, 3. Although Scipio had one friendly consul in 136, he had to see his inimicus Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 143) holding the censorship (with Q. Fulvius Nobilior, cos. 153) and thus would have little hope of being made Princeps Senatus; the censors in fact named one of themselves, Claudius, as the new Princeps. Perhaps Aemilianus gained some compensation if (cf. Münzer, RA 252) Macedonicus became more friendly.

⁵³ Schulten, A., CAH VIII, 313Google Scholar. Münzer, RA 245 ff. cf. also Bilz, 58 ff.

⁵⁴ On the Spanish governors see Broughton, MRR I. Citerior was held by the unfriendly Macedonicus (143–2), Q. Pompeius (141–0), from whom Scipio was estranged at least temporarily, M. Popillius Laenas (139–8: political affinities unknown), Mancinus and Porcina (137), and only in 136 by a friend of Scipio, L. Furius Philus. Ulterior: 143, either Q. Pompeius (so Schulten and Broughton) or Quinctius (Mommsen, etc.) or Macedonicus (‘utramque Hispaniam’); 142, either Q. Pompeius or L. Metellus; then the two brothers Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (141–0?) and Q. Servilius Caepio (140–39); and D. Iunius Brutus (138–6 or 135; although Eutropius implies that his triumph was as late as 133, a command from 138 to 133 seems improbable and no military operations are recorded after 136; cf. Broughton, MRR I, 488). There is little to suggest that any of these men were friendly to Scipio. When the friendly Philus went to Citerior in 136, he deliberately took as legates two consulars, Q. Pompeius and Macedonicus, who were hostile both to him and to each other (‘vehementes inimicos’, Val. Max. 3, 7, 5; cf. Dio, 23, frg. 82).

⁵⁵ Livy's statement (Per. 56) that the Senate and People conferred the consulship on Scipio ‘ultro’ need not be taken too literally. Doubtless he was carried forward on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but the preliminary canvassing and planning will not have been neglected by his friends even if Cicero is right in his statement (De Rep. 6, 11) that Scipio himself was absens (contrast Val. Max. 8, 15, 4; cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. I, 580). Appian (Iber. 84) and Plutarch (Mar. 12, 1) wrongly say that the special dispensation that he received was because he was under the consular age (on this age-limit see A. E. Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla, 1958): this is a confusion with the circumstances of his first consulship. Münzer (RA 259) regards Scipio's election as an isolated success for his group amid a bloc of hostile consuls: the two Fulvii Flacci elected as consuls for 135 and 134 (Ser. and Gaius respectively) and the two Calpurnii Pisones (Q. 135; L. 133), together with P. Mucius Scaevola (133), will have supported one another.

⁵⁶ cf. Bilz's sensible remarks (63 ff.) against the ‘monarchical’ portrait drawn by Schulten.

⁵⁷ For what is probably an attempt to justify the necessity for such acts of terrorism see two fragments of Diodorus (32, 2 and 4) which probably derive from Polybius and represent Aemilianus' view-point.

⁵⁸ Plut. Ti. Gr. 21, 4; Diod. 34, 7, 3 (Poseidonius; cf. Jacoby, Fr. Hist. Gr. II A, 87, 110, p. 295).

⁵⁹ See especially Cic. De Rep. I, 31. cf. Fraccaro, Studi Gracc. (1914) 78–82; Münzer, RA 257 ff.