J.Linderski, Q. Scipio Imperator. RQ II, 2007.

10 Q. SCIPIO IMPERATOR*

CONTENTS

I. The GemII. Adoptione venit in familiam MetellorumIII. The Nomenclature

[1] Q. Caecilius Q. f. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio[2] Q. Metellus Pius Scipio[3] Q. Metellus Scipio[4] Q. Metellus[5] Caecilius Metellus[6] Metellus Scipio[7] Metellus[8] Scipio Metellus[9] Scipio Cornelius (and Nepos, Att. 18.4)[10] P. Cornelius Scipio[11] P. Scipio[12] Q. Scipio[13] Scipio

IV. Provinciae Privatis DecernunturV. Felix et Invictum Scipionum NomenVI. The Language of Coins

[1] The Elephant[2] The Sella Curulis[3] The Jug and the Lituus[4] The Trophy[5] Victory, Peace and Prosperity

VII. Imperator Se Bene Habet

I. THE GEM†

When a new document appears pertaining to a republican magistrate it cannot failto evoke interest, even if it consists of only three words. In a book entitled Antiche

* Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic, ed. by J. Linderski,Historia Einzelschrift 105 (Stuttgart 1996) 145–185 {with addenda}.

† Abbreviations: Gruber, CRR = H.A. Gruber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum 1–3 (London

1910).

Linderski RQ 1-14 7W25W07 4:40 PM 30

Q. Scipio Imperator 131

iscrizioni augurali1 e magiche dai codici di Girolamo Amati, Opuscula Epigraphica2 (Roma 1991), a publication not very likely to be perused by students of republi-can history, Gabriella Bevilacqua publishes2 (42–43, no. 41, and pl. VIII, 2) the fol-lowing inscribed gem:

Q(uintus) / SCIPIO / IMP(erator).

She correctly refers this text to Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (Nasica), thefather-in-law of Pompey, and together with Pompey consul in the latter part of 52.In 49 he was proconsul in Syria3, and was acclaimed imperator: his temporibusScipio detrimentis quibusdam circa montem Amanum acceptis imperatorem seappellaverat. So contemptuously (and tendentiously) Caesar (B.C. 3.31.1). Aboutthe engagement in the Amanus mountains nothing more is known4, but fromCaesar’s own account (B.C. 3.31–33) it would appear that despite any detrimentaScipio was in full control of Syria5. He was proud of his title of imperator (therecannot be any doubt that technically it was his soldiers who acclaimed him6), andhe advertised it ceaselessly7.

In the East the title appears in two inscriptions from Pergamon:1) SIG3 757 = IGRR 4.409 = Inschriften von Pergamon 2.411 = K. Tuchelt,

Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien. Teil I: Roma und Promagistrate(Tübingen 1979) 206 (on the base of a statue set up for Scipio): ÑO d[∞]mow

MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1, 2, 3 (New York 1951,1952, Atlanta 1986).

RRC = M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage 1–2 (Cambridge 1974). Sydenham, CRR = E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London 1952).

1 This is a misnomer. The texts published in this volume have nothing to do with Roman augursor auguries. M. P. Billanovich in her review of Bevilacqua (Athenaeum 81 [1993] 351–53),unfortunately repeats this misleading description.

2 Actually re-publishes. The gem in question was first published in the series Impronte gem-marie in Bull. dell’Ist. di Corr. Arch. in 1831, 1834, 1839. The exact place of publicationBevilacqua rather confusingly indicates on p. 42 as “tav. VIII, 2,” and on p. 60, n. 226 as“Cades [i.e., T. Cades, Impronte gemmarie], III, tav. 31, 266”. The third instalment of theImpronte appeared in the Bull. in 1839 (cf. p. 11). The gem seems to have escaped the atten-tion of students of Roman prosopography.

3 Caes., B.C. 1.6.5; Cic., Att. 9.1.4; Plut., Pomp. 62.2; MRR 2. 260–61, 275.4 F. Münzer, “Caecilius 99”, RE 3 (1899), 1226, supposes that it was a battle with the Parthians.

Cf. G. Lafaye in his commentary to IGRR 4.409: “cum Parthorum minas ... feliciter reppulis-set”. The Parthians are too grandiose: much more likely he won “some sort of victory over thetribesmen of Mt. Amanus”. So D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) 1.403.

5 F. Kraner, F. Hofmann, H. Meusel, C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De Bello Gallico11 (Berlin1912) 200–201, say that detrimentis acceptis is corroborated by Cic., Att. 5.20.4. The passageof Cicero refers in fact to M. Calpurnius Bibulus who in 51 suffered a discomfiture in themountains of Amanus: sane plagam odiosam acceperat.

6 For the acclamatio imperatoria, see now (with discussion and further literature) J. Linderski,“A Missing Ponticus”, AJAH 12 (1987) [1995]) 149–51, 160–61 {reprinted in this volume, No.9}. On the appellatio of Metellus Scipio, cf. R. Combès, Imperator (Paris 1966) 74–75.

7 The sources listed below in the text (but not IGRR 4.421) are also recorded in Münzer,“Caecilius 99” (above, n. 4) and in Broughton, MRR 2.260–61, but neither author gives theexact wording of Scipio’s nomenclature.

146

Linderski RQ 1-14 7W25W07 4:40 PM Page 131

132 Historia et Ius

/ [Ko¤]nton Kaik¤lion Ko¤ntou uflÚn / [M]°tellon P¤on Skip¤vna tÚnaÈto/ krãtora.

2) SIG3 758 = IGRR 4.421= I. v. P. 2.412 = ILS 8777 = Tuchelt 207 (on the baseof a statue set up for Scipio’s daughter8): ÑO d∞mow §t¤mhsen / Kornhl¤anKo¤ntou Met°llou [P]¤ou / Skip¤vnow toË aÈtokrãtorow yugat°/ra.

It also appears on Pergamene coins:A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, XXXI: Mysia (London

1892) 126 (cistophori minted in Pergamon, a. 49/48), on reverse two coiled snakes,between them legionary eagle, and the inscription:9

(above) Q. Metellus Pius (below) Scipio imper.

Finally on a series of coins struck in Africa in 47–46 (where Scipio was in com-mand of the Pompeian forces) his nomenclature exhibits four variants:10

1) Q. Metel(lus) Pius / Scipio Imp. (obverse and reverse).2) Metel(lus) Pius Scip(io) Imp. (obverse; reverse).3) Q. Metel(lus) Pius Scipio Imp. (obverse).4) Q. Metell(us) Scipio Imp. (obverse).

To those documents we can now add our gem where his name-form is reducedto its three most important elements: the adoptive (or rather assumed) praenomen,

8 Cf. F. Münzer, “Cornelius 417”, RE 3 (1899) 1596–97; M. Kajava, “Roman Senatorial Womenand the Greek East. Epigraphic Evidence from the Republican and Augustan Period”, in H.Solin and M. Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History (=Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 91 [Helsinki 1990]) 93.

9 A summary description also in B.V. Head, Historia Numorum2, (Oxford 1911) 535. See alsoG. R. Stumpf, Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien(Saarbrücken 1991) 41–42, who gives a list of all known exemplars. Magie, Roman Rule(above, n. 4) 2.1580, cf. 1257 (n. 80), lists Scipio Metellus as a governor of Asia. Stumpfobjects. He issued his coins “nicht als Statthalter, sondern, wie der Imperator-Titel und derLegionsadler zeigen, in seiner Eigenschaft als militärischer Befehlshaber”. Metellus Scipiowas certainly not a governor of Asia, but Stumpf’s argument is devoid of any force. Everyprovincial governor was ex definitione also a military commander. But Stumpf also points outthat in 49 as governor of Asia is attested C. Fannius, another partisan of Pompey, and thus it ishardly likely that Scipio should have been formally appointed to that post. As to Fannius,Broughton, MRR 2.262, was more cautious. He describes him as Propraetor: “originally sentto Sicily ... (cum imperio) ... he later appears in command in Asia”. But this was the period ofcivil war, and whatever the legal situation, we cannot doubt that Scipio will have upon hisarrival assumed de facto the command of the province. Cf. W. Wroth, Catalogue (as above inthe text) XXXI, 126: Scipio “issued coins in his military capacity (‘Imperator’). He was not‘Proconsul’ of Asia”; M. H. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic(Berkeley 1985) 206–7: “actually governor of Syria, but active in Asia”. {Cf. L. AmelaValverde, “El cistóforo de Q. Cecilio Metelo Pio Escipión, un ejemplo de las necesidadesfinancieras durante la guerra civil de los años 49/48 a.C.”, Aquila Legionis 5 (2004) 7–28.}

10 Crawford, RRC 1.471–72, nos 459–61. Broughton, MRR 3.42 (cf. 2.297) refers to Crawford,but adduces verbatim only variant 1).

147



the original cognomen Scipio, and the title of imperator. Q. he inherited from Q.Caecilius Metellus Pius11 (see below, section II); Scipio he took from his father P.Cornelius Scipio Nasica;12 and imp. he owed to himself.

