The Conflict
Between Cato and Scipio
by Richard L. Trumbo,
St. Catherine's School
There may be factional overtones in an
episode reported by Livy which occurred a dozen years after Scipio's
death. A Roman commission, anticipating war with Perseus of Macedon,
had used clever diplomatic maneuvering to induce Perseus to seek
a truce, giving Rome additional time to prepare militarily. Discussion
in the Senate about this mission seems to reflect Cato's earlier
concerns about the "modernism" which Scipio and his
faction appeared to encourage:
The majority of the Senate approved these
actions as the achievements of the highest diplomatic skill;
but the older members, who recalled the ancient standards of
behavior, confessed that they did not recognize in this mission
the Roman way of doing things. . . . They did not fight in such
a fashion as to glory in their cunning rather than in genuine
bravery. . . . [earlier actions of integrity] were acts of Roman
obedience to conscience, not of Carthaginian cunning, or of Greek
cleverness for among these peoples it has been matter for boasting
to deceive an enemy rather than to overcome him by force. . .
. Such were the thoughts of the older men, who were not so well
pleased by this new and over-clever wisdom.22
For all of the factional nature of the
disputes recorded, however, Cato seems to have increased the
role of ideological conflict almost single-handedly. As noted
already, Scullard sees the Roman nobility at the end of the Second
Punic War as relatively agreed on the methods and goals of political
activity.23
Politics consisted of factional jockeying for positions of power
within a well-established framework, chiefly among the nobles
and only occasionally taking into account popular wishes. Cato,
on the other hand, introduced a moral earnestness to Roman politics
which cast political opponents as reprobates. Of Cato's political
life Plutarch comments that he "seems to have concerned
himself most of all with the impeachment and trial of wrongdoers."
Cato's moralistic approach was reciprocated by his enemies, who
impeached him (without success) on almost fifty occasions.24
In his own understanding, it appears, Cato opposed Scipio on
grounds of principle, not simply partisan advantage. The question
naturally arises, what were the ideological grounds which led
Cato to attack Scipio and his friends, viciously and repeatedly?
Cato recognized the danger which a man
such as Scipio posed to the Republican constitution of Rome.
Unlike any man before him, Scipio had entire countries - Spain
and Carthage - as clients. It was one thing for a Roman noble
to build up an impressive number of clients among Roman voters,
but the influence Scipio held in Spain and Carthage was potentially
overwhelming and therefore disruptive of Republican politics.
Even Polybius, a friendly witness for the Scipios, tells us that
Scipio as a young commander was hailed as king by the Spaniards.25
Livy's report of the prosecution of Scipio by the Petillii in
the 180's is also revealing. He says that those who favored this
prosecution argued that no man should become too important to
be held accountable to the laws. Scipio was accused, among other
things, of wanting to dominate Rome and of saying "that
one man was the source of Rome's power and the prop of her empire."26
Scullard cites a highly symbolic gesture of young Scipio when
he was aedile in 213:
. . . significantly one of the earliest
references to such calculated generosity concerns Scipio Africanus,
the first individual who might have sought to challenge the rule
of the Senate: . . . he celebrated the Roman Games for two days
and distributed a congius (c. three quarts) of oil in
each street. However little the average Roman may have thought
about the implication of this, Scipio himself will have known
that Hellenistic monarchs were accustomed to distribute oil at
Games.27
Back |
Next  |
