The Conflict
Between Cato and Scipio
by Richard L. Trumbo,
St. Catherine's School
Cassius Dio reports that the Senate, "through
jealousy of his successes and through fear that he might become
arrogant and play the tyrant," relieved Scipio of his command
in Spain in 206 BC.28
Later, Scipio aroused fears in Rome not only because of his adoption
of Greek recreations, but also because, "he was said to
be turning over the property of the allies to the soldiers for
plunder, and he was suspected of delaying his voyage to Carthage
purposely in order that he might hold office for a longer time.
. . ."29
None of these incidents proves that Scipio was guilty of undue
ambition, but they all suggest that Scipio was in a position
to take power and unbalance the constitution - which must have
seemed dangerous to Cato, whether Scipio actually made the attempt
to grab power or not.
In Scipio's defense, it is only fair to
observe that ancient writers uniformly comment upon the injustice
of the attacks upon him. Polybius reports that after defeating
the Carthaginians in Spain, Scipio received Spanish representatives
who hailed him as king. Scipio informed them that this title
was unacceptable to a Roman, and he refused it. Polybius underlines
the restraint of the youthful general as follows:
Such achievements indeed might have tempted
not only a man but even a god, if the expression is permissible,
to display arrogance; yet Scipio so far excelled all other men
in this quality of magnanimity that when the prize of kingship,
the highest ambition for which a man would even dare to pray
to the gods, was often placed within his grasp by Fortune, he
declined it and set a higher value upon his country and his loyalty
to her than the status of kingship, which is the object of universal
admiration and envy.30
Livy similarly remarks about charges brought
against Scipio in the final decade of his life, which included
financial misdealings and excessive arrogance and power-seeking
that the accusations, "were based more on suspicions than
on evidence . . . Thus they assailed with spiteful calumny a
man untouched by any ill repute."31
Cassius Dio also wrote about the prosecution of Scipio and his
brother Lucius in the 180's, and he, too, asserts that the underlying
motive in this prosecution was jealousy, and that the Scipio
brothers were in fact innocent:
These brothers, who had proved themselves
men of such valour, and as a result of their excellence had attained
such a great reputation, were not long afterward brought to trial
before the assembly. Lucius was condemned nominally for having
appropriated a large share of the spoil, and Africanus for having
made the terms of peace milder on account of his son; but the
true cause of their conviction was jealousy. That they were guilty
of no wrong-doing is made plain both by other evidence and in
particular by the fact that when the property of Asiaticus was
confiscated it was found to consist merely of his original inheritance,
and that though Africanus retired to Liternum before a vote was
taken and lived there to the end, no one ever again voted to
condemn him.32
Back |
Next  |