{H. Krummrey in his erudite review of the monograph by Bevilacqua (Klio 80[1998] 268–70 at 271) draws attention to another piece of documentary evidencefor Scipio’s titulature, an inscription inscribed “litteris punctim incisis” on a helmet(now in a museum in Berlin) found in Siscia in Pannonia in the river Colapis:

Scip(io) imp(erator) [ip and mp in ligatures].

This find was first described in 1896, but the inscription was admitted only in1986 to CIL I2.3609a (with further literature). In particular the helmet and theinscription were discussed in detail by G. Waurick, Die römischen Militärhelmevon der Zeit der Republik bis ins 3. Jh. n. Chr. (Diss. Mainz 1976) 30–33 (withnotes on pp. 153–54), 112–13 (with notes on p. 174), 197 (no. 13). He attributedthe inscription to Q. Metellus Scipio, an attribution accepted in CIL; the helmet willhave belonged to a soldier in Scipio’s army. As Waurick saw, the text must postdateScipio’s imperatorial acclamation in 49 and predate his arrival in Africa in the sec-ond half of 48. A troubling topographical problem subsists. After the battle atPharsalos on 9 August 48 Scipio escaped to the island of Corcyra, and subsequentlyhe sailed to Africa (App., BC 2.87). His movements in 49 and 48 are geographi-cally far removed from the finding spot of the helmet. In the course of Scipio’scampaigns one of his soldiers must have lost it; subsequently the helmet wouldhave come into the possession of a Celtic or Illyrian warrior, and ultimately itended up in the river Colapis and in Berlin. Cf. below, section III, 13.}

II. ADOPTIONE VENIT IN FAMILIAM METELLORUM

The onomastic formula is of interest13. It derives, so it is often maintained, fromScipio’s (testamentary) adoption by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, consul in 80, andpontifex maximus. In fact it derives from Scipio’s assumption of the testamentary

11 For the career of this son of Numidicus, and a staunch Sullanian, see F. Münzer, “Caecilius98”, RE 3 (1899) 1221–24.

12 See on him F. Münzer, “Cornelius 351”, RE 4 (1900) 1497; MRR 2.14; 16, n. 2. He was prae-tor ca 93; he had died by 78 for in a legal case in that year the future Metellus Scipio appearsas a person sui iuris. See Asc., In Corn. 74, lines 15–18 Clark: L. Sisenna [L. CorneliusSisenna, pr. 78] bonorum Cn. Cornelii possessionem ex edicto suo P. Scipioni, adulescentisumma nobilitate, eximia virtute praedito non dedisset. Cf. ad rem A.W. Lintott, “Cicero onPraetors Who Failed to Abide by Their Edicts”, CQ 17 (1977) 184–86; B. A. Marshall, AHistorical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia, MO 1985) 260–61.

13 Scipio’s adoptive (or rather assumptive) name-form was discussed by D.R. Shackleton Bailey,Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature2 (Atlanta 1991) 56, 57, 60, n. 10, 69; cf. also hisOnomasticon to Cicero’s Speeches2 (Stuttgart 1992) 27; O. Salomies, Adoptive andPolyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum97 [Helsinki 1992]) 8. Cf. also Münzer, “Caecilius 99” (above, n. 4) 1224. J. Van Ooteghem,Les Caecilii Metelli de la république (Bruxelles 1967) 298–99, 312–13, is occasionally inac-curate. None of these scholars gives a full list of Scipio’s onomastic formulae.

148


134 Historia et Ius

condicio nominis ferendi (which only vulgo can be labelled testamentary adoption)when in 64 or 6314 he accepted the inheritance left to him by Metellus Pius. This isrecorded by Cassius Dio 40.51.3: gÒnƒ m¢n uflÚw toË NasikoË vÖn,15 •k d¢ dØ

14 The (approximate) date can be established in two ways. First, Caesar succeeded Metellus Piusas pontifex maximus at the latest in July 63: after the trial of Rabirius, it appears, and the lexLabiena de sacerdotiis (although this law may not have concerned the modalities of the elec-tion of the pontifex maximus at all, cf. L. R. Taylor, “The Election of the Pontifex Maximus inthe Late Republic”, CP 37 [1942] 421–24), but not later than the elections of magistrates for62 (cf. MRR 2.172, n. 3; T. R. Holmes, The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire 1[Oxford 1923] 252–53, n. 5, believes that the election date was 15 March: he writes he oncecame upon a text verifying this date, but omitted to take a note of it, and failed to find it since.And so has everybody else {I regret to have missed the meticulous investigation by G. Huber,Untersuchungen zu Caesars Oberpontifikat (Diss. Tübingen 1971) esp. 1–31. He points out,without directly referring to Holmes, that 15 March was a day marked in calendars as NP, andthus unsuited for elections, which had to take place on a dies comitialis. He assigns Caesar’selection to the office of pontifex maximus to a date after the consular elections but before theelection of praetors}). These considerations date Pius’ demise to 63 at the latest. He was stillalive in 65: he appeared as a witness at the trial of C. Cornelius (Asc., In Corn. 60, line 21; 79,lines 22–23 Clark; Val. Max. 8.5.4). We can also safely exclude the first half of 64 for it ishardly likely that the office of chief pontiff would have remained vacant until 63. Next,Scipio’s new name. For the first time it is on record (Plut., Cat. Min. 7.1, is an anachronisticreference to ca 73; cf. below, n. 22) during the fateful night from 20 to 21 October 63: M.Crassus, M. Marcellus and Scipio Metellus (on this name-form, see below, section III, [8])came to Cicero to warn the consul of Catiline’s murder plot (Plut., Cic. 15.1). At Crass. 13.3Plutarch credits this information to Cicero’s own treatise de consulatu suo, and although in thatplace Plutarch mentions only Crassus, we cannot doubt that he got the names of Marcellus andScipio from the same unimpeachable source (J. W. Crawford, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost andUnpublished Orations [= Hypomnemata 80, Göttingen 1984], 102–5, identifies the Per‹ tØwÍpate¤aw mentioned by Plutarch with Cicero’s speech in the senate delivered early in 61 [Cic.,Att. 1.14.4]. This is unlikely: with the tract quoted by Plutarch Crassus was very displeased,whereas with Cicero’s speech he will have been satisfied: it was prompted by his own effusivepraise of Cicero). Crassus’ choice of his companions is perplexing. Plutarch writes that thethree were êndrew ofl pr«toi ka‹ dunat≈tatoi ÑRvma¤vn; Marcellus and Scipio were indeedhigh nobles, but young men. Crassus was carrying to Cicero anonymous letters disclosing theplot; it would appear that Marcellus and Scipio were to act as witnesses. It is enticing to assumethat they were the quaestores urbani; to their duties belonged “die Aufsicht ... über dieöffentlichen Papiere, soweit dieselben bei der Kasse niedergelegt sind” (T. Mommsen,Römisches Staatsrecht 23 [Leipzig 1887] 545). {This argument is greatly fortified by the inves-tigations of F. X. Ryan, and his assignment of the urban quaestorship in 62 to L. Novius Niger;see his “Geldwechsler im Tempel”, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 3.A3 (2002) 1, n. 3; “L.Novius Niger”, C&M 46 (1995) 151–56.} In this way Crassus, over whom a cloud of suspi-cion hung, fortified himself against any deceit on the part of the consul. Marcellus is certainlyidentical with Cato’s friend who is normally thought to have been Cato’s docile colleague inthe quaestorship in 64, but the story in Plutarch (Cat. Min. 18.3–4) makes much better sense ifMarcellus was quaestor in the subsequent year (we may note that he is perhaps the future con-sul of 51; cf. MRR 2.162). If Scipio was quaestor in 63 (Konrad, “Also-Rans” [below, n. 17]132, n. 136, suggests that Scipio was at that time of senatorial, i.e., quaestorial rank), thismakes it virtually certain that the office for which he ran at a by-election in 60 was the aedile-ship (but see below, n. 38).

15 From this indication derives (as Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature [above, n. 13] 69, saw well)Dio’s form in the index to book 40: K. ufl. Kaik¤liow M°tellow Skip¤vn NasikoË ufl. The ini-

149



klÆrou diadox∞w §w tÚ toË Met°llou toË EÈseboËw g°now poihye‹w ka‹ diåtoËto ka‹ tØn §p¤klhsin aÈtoË f°rvn (cf. below, section II, [12]). The indication§k ... klÆrou diadox∞w is decisive. It connects Scipio’s new §p¤klhsiw inextrica-bly with Metellus Pius’ inheritance, and thus with his last will, and precludes anynotion that Scipio may have been “adopted” when Pius was still alive.16 About thelegal consequences of such a testamentary disposition Dio was quite hazy, as wasalso a late Ciceronian scholiast (who supplied the caption for the present chapter;see below, section III, [3]), and many of their modern colleagues.

The phantom of “testamentary adoption” has been banished earlier in this vol-ume by C. F. Konrad, and with it Scipio’s presumed plebity also vanishes17. Evenif we wished to revive Mommsen’s singular idea that “testamentary adoptions”were regularly followed by the ceremony of adrogatio in the curiate assembly, thetestamentum of the deceased representing the adrogans18, this still would not profitin any way the defenders of Scipio’s plebeian status. For with respect to Scipioeven any contemplation of adrogatio can definitely be excluded. Prosopographicalfish swim in a constitutional pond19. The interrex had to be a patrician20; MetellusScipio is attested in 53 as interrex (CIL I2 2663c = ILLRP 1046). The conclusion:he did not turn into a plebeian; he has retained the patrician status of the Cornelii;and he has become a Caecilius Metellus only as far as the inheritance and onomas-tics were concerned.

tial K. ufl. {in the codex Laurentianus; see Boissevain in app.} represents (as Salomies,Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature [above, n. 13] 8, points out) the praenomen replacedby filiation.

16 It is incomprehensible why Münzer, “Caecilius 99” (above, n. 4) 1224, says that the adoptionwas “vielleicht testamentarisch” – unless his “vielleicht” betrays his hesitation whether a “tes-tamentary adoption” could effect a change in the agnatic status that he postulates for Scipio.K. Kumaniecki, “Les discours égarés de Cicéron pro Cornelio”, Mededelingen Konink.Vlaamse Acad. van België 32, 4 (1970), 3–36 at 24, believes that Cicero in his speech ProCornelio chose to mention Scipio, in a flattering way, because he wished to ingratiate himselfwith Metellus Pius, his soon-to-be adoptive father, who was a witness for the prosecution (cf.above, n. 12). This idea was enthusiastically and unwisely embraced by Marshall, Commentary(above, n. 12) 260: “the date of the adoption is not known, but ... it is reasonable to assume thatthe adoption was at least contemplated in 65” (cf. above, n. 14). Perhaps so, and perhaps Ciceroknew of it. But we note that the orator was not particularly kind to two of the consular wit-nesses (Asc., In Corn. 79, lines 16–20 Clark; cf. Marshall 276). What tone he assumed withrespect to Metellus Pius we do not know.

17 C. F. Konrad, “Notes on Roman Also-Rans”, {Imperium Sine Fine (above, n. *) 124–27}. Hismost notable predecessors had been W. Schmitthenner, Oktavian und das Testament Cäsars:Eine Untersuchung zu den politischen Anfängen des Augustus2 (München 1973) 39–90,104–15; E. J. Weinrib, “The Family Connections of M. Livius Drusus Libo”, HSCP 72 (1968)247–78 at 251–61.

18 T. Mommsen, “Zur Lebensgeschichte des jüngeren Plinius”, Hermes 3 (1869) 31–139 at 62–70= Gesammelte Schriften 4 (Berlin 1906) 367–468 at 397–404; Römisches Staatsrecht III 1(Leipzig 1887) 39–40. Cf. Konrad (above, n. 17) 125, n. 106.

19 Cf. J. Linderski, “Roman Officers in the Year of Pydna”, AJP 111 (1990) 66 = RomanQuestions (Stuttgart 1995) 314.

20 Cic., Dom. 38; Asconius, In Mil. 31, lines 10–11 Clark; and see Konrad’s discussion (above,n. 17) 128–31.


136 Historia et Ius

To Konrad’s cogent and erudite inquisition one small point begs to be added: thename of Metellus Scipio’s daughter. She was called Cornelia. So always in numer-ous literary sources in which her beauty vies with her misfortunes; and if that werenot enough her name stands for all to see in an official dedication from Pergamon(IGRR 4.421, adduced above, section I). Translated into Latin, she is identified asCornelia Q. Metelli Pii Scipionis filia. Now let us suppose that P. Cornelius Scipiochanged his agnatic status to that of Q. Caecilius Metellus. Why, then, was hisdaughter not called Caecilia? Münzer was obviously bothered, but he had ananswer: she was born before Scipio “in die Familie der Meteller überging”21. BeforeCornelia became in 52 Pompeius’ bride, she had been married to P. Licinius Crassus,the ill-fated son of another ill-fated triumvir, who in 53 together with his father per-ished at Carrhae. This marriage took place in 55 (as established by Münzer); andthus even granting the very early age of Roman brides, she will have indeed beenborn well before her father acquired the name of Metellus22. That is indubitable, butindifferent to the problem at hand: for whenever she was born she was under herfather’s potestas. If a real adrogatio had taken place it would have extinguished forgood and ever the family name not only of the adrogatus, but also of all those whowere at this moment in his power. But his daughter continued to be Cornelia, notCaecilia. Hence once again not an adrogatio, but simple condicio nominis ferendi.This condicio was limited, and pertained solely to the person who entered upon theinheritance; it did not automatically extend to his dependents23.

21 Münzer, “Cornelius 417” (above, n. 8) 1596.22 Scipio married Aemilia Lepida ca 73. He repossessed her from Cato: she was first betrothed to

Scipio; when Scipio broke the betrothal, she became engaged to Cato. For the story of thisoperatic acrimony, see Plut., Cat. Min. 7. He places it before Cato’s participation in 72 in thewar against Spartacus. Cf. F. Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart1920) 314–16.

23 “Automatically” is the operative word. The testator wished to preserve his family name. Forthat purpose the females were not particularly useful. Metellus Pius may have imposed anadditional condicio that Scipio rename his future son(s); disappointingly he had none, or atleast none who survived. In Tibur, where Scipio Metellus had a villa (cf. below, section III,[7]), there is on attestation a [Met]ellus Scip[io], as Mommsen plausibly conjectured, and oth-ers accepted, a son of the consul of 52. He died young at the age of XIIX (CIL I, p. 13 [cf. I2,p. 376]; XIV.3589). In the Fasti Magistrorum Vici there appears under 35 as a suffect consul aP. Cornelius (A. Degrassi, Inscr. Italiae XIII.1: Fasti Consulares et Triumphales [Roma 1947]283, 508–9; cf. MRR 2.406 where Broughton prints as his cognomen “Scipio?”). R. Syme, TheAugustan Aristocracy (Oxford 1986) 246–47, conjectured that this man was “a son of MetellusScipio born before his father changed his name”. He would have been in his thirties at themoment of his father’s death, and thus another exhibit of Caesar’s clementia. That “no suchson is on attestation anywhere ... perhaps no bar”. In another place (“Paullus the Censor”,Athenaeum 65 [1987] 13 = Roman Papers 6 [Oxford 1991] 254), “a faint chance”. Not eventhat. Inscrutable are the fates of men and inscriptions. Two years after Syme had proffered hissurmise G. M. Baci published in Kokalos 30–31 (1984–85 [1988]) 724–25 a new fragment ofthe Fasti Tauromenitani: the suffect consul of 35 was a P. (Cornelius) Dolab(ella), not Scipio!(for full bibliography, and an ingenious and incisive investigation, see J. Bodel, “Chronologyand Succession 2: Notes on Some Consular Lists on Stone”, ZPE 105 [1995] 279–96, esp. 279,285). A son of Metellus Scipio may still hide in Prop. 4.11.29–30, 65–66: Cornelia “lays claimto Scipionic descent”, and she died in the year her brother was consul: the consul of 16 styles

150



Two delicate points still need to be considered, the tribe, and the filiation. “When a proper and plenary adoption has been conducted, everything disap-

pears: praenomen, nomen, filiation, and tribe”. So trenchantly Syme. How differ-ent the condition which the uninformed call “testamentary adoption”! (“there wasno such thing”, Syme admonishes his readers). First, in the nomenclature the orig-inal tribe is retained. For “no citizen by his last will and testament can change thelegal status of his heir”. In particular “he cannot assign him to different tribe”24.

Metellus Scipio’s tribe as revealed by the prescripts to the senatus consultarecorded by Caelius (Fam. 8.8.5, 6) was the Fabia (cf. below, section III, [1]). L.R. Taylor leaves the matter in aporia: it is uncertain whether this was the tribe ofthe Scipiones Nasicae or Caecilii Metelli. But at the same time she points out thatQ. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, cos. 143, who was great-uncle of MetellusPius, the “adoptive father” of Scipio Nasica, was in the Aniensis. Thus “the possi-bility must be considered that a change of tribe in Metellus Pius’ line resulted froma successful prosecution”25. Why anyone, and particularly a Metellus, should havewished to change his registration from the Aniensis to the Fabia is not immediatelyobvious; but the reader will observe that Taylor assumes for a fact the “adoption”of Scipio, and leans to intimate that Scipio inherited his tribal affiliation fromMetellus Pius. As the tribe of the Scipiones Nasicae is otherwise not attested, it ismuch more economical (and consistent with the modalities of the condicio nominisferendi) to take the Fabia as the tribe of this branch of the Cornelii. In any case wecan point nominatim to two tribes to which the Scipiones Nasicae and the CaeciliiMetelli did not belong. In 60 Cicero reports (Att. 2.1.9) that Favonius, who unsuc-cessfully competed with (Scipio) Nasica for a magistracy (cf. below, n. 37), meamtribum tulit honestius quam suam, Luccei perdidit. The tribe of Cicero was theCornelia; in the context supplied by Cicero’s letter it could not have been the tribeof either the Scipiones Nasicae or the Caecilii Metelli. Favonius himself probablybelonged to the Oufentina. The tribe of Lucceius is unfortunately unknown. Evenif the Fabia could be proven to have been the tribe of the Metelli, this still wouldnot per se prove Scipio’s adrogatio: the change of tribe could be effected by cen-sorial acts, in particular the censors “must have changed men’s tribes freely withchange of residence, and have transferred residents of Rome from one rural tribe to

himself P. Cornelius Scipio P. f. P. n., and his and Cornelia’s father may be the missing son ofScipio Metellus (Syme, Aristocracy 246; cf. PIR2 II [1936] 254–56, C 1438). For another, per-haps less pleasing candidate for Cornelia’s father, see below, section V, and n. 98. For a possi-ble parallel to Metellus Pius’ disposition, cf. the so-called testamentum Dasumii (in realityprobably of Cn. Domitius Tullus) where in lines 3–4 we read the condition si [... nome]n meumlaturum posterosque [suos laturos esse pollicitus erit ...]. The supplements are due to W. Eck;see his “Zum neuen Fragment des sogenannten Testamentum Dasumii”, ZPE 30 (1978)277–95 at 286–87; and see, recently, the brilliant disquisition by C. F. Konrad, “‘DomitiusCalvisius’ in Plutarch”, ZPE 103 (1994) 139–46.

24 R. Syme, “Clues to Testamentary Adoption”, in Epigrafia e ordine senatorio 1 = Tituli 4 (Roma1982 [1984]) 397–410 at 397–98 = Roman Papers 4 (Oxford 1988) 159–70 at 159–60.

25 L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 198, 282. Cf. 282–85(on the tribes of the patricians). Syme, Aristocracy (above, n. 23) regards as certain that theFabia was the tribe of the Nasicae.

151


138 Historia et Ius

another in which they had acquired property”.26 And Scipio acquired throughMetellus Pius’ last will and testament immense property, certainly much vaster thanthat he had inherited from his own father.

Next, the filiation. The following criterion declares a “testamentary adoption”:“At the head of the nomenclature normally stand the new praenomen and nomen(which adhere closely together). This prefix, however, does not abolish a man’soriginal paternity”.27

Three documents (the senatus consulta in Cic., Fam. 8.8.5, 6, and the dedica-tion from Pergamon IGRR 4.409; also Cass. Dio, Index to book 40) proclaim thatScipio was Q. f. His natural father was P. Thus, prima facie, the proof, long sought,of genuine adoption. So Shackleton Bailey and Salomies.28 Not so: at best a dou-ble conflict, onomastic and constitutional. A conflict between the filiation Q. f., andthe daughter’s nomen of Cornelia; and a conflict between the filiation and the legalrule that the interrex had to be a patrician. This discrepancy goes to the very heartof the matter, and it pits against each other, so it appears, a full testamentary adop-tion and a mere condicio nominis ferendi. Appearances mislead. We are dealingwith two faces of a hybrid institution.

To see all its faces, and peruse all cases, a separate disquisition is called for.Here, a glimpse.

Testamentary dispositions concerning the institution of heirs could come in avariety of forms and shapes. In the last decennia of the republic, under Greek influ-ence, it is suggested,29 an innovation was made: a testator without sons wouldenjoin a principal heir to assume his name; and he could also enjoin the posthu-mous assumption of the heir as his son.

This was apparently what Metellus Pius envisaged with respect to ScipioNasica, and the banker Q. Caecilius with respect to his nephew T. PomponiusAtticus,30 and Julius Caesar when he in ima cera C. Octavium etiam in familiamnomenque accepit (Suet., Iul. 73.2).

When the heir performed before the praetor the cretio and aditio hereditatis31

26 Taylor, Voting Districts (above, n. 25) 23; cf. 282. See also 206–8 (tribal affiliations of theCornelii); 213 (the tribe of Favonius); 260–61 (the tribe of Cicero).

27 Syme, “Clues” (above, n. 24) 398 = 160.28 Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 60, n. 10; Salomies, Adoptive and

Polyonymous Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 8–10. Weinrib, “Drusus Libo” (above, n. 17), whoso acutely rebuked Mommsen’s belief in testamentary adoptions (253–61), visibly strains toexplain Scipio’s new filiation (260): he may have been trying “to give the appearance of beingnot a heres extraneus, as in fact he was, but of being a heres suus. ... Thus Metellus Scipio mayhave adopted this stratagem of changing his filiation as an attempt to win from Pius’ freedmenand clients an esteem to which he was not legally entitled”. It is doubtful whether this trick (asdistinguished from a legal dodge) would have worked for Scipio; it failed to convinceShackleton Bailey (loc. cit.) and Salomies (p. 9).

29 R. Düll, “Bausteine und Lücken im römischen Rechtstempel”, ZRG 93 (1976) 1–18 at 3–5.30 On his name-style, see Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 68; Salomies, Adoptive

and Polyonymous Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 8–10. 31 Cf. A. Watson, The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford 1971) 188: “An

inheritance was accepted (aditio) by cretio, a formal declaration”. This declaration could havebeen pronounced at any place, not necessarily before the praetor urbanus (cf. 189–93), but

152



he accepted the testamentum in its entirety including his enjoined assumption locofilii. Together with the estate of the deceased, he took the possession of his name,of the masks of his ancestors, and of his sacra familiaria.

In form, and in substance, this was no adoption at all. For the goal of Romanadoptio, whether of a filius familias or a person sui iuris, was to establish patriapotestas. In the testamentary “adoption” there was no patria potestas to be created.In the situation where no fatherly power was instituted, the status of the “adopted”remained perforce unchanged. And when the status of the person sui iuris remainedunchanged the procedure required no approval from the People or from any othersacral (the pontiffs) or secular (a magistrate) authority.

We may observe that the adoptio proper, of a filius familias, before a praetor,in iure, did not require any authorization either32: it was a private agreementbetween two families, an agreement, however, that entailed a complete change ofstatus of the person adopted. But as he was in potestate the state was not interested.The testamentary “adoption” was also a private agreement between two families asrepresented on the one hand by the testamentum of the deceased and on the otherby the heir; an agreement with all the consequences in civil law, but none in sacralor public.

A wife in manu did not become a daughter of her husband but was solely locofiliae33, and so also testamento adoptatus did not become a (posthumous) son of thetestator, but only functioned loco filii, or perhaps we should say he was invited sepro filio gerere. It was only one of the many convenient legal fictions that startedsprouting up when the old law proved too cumbersome and not keeping pace withsocial changes, like the coemptio sacrorum interimendorum causa in which thewoman who performed the act of coemptio would not become a wife of the coemp-tor or would fall under his manus34; or the Tiberian (or probably already Augustan)regulation that the wife of the flamen Dialis was to be in his manus only as far asthe sacral law was concerned, quod ad sacra35.

Octavian to make his declaration headed to the tribunal of the urban praetor (cf. Konrad,“Also-Rans” [above, n. 17] 125, n. 107), and we may suppose that this was a normal course ofaction for all those claiming a major inheritance, particularly if it involved a change of name.

32 The praetorian addictio (Gaius, Inst. 1.99, 134) was not an authorization or permission to per-form the ceremony of adoptio. On the other hand the adrogatio was in its essence a curiate law,and the procedure required the pontifical approval.

33 Gaius, Inst. 1.111, 114. On the expression in loco, see the detailed study by E. Volterra, Nuovericerche sulla “conventio in manum”, (= Memorie della Accad. dei Lincei, ser. VIII, vol. 12,fasc. 4 [Roma 1966]) 329–38 = E. Volterra, Scritti Giuridici 3 (Napoli 1991) 81–90. Cf. alsoS. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991) 28–30.

34 On this remarkable legal dodge to avoid the upkeep of the sacra, see Cic., Mur. 27 (and alreadyPlaut., Bacch. 976), and the commentaries by A.W. Zumptius, M. Tulli Ciceronis oratio Pro L.Murena (Berolini 1859) 49 (ad loc.); A. Bürge, Die Juristenkomik in Ciceros Rede Pro Murena(Zürich 1974) 123–25.

35 Gaius, Inst. 1.136; Tac., Ann. 4.16. Cf. the comments by M. David and H. L. W. Nelson, GaiInstitutionum Commentarii IV: Kommentar, 1 Lieferung (Leiden 1954) 168–71; E. Koester-mann, Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, Bd. 2 (Heidelberg 1965) 79–82.

153


140 Historia et Ius

To conclude: in private law, and as far as the families of the Scipiones and theMetelli were concerned, Scipio became an heir to Pius, and a member of Pius’ fam-ily; in sacral law, as he did not perform the detestatio sacrorum, he remained aCornelius who, however, also took care of the ancestral sacra of the Caecilii36; andin public law he was and he continued to be a patrician.

Ways could be found to achieve a complete change of status, even posthu-mously. We should not be too surprised that the path was not discovered or contem-plated by the eques Atticus or even the resplendent Scipio hic Metellus (cf. sectionIII, [8]). The innovation was left, as is proper, to the divi filius37.

III. THE NOMENCLATURE

Scipio’s onomastic style shows a baffling variety, and this may well be due to thecircumstance that he was Caecilius Metellus nomine only but not genere. The fol-lowing forms are on record:

36 According to the pontifical law Scipio, as the main heres, was in any case obligated to takecare of the sacra of the testator (see Cic., de leg. 2.47–49; and the remarks by A. Watson, TheLaw of Property in the Later Roman Republic [Oxford 1968] 32–37), but Scipio could nowclaim to perform them not only as a person ad quem pecunia venerit but also loco filii. Cf. L.R. Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley 1949) 35: “His atrium, with the waxmasks of two long lines of consular ancestors and with many more added from the female line,must have been a showplace of Rome”.

37 Cf. Konrad, “Also-Rans” (above, n. 17) 125–27. {It must have been in the air: cogent argu-ments against the testamentary adoption as a genuine adoption, and interpreting it as solely thecondicio nominis ferendi, were presented in an article that appeared almost simultaneouslywith my paper: C. Kunst, “Adoption und Testamentadoption in der späten Republik”, Klio 78(1996) 87–104 at 93–104, esp. (on Caecilius Metellus) 94, n. 45. In this sense also (briefly)M.-L. Deissmann-Merten, “Adoption”, Der Neue Pauly 1 (1996) 123. Very sensible is also thepresentation by C. Fayer, La familia romana I (Roma 1994) 351–61. She concludes that the so-called adoptio testamentaria was solely “una semplice istituzione d’erede, con la condizionedi prendere il nome del testatore”. J. F. Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law andPractice (Oxford 1998), 128–30, follows Syme, Kunst and Fayer. I regret that I had missed thestudy by H. Rosendorfer, Die angebliche Adoption des Augustus durch Caesar (AbhandlungenMainz. Klasse der Literatur 1990, 1) 3–18. He rightly concludes: “Es hat also ... eine testamen-tarische Adoption nach römischem Recht nicht gegeben” (11). But there is no reason to assumethat “die testamentarische Adoption des jungen Octavius ... war entweder eine kühne odervielleicht sogar freche Fälschung des Grossneffen des Diktators” (12). Caesar’s testamentumimposed upon Octavius the condicio nominis ferendi; and the new Caesar turned it – in a newlegal departure – into an entitity pretending to be an equivalent of the old adrogatio. Yet thestrife continues. In a spirited and erudite article (though he missed the contributions in theBroughton memorial volume) L. Schumacher, “Oktavian und das Testament Caesars”, ZRG116 (1999) 49–70, defends the concept, practice, and soundness of the testamentary adoption.He fails, however: certainly with respect to Metellus Scipio (cf. 54, n. 130). His argument (andalso that by K. Buraselis in his review of Imperium sine fine, ZRG 117 [2000] 656) founderson the rock of Metellus’ office of interrex (which neither of them considers).}

154



[1] Q. Caecilius Q. f. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio

The full official style38; it is attested in the list of witnesses to the senatus consultaquoted in Caelius’ letter to Cicero (Fam. 8.8. 5, 639; 29 Sep. 51). So also IGRR4.409 (see above, section I), where, however, the tribe is omitted.

[2] Q. Metellus Pius Scipio

IGRR 4.421; coins in Pergamon, and coins in Africa, formulas 1–3 (see above, sec-tion I).

[3] Q. Metellus Scipio

Cic., Har. resp. 12 (in a list of pontifices40; the cognomen Scipio was here neces-sary to distinguish him from Q. Metellus, i.e., Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus,named earlier); Asc. 30, line 8 Clark (in a list of candidates for the consulship);34.22 (in a rather formal notice: Q. Metellus Scipio in senatu ... conquestus est);Sch. Bobiensia 137 Stangl: commenting on Cic., Sest. 124, erat enim munusScipionis, dignum et eo ipso et illo Metello cui dabatur, the Scholiast explains:

38 In “The Dramatic Date of Varro, De re rustica, Book III and the Elections in 54”, Historia 34(1985) 251, n. 21 = Roman Questions (above n. 19) 103, I stated that “as the Fasti Consularesfor 52 are lost we do not know [Scipio’s] official style”. Of course we do know his official stylefrom the senatus consulta reported by Caelius. Following the accepted usage (in particular byBroughton in MRR), I also wrote (251, n. 21) that his full name was “Q. Caecilius MetellusPius Scipio Nasica”. As far as the cognomen Nasica is concerned this is incorrect. After hisassumption of the Caecilian name Scipio himself does not seem to have used the cognomenNasica, but Cicero once refers to him by this name (Att. 2.1.9; June 60). Why this exception?Cicero informs Atticus that Favonius lost election for an office (apparently it was a by-elec-tion; certainly not for the tribunate of the plebs: almost certainly for the curule aedileship. Seethe illuminating discussion by Konrad [above, n. 17] 123–24; cf. also MRR 3.31–42), and thathe brought a suit against his victorius competitor Nasica: accusavit Nasicam inhoneste, acmodeste tamen. The charge, it is generally accepted, was de ambitu. Now elections were oftendecided by inherited clientelae; Metellus Scipio may have stressed his Scipionic ancestry, andinvoked his father Scipio Nasica (pr. ca 93; cf. MRR 2.15, 16, n. 2). More likely Nasica wasthe name that the old-fashioned Favonius used (and Cicero repeated), thus disregardingScipio’s assumed nomenclature. {F. X. Ryan, “Nochmals über Nasica’s Tätigkeit im Jahre 60v. Chr.”, RSA 29 (1999), 169–75, esp. 175, has found an ingenious solution to the enigma ofNasica and Favonius. Cicero recounts two defeats of Favonius: at the polls and in the court.Favonius accused Nasica; but Nasica was not his rival at the elections. The crime of Nasica isunknown; and unknown is Favonius’ victorious competitor. The office of Nasica in 60, whetherthe tribunate or the aedileship, was always troubling; with the office cancelled, prosopograph-ical order is restored. Cf. n. 60.}

39 In this text there are numerous (but easy to correct) scribal errors: in the first decree the nomenis given as Caelius, and the tribe masquerades as Fabius; in the second the nomen and the tribeare left out. See the apparatus ad locc. in the edition by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero:Epistulae Ad Familiares 1 (Cambridge 1977) 164–65.

40 W. Drumann-P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms 2 (Leipzig 1902) 36, n. 11, inaccurately print Q.Scipio.

155


142 Historia et Ius

Adoptione tamen venit in familiam Metellorum et, cum illi fuisset nomen in prae-teritum gentile scilicet et naturale Cornelio Scipioni, reformatum est ut esset Q.Metellus Scipio (see above, section II); coins in Africa, formula 4 (see above,section I).

[4] Q. Metellus

This form appears in the dating formula in the tesserae nummulariae: CIL I2 2663c= ILLRP 1046: id. Iun. Q. Met(ello) int(errege) (a. 53); I2 933 = 1051: Cn.Pomp(eio) Q. Me(tello) (a. 52). So also Cassiodorus: Cn. Pompeius et Q. Metellus;see A. Degrassi, Inscr. Italiae, XIII. 1: Fasti Consulares et Triumphales (Roma1947) 496.

[5] Caecilius Metellus

In his hortological poem Columella (10.182) praises two exquisite kinds of lettuce,utraque Caecilii de nomine dicta Metelli. The identity of this Metellus is a mystery,but he may be our man. As Scipio Metellus was interested in fattening geese (seebelow [8]), he may also have been a hortologist.

[6] Metellus Scipio

Val. Max. 9.1.8; Plin., N.H. 8.196 (referring to Scipio’s pamphlet against Cato);Plut., Pomp. 55.1; Sch. Bob. 116, line 10 Stangl; Fasti Hydatiani, see Inscr. It. XIII.1 (as in [4]) 496.

[7] Metellus

So Cicero in his remarks following upon the passage Att. 6.1.17 (Feb. 50; repro-duced below, sub [8]). Fam. 7.23.2 (a. 46?): Bacchas istas cum Musis Metelli com-paras most probably refers to Metellus Scipio;41 Fam. 12.2.1 (a. 44): villa Metelli(but at Phil. 2.109: villam Scipionis; 5.19: in Tiburtino Scipionis42). See also Varro,R.R. 1.13.7: nunc contra villam urbanam quam maximam ac politissimam habeant,dant operam ac cum Metelli ac Luculli villis pessimo publico aedificatis certant.This villa was called villa Metelli because Scipio inherited it from his assumptive(vulgo adoptive) father, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius43; it was annexed by Antonius.Lucanus 8.410; 9.277 (in both passages describing Scipio’s daughter as prolesMetelli). Metellus also in Chronicon Paschale, see Inscr. It. XIII. 1 (as in [4]) 496.

41 Cf. the comment by Shackleton Bailey, Familiares 2 (above, n. 39) 372.42 Cf. Shackleton Bailey, Ibid. 344. Cf. also Cic., Att. 16.11.2.43 Cf. I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (= Collection Latomus 142 [Bruxelles

1975]) 266, 309.

156



[8] Scipio Metellus

So Cic., Att. 6.1.17 in a contemptuous aside: Scipio hic Metellus proavum [i.e., P.Scipio Nasica Serapio, cos. 138] suum nescit censorem non fuisse? (cf. below, [9]).The meaning is: “This Scipio who is Metellus”.44 This form also in Varro, R.R.3.2.16: aut triumphus alicuius, ut tunc fuit Scipionis Metelli; 3.10. 1: horum greges(i.e., of anseres) Scipio Metellus et M. Seius habent magnos aliquot; Plin., N.H.10.52 (also coupled with Seius and the geese); Plut., Cic. 15.1 (referring to 63; cf.above, n. 14); Cat. Min. 7.1 (anachronistic as it refers to ca 73; cf. above, n. 22);Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. I. Endt) 3.23: Cornelia Scipionis Metelli filia;10.78 (as socer of Pompeius). Perhaps also in Val. Max. 3.2.13.

[9] Scipio Cornelius (and Nepos, Att. 18.4)

Despite reservations of Shackleton Bailey45, the passage of Nepos, Att. 18.4, inwhich this form appears, certainly refers to Metellus Scipio, though the very formof his name may be questioned. Nepos remarks on the genealogical works ofAtticus: fecit hoc idem separatim (i.e., in addition to his Liber annalis) in aliis lib-ris, ut M. Bruti rogatu Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem ordine enumer-avit, notans quis a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset; parimodo Marcelli Claudii Marcellorum, Scipionis Cornelii et Fabii Maximi Fabiorumet Aemiliorum46. The text may be corrupt. After Scipionis Cornelii a lacuna hasbeen postulated. Cichorius sensibly proposed to read Scipionis Cornelii <Corneli-orum>47; Shackleton Bailey decreed “Better Scipionis Corneli<orum>”. But thisis hardly better: if in a series of three men Nepos writes Marcelli Claudii and FabiiMaximi we should suppose that also the third person would be equipped with twonames. Scipionis Cornelii parallels Marcelli Claudii, but we have to admit thatCichorius’ Cornelii Corneli<orum> is rather inelegant. In due course we shall seethat the lacuna may be more extensive.

The passage has been treated at length by Münzer in his famous paper onAtticus as a historian48. He argues, strictly following the paradosis of Nepos, that

44 Cf. the commentary ad loc. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus 3(Cambridge 1968) 249–50, and see also below in the text, [9].

45 Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 69, n. 20. Cf. F. Münzer, “Cornelius 357”, RE4 (1900) 1506.

46 The comment by J. C. Rolfe in Loeb Classical Library (1929) 685, n. 2, is a prize lapsuscalami: he explains Cornelius Scipio as “Scipio Africanus the Younger, who was Aemiliusadopted by a Scipio”.

47 C. Cichorius, De fastis consularibus antiquissimis (= Leipziger Studien zur class. Phil. 9.2[1887]) 236–37, n. 1. P. K. Marshall, the most recent editor of Nepos (Teubner, Leipzig 1977),unfortunately did not admit Cichorius’ conjecture even to his apparatus.

48 F. Münzer, “Atticus als Geschichtsschreiber”, Hermes 40 (1905) 50–100 at 93–100. This paperwas missed or disregarded by Shackleton Bailey. Billows “The Last of the Scipios” (below, n.95) 67, n. 31, suggests that Atticus composed his liber for Scipio Salvitto (who appears to haveadopted testamento a Pomponius). There is nothing to recommend this view.

Linderski RQ 1-14 7W25W07 4:40 PM 3

144 Historia et Ius

Scipio and Fabius Maximus49 joined together in asking Atticus to write about theFabii and Aemilii. He points out that Q. Fabius Maximus regarded himself as ascion of Fabii, Cornelii and Aemilii (Cic., Vat. 28: nihil Maximus fecit alienum autsua virtute aut illis viris clarissimis, Paullis, Maxumis, Africanis, quorum gloriamhuius virtute renovatam non modo speramus, verum etiam videmus), and that ontop of the fornix Fabianus (originally erected by his grandfather Q. FabiusMaximus Allobrogicus, cos. 121), which he restored as curule aedile in (no doubt)57, he placed the statue of L. Aemilius Paullus, the victor of Pydna and the naturalgrandfather of Allobrogicus50, flanked on the right by that of P. Cornelius Paulli f.Scipio Africanus (i.e., Scipio Aemilianus), and on the left by his own statue.51

Cicero’s videmus, spoken in 56, is a welcome literary reference to the restored arch.Now Münzer assigned the aedileship of Metellus Scipio also to 57 (cf. MRR

2.201), and in this way he produced an immediate connection between Scipio andFabius Maximus. But a glance at Münzer’s stemma (p. 96) will show that thegenealogical connection between Fabius Maximus and Metellus Scipio was rathertenuous. The common link is P. Scipio Africanus; his daughter married a memberof a collateral branch of the Scipiones, P. Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. 162, 155;RE 353), and the line then descended through P. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. 138;RE 354), and his son of the same name (cos. 111; RE 355) to P. Scipio Nasica (pr.ca 93; RE 351) and to our Scipio Metellus. In the middle of the stemma we have P.Scipio, the son of Africanus who adopted the younger son of L. Aemilius Paullus,the future new Africanus. He is the only link to the stemma of Fabius Maximus: theother son of L. Aemilius Paullus was adopted by Q. Fabius Maximus, and his linethen descended through Allobrogicus (cf. n. 49), and his son Q. Fabius Maximus(RE 107; he was a wastrel, hence the aedile’s glorification of his more distantancestors) to our aedile, Q. Fabius Maximus. As one can easily see FabiusMaximus included in his statuary stemma only the descendants of L. AemiliusPaullus, the natural archegetes of his line; his connection with the Cornelii is solelythrough the device of the younger son of Aemilius Paullus becoming a Scipio. Thiscorresponds very well to Nepos’ indication that Atticus at the request of FabiusMaximus delineated the families of Fabii and Aemilii. This script of AtticusMünzer rightly connected with Fabius Maximus’ renovation of the fornix, but thenhe continued (p. 97): “es ist ein Zufall, dass wir nicht wissen, ob auch MetellusScipio etwas ähnliches unternommen hat”.

49 See on him F. Münzer, “Fabius 108”, RE 6 (1909) 1791–92.50 The elder son of L. Aemilius Paullus and Papiria was adopted by Q. Fabius Maximus, pr. 181

(RE 105). This Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, cos. 145 (RE 109), was the father ofAllobrogicus (RE 110).

51 The statues are lost; the inscriptions (CIL I2.762, 763 = ILS 43 and 43 a = ILLRP 392) areknown from Renaissance copies. On the fornix, see F. Coarelli, Il Foro Romano 2 (Roma 1985)172–73, 179–80. {On the fornix Fabianus, see now L. Chioffi, LTUR 2 (1995) 264–66;Eadem, Gli Elogia augustei del Foro Romano. Aspetti epigrafici e topografici (= OpusculaEpigraphica 7 [Roma 1996]) 26–36. She argues that also other Fabii, certainly the Cunctator,were represented on the fornix.} On the names of Maximus’ sons, see below at the end of thissection.

157



In fact we do know that Metellus Scipio did undertake a similar statuary pro-gram, though not as a presumptive aedile in 57 but as consul in 52. In a letter toAtticus (6.1.17–18; written in Laodicea on 20 Febr. 50), Cicero remarks on Atticus’hilarious information de statua Africani, namely that Metellus Scipio had confusedhis great-grandfather P. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. 138) with the youngerAfricanus (cos. 147, cens. 132): he took a statue of the latter as representing the for-mer, and as a result ascribed to Nasica the censorship Nasica had never adminis-tered. Cicero avers that he himself had been perplexed: at mehercule ego, cum inturma inauratarum equestrium quas hic Metellus in Capitolio posuit animadvertis-sem in Sarapionis subscriptione Africani imaginem, erratum fabrile putavi, nuncvideo Metelli.

How was this erratum produced? Cicero explains: Scipio hic Metellus proavumsuum nescit censorem non fuisse? atqui nihil habuit aliud inscriptum nisi ‘censor’ea statua quae ab Opis parte postica (posita ms.) in excelso est. in illa autem quaeest ad Polukl°ouw Herculem inscriptum est ‘consul’; quam esse eiusdem status,amictus, anulus, imago ipsa declarat52. The inscriptions on the bases of the two old

52 I follow the reading of the manuscripts {as does also W. S. Watt in his OCT edition (1965)}.On the textual problems here involved, see Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus (above, n. 44)94 (ad loc. in app.) and 249–50 (commentary). With respect to the first statue (followingMalaespina) he prints ‘cos.’; and with respect to the other (following Purser) he prints ‘cos.<cens.>’. There is no need for those transpositions and emendations, and no reason to acceptPurser’s contention that it is unlikely that ‘censor’ would stand alone. Cicero’s train of thoughtis this: as the statue ad Herculem has only the inscription COS, Scipio Metellus could legiti-mately take it to be a statue of Nasica Serapio who had been a consul. But he should havenoticed that this is a statue of the same man who in another statue is identified as CENS. AsSerapio had never been a censor this cannot have been his statue, and consequently the statuewith COS was not his statue either, and thus Scipio Metellus was not entitled to appropiate itsimago for his equestrian statue of Nasica. This refutes the argument by R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C.Purser, The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero 3 (Dublin-London 1890) 306–7. The manu-script reading is also defended by F. Coarelli, “Le tyrannoctone du Capitole et la mort deTiberius Gracchus”, MEFRA 81 (1969) 137–60 at 145–46, n. 1. But I am afraid Coarelli mis-reads the words of Cicero when he claims (146) that “on avait placé deux têtes de ScipionEmilien sur deux statues équestres dédiées à Scipion Nasica”. Cicero clearly speaks of twostatues of Africanus but of only one of Nasica Serapio. Furthermore Coarelli takes the statuesab Opis parte and ad Herculem to be the statues of Nasica set up by Metellus Scipio whereas(Cicero could not be clearer) they are in reality the statues of Scipio Aemilianus. In which partof the Capitoline Hill Scipio Metellus planted his “equestrian cavalcade” Cicero does not tellus. Coarelli’s main and brilliant contribution is in the area of topography, but everything hesays about the placement of the statues by Metellus Scipio has to be referred to the statues ofAemilianus. But above all he plausibly suggests (136–37, 159–60) that it was Metellus Scipiowho erected on the Capitol also a statue of Aristogeiton, thus linking in a powerful politicalprogram the two tyrant slayers. {This interpretation of Cic., Att. 6.1.17–18 (and of the natureof Scipio’s error) has been endorsed (in passing) by R. E. A. Palmer, “Bullae InsigniaIngenuitatis”, AJAH 14 (1989 [1998]), 55, but was rejected (not unexpectedly) by D. R.Shackleton Bailey, “Two Passages in Cicero’s Letters. I. On a Statue of Africanus”, Ibid.70–72, who restated his earlier position. Diiudicent sagaciores! M. Sehlmeyer, StadtrömischeEhrenstatuen der republikanischer Zeit (= Historia Einzelschriften 130 [Stuttgart 1999])222–24, prudently observes (223) that in Cicero’s letter “beide Lesarten des Textes sind ...denkbar”. Cf. also his clear exposition in LTUR 4 (1999) 359 s.v. “Statuae: Cornelii

158


146 Historia et Ius

statues of Africanus must have identified him solely by an abbreviated familyname, P. Cornelius Scipio P. f., omitting the honorific surname of Africanus (soincisively Shackleton Bailey). They could be distinguished from the statues of theother Cornelii who were also P. f. (as, e.g., P. Scipio Nasica Serapio) solely by sta-tus, amictus, anulus, imago ipsa, and, of course, by the titles. This curious circum-stance illuminates Scipio’s error. Metellus Scipio correctly attributed the twostatues to the same person, but he wrongly and deplorably thought that this was hisproavus: o énistorhs¤an turpem! He turned Africanus into Serapio. And thuswhen he placed on the Capitol the equestrian statue of his great-grandfather P.Scipio Nasica Serapio, the slayer of Ti. Gracchus, he not only engraved the title ofcensor that belonged to Africanus but never to Nasica; he also assigned to hisancestor the very image of Africanus. One wonders what face he selected forAfricanus himself; very likely he erected the statues not of all Cornelii Scipionesbut only of the members of his own branch of the Scipiones Nasicae. Otherwise(we have charitably to grant this to Metellus Scipio) he would have discovered hismistake.

So far, only part of the puzzle. How did Atticus become involved in this com-edy? Shackleton Bailey has produced an explanation, ingenious and convincing.Also generous to Metellus Scipio. It rests on his literary interests.

In a modified form, the explanation runs as follows. Cicero had completed hisDe re publica before he departed in 51 for Cilicia. It was an immediate success. Tuilibri politici omnibus vigent, reports Caelius in May 51.53 The rolls fell also into the

Scipiones”. E. Papi, LTUR 2 (1995) 230 s.v. “Equus” is confused; in particular he does not dif-ferentiate between the paradosis and the conjectures in the letter of Cicero. H. Gesche, “DieReiterstatuen der Aemilier und Marcier”, Jb. f. Numismatik u. Geldgeschichte 17 (1968) 29, n.13, comments on Cicero’s description of the statues set up on the Capitol by Metellus Scipioas turma inauratarum equestrium (Att. 6.1.17). This turma, she suspects, may be identical withthe turma statuarum equestrium (Vell., 1.11.3–4; cf. Plin., N.H. 34.64; Iust. 11.6.12–13) whichQ. Metellus Macedonicus brought to Rome from Macedonia (in 146) and “auf dem Capitolaufstellte”, and thus “Caec. Metellus zur Zeit Ciceros vielleicht nur eine Umstellung vornahmund dabei gleichzeitig die vorhandenen Reiterbilder mit neuen auf seine Ahnen bezogenenInschriften versah”. The Cornelii and Caecilii parading in Macedonian attire and armor? (thesestatues, the work of Lysippus, represented the Macedonian cavalrymen who fell at Granicus,the turma Alexandri). But above all Metellus Macedonicus did not display the statues on theCapitol but within his portico (later rebuilt as Porticus Octavia), in front of the two temples itenclosed (of Iuppiter Stator and Iuno Regina) and, as Velleius reports, these statues were stillat his time (hodie) maximum ornamentum eius loci. They were thus never moved to theCapitoline hill, and have nothing to do with the equestrian statues commissioned by MetellusScipio. Still, there is a connection. The statues looted by Macedonicus were, it seems, com-monly known as turma, the denomination both Pliny and Velleius give to it. This turma mayhave served as an inspiration for Metellus Scipio. And when Cicero spoke of turma inau-ratarum equestrium he may have been hinting at the turma of Alexander (or Macedonicus). Itwas not a flattering comparison. The former was a work of Lysippus; that of Metellus Scipioan (opus) fabrile. In the former the features of the fallen amici Alexandri were expressedsumma similitudine (Plin.) whereas Metellus Scipio confused both the features and the titles ofhis (assumptive) Scipionic forebears.}

53 Fam. 8.1.4. On the composition and publication of the De re publica, see Drumann-Groebe,Geschichte Roms (above, n. 40) 6 (1929) 71–74.

159



hands of Metellus Scipio. In book VI centered around the somnium Scipionis, hestumbled upon a disturbing passage (p. 124 in K. Ziegler’s Teubner edition), todayextant only in the paraphrase of Macrobius (Somn. Scip. 1.4.2): cum enim Laeliusquereretur nullas Nasicae statuas in publico in interfecti tyranni remunerationemlocatas. When Metellus Scipio took in this information he ran to Atticus, thesupreme authority in such matters, to inquire whether this was really so54. And hetold the unbelieving Atticus his own story of mistaken identification, which Atticusduly reported to Cicero for his friend’s amusement in partibus barbarorum.

What better opportunity than this juncture for Scipio Metellus to ask Atticus tocompose a liber de gente Corneliorum? If he had Atticus’ book in his hands alreadyin 57, it strains the imagination to picture him engaged in 52 in a futile investiga-tion of the Capitoline statuary; to avoid his error it would have been sufficient forhim to consult Atticus’ script. Münzer actually assumed that Scipio committed hiserror “absichtlich55 oder unabsichtlich” in spite of his possession of Atticus’ geneal-ogy of the Scipiones. But if this were so it is not likely that Atticus would not havementioned in his letter that additional delightful morsel of information indicatingScipio’s density, and that Cicero would not have elaborated even more effusivelythan he does on Scipio’s ignorance.

Münzer concluded his analysis of the text of Nepos with a rather plaintiveobservation that “die Angaben des Nepos doch nicht ganz vollständig sind. Atticusmuss mehr ... gegeben haben, als die Familiengeschichte der Fabier und derAemilier; er muss die Scipionen, sogar die Meteller hineingezogen haben”56. TheScipiones certainly; the Metelli very likely. But which Metelli, that is the question.

At Brutus 212, a dialogue in which in addition to Cicero and Brutus alsoAtticus participated, Cicero expatiates on Scipio’s family tree: etenim istius genusest ex ipsius sapientiae stirpe generatum. The passage is so important, andgenealogically so complicated, that it must be quoted in full, to be followed by acommentary: Nam et de duobus avis iam diximus, Scipione et Crasso, et de tribusproavis, Q. Metello, cuius quattuor <illi>57 filii, P. Scipione, qui ex dominatu Ti.

54 Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus 3 (above, n. 44) 115, argues that the passage that arousedScipio’s discomfort could not have been Laelius’ complaint, but some other passage, now lost,that must have identified the statue ab Opis parte as the statue of Africanus and not as that ofNasica Serapio. This is unduly complicated. There was no reason for Cicero to mention a statueof Africanus in a dialogue in which Africanus himself was one of the interlocutors. As to theinterjection, de statua Africani, it is much better to take it not as a reference to a presumed men-tion of the statue in Cicero’s treatise, but rather as a comment on Atticus’ report of Scipio’smisidentification of the actual statua. The singular should not distress us. Atticus apparentlymentioned one statue only, the one with the inscription censor (hence Cicero’s exclamation:Scipio hic Metellus proavum suum nescit censorem non fuisse?); in response, Cicero, as washis wont, flaunted before Atticus his knowledge of the Capitoline topography, and out of hismemory produced two statues of Africanus, together with their inscriptions.

55 Münzer, “Atticus” (above, n. 48) 90. This characterization is surprising and errant. In the let-ter of Cicero there is not even the slightest intimation that Metellus Scipio erred absichtlich,that is that he conscientiously falsified the record. It was just sheer ignorance.

56 Münzer, “Atticus” (above, n. 48) 99. 57 Cf. A. E. Douglas, M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus (Oxford 1966) in app. ad loc.

160


148 Historia et Ius

Gracchi privatus in libertatem rem publicam vindicavit, Q. Scaevola augure, quiperitissimus iuris idemque percomis est habitus. Iam duorum abavorum quamillustre est nomen, P. Scipionis, qui bis consul fuit, qui est Corculum dictus, alteriusomnium sapientissimi, C. Laeli.

From Cicero’s letter to Atticus we have learnt both of Scipio Metellus’genealogical interests and ignorance. When he asked Atticus to compose a historyof his ancestors it would have indeed been odd if he had limited Atticus’ commis-sion solely to his gens naturalis and disregarded his adopted family.

But a glance at the stemma in the Brutus will show that it is built solely aroundthe agnatic descent and cognatic connections of the Scipiones Nasicae; the prolificMetelli appear prominently, but they are not the branch of Scipio’s adoptive fatherMetellus Pius. On the side of the Scipiones we have the abavus P. Cornelius ScipioNasica Corculum (cos. 162, 155; RE 353; he was married to the elder daughter ofScipio Africanus, a sister of Cornelia, mater Gracchorum), the proavus P.Cornelius Scipio Nasica, cos. 138, and the slayer of Ti. Gracchus (MetellusScipio’s shameful ignorance of his offices now passed over), and finally the avusP. Scipio Nasica, cos. 111 (Cicero omits the pater: he was a mere praetor). The cog-natic side is even more enveloped in sapientia. First, in the farthest reaches of thestemma, the abavus C. Laelius, cos. 140 (RE 3). His daughter Laelia married theproavus Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur, cos. 117 (RE 21), and his daughter Muciamarried L. Licinius Crassus the orator, cos. 95 (RE 55). The issue of this union wasLicinia, the wife of P. Scipio Nasica, and mother of our Metellus Scipio. TheMetelli remain. The paternal grandfather, Scipio Nasica, the consul of 111,acquired for wife a Metella, a daughter of the illustrious proavus Q. CaeciliusMetellus Macedonicus, cos. 143, and a sister to four consuls.

Münzer suggests, very plausibly, that Cicero had before his eyes the very scriptAtticus composed for Metellus Scipio. It was apparently not a history of the fam-ily ab ovo (as in the Liber annalis), but rather it started with Metellus Scipio, andtraced back the various links in the stemma58.

Thus no place for Metellus Pius and his line? It would be too rash to jump tothis conclusion. Metellus Scipio was now the keeper of the imagines and of the col-ored stemmata 59 of Metellus Pius; and later, as the Pompeian commander in Africa,he not only drew on his Scipionic ancestry but also showed a remarkable knowl-edge of the emblems of the Metelli (see below, section VI). The book of Atticuswill have been composed in two parts: one delineating the ancestry of the Nasicae,and the other of Metellus Pius. The link between the two was Metella, the paternalgrandmother of Metellus Scipio.

But the history of the Scipiones and the Metelli cannot be accomodated if wecontinue clinging to the transmitted text. To make sense of Nepos, and of Atticus’commissions, we have to separate Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus, andadmit a lacuna, even more extensive than that envisaged by Cichorius and

58 Münzer, “Atticus” (above, n. 48) 98–99. For the stemmata of Metellus Scipio and of theCaecilii, see RE 3 (1899) 1226, 1230.

59 Plin., N.H. 35.7. Cf. E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980)384–87.

161



Shackleton Bailey. We can venture to read: pari modo Marcelli Claudii Marcell-orum, Scipionis <Metelli> Corneli<orum> et <Metellorum>, Fabii MaximiFabiorum et Aemiliorum.

The unique name-form Scipio Cornelius pleasingly disappears; and the noticeof Nepos is firmly assigned to the familiar Scipio Metellus.

The separation of Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus in the text of Neposhas its repercussions in history. One pillar that united them in the aedileship of 57,the script of Atticus allegedly commissioned in unison by both of them, has crum-bled60; this is welcome for their future fate was dissimilar. Metellus Scipio died inglory fighting Caesar (see below, section XI); Fabius Maximus died in ridicule asCaesar’s stooge on the last day of his suffect consulship. To his sons he gave thefatuous names of Paullus Fabius Maximus and Africanus Fabius Maximus61. Theywere like a walking fornix Fabianus, and as consuls in 11 and 10, vain but glitter-ing ornaments of the new dispensation.

[10] P. Cornelius Scipio

Eutropius 6.23 in the description of the war in Africa: Duces autem Romani erantP. Cornelius Scipio ex genere antiquissimo Scipionis Africani. This rather unusualname-form finds its explanation in Scipio’s “Cornelian” propaganda in Africa (seebelow, section V). So also, referring to 49, the Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. I.Endt) 2.473.

60 The other pillar is a mention in the fifteenth-century French writer Antoine de la Sale, whoexcerpted Cicero’s lost De virtutibus, to the effect that Metel et Fabien, grans senateurs deRomme et bien amez, comment ilz perdirent l’amour du peuple et furent destruis par la chieretésurvenue. This seems indeed to indicate that Metellus and Fabius were the aediles in charge ofgrain procurement, but not necessarily in the same year. In any case if Metellus Scipio wasaedile in 57 he did not suffer any consequences, and smoothly advanced to the praetorship. Forthe text of Antoine de la Sale, see F. Gustafsson, “Cicero’s De virtutibus liber?”, BPhW 40(1904) 1277–78; and above all H. Knoellinger, M. Tulli Ciceronis de virtutibus libri fragmenta(Lipsiae 1908) 28–29, 49–50 (with a Latin translation and a commentary); and for Münzer’sinterpretation, RE 6 (1909) 1791; Suppl. 3 (1918) 223. The idea that Metellus Scipio wasaedile in 57 was recently taken up by F. Canali De Rossi, “P. Clodio, Q. Cecilio Metello e ilgrano tessalo”, Miscellanea Greca e Romana 19 (1995) 147–59; he also argues that MetellusScipio is the aedile Q. Caecilius Q. f. Metellus mentioned in the famous inscription fromLarissa (SEG 34 [1984] no 558) concerning the transportation of the Thessalian grain to Rome.This is unlikely; as generally accepted, the inscription probably belongs to the second century.See Konrad, “Also-Rans” (above, n. 17) 134–36. Cf. also A(nn) Marshall, “Atticus and theGenealogies”, Latomus 52 (1993) 305–15, a rambling piece. She seems inclined to separate inthe text of Nepos the Cornelii from the Fabii and Aemilii, and to adopt Cichorius’ conjecture,but she identifies the Cornelius as Cornelius (Scipio) Salvitto (cf. below, n. 95), and claims(315) that Atticus composed (in 46–44) the genealogy “for Fabius and Scipio [to give] Caesara weapon in his war of propaganda as he set up his dictatorship”. {On Metellus Scipio’s aedile-ship (certainly curule, as he remained a patrician), and his birth-date, see now F. X. Ryan, “TheBirth-Dates of Domitius and Scipio”, AHB 11.2–3 (1997) 89–93 at 90–91: he may have beenaedile in 57, but “it remains quite possible that he never held the post”. Cf. n. 38.}

61 Cf. PIR III (1943) 103–5, F 47 and 48; R. Syme, Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 377, 487.

162


150 Historia et Ius

[11] P.62 Scipio

Cic., Dom. 123: Atqui C. Atinius ... bona Q. Metelli ... avi tui, Q. Metelle, et tui, P.Servili, et proavi tui, P. Scipio, consecravit. To distingish Metellus Scipio from Q.Metellus (Creticus) Cicero had to use the cognomen Scipio (cf. above, [3]); and asthe three pontifices appear equipped with praenomina and cognomina, the inher-ited cognomen Scipio suggested the inherited praenomen P. (and not the assumedpraenomen Q.)63.

At Phil. 13.19 Cicero was faced with a similar delicate choice: recounting along list of consulars who perished with great damage to the commonwealth heplaces the exclamation: si P. Scipionem, clarissimum virum maiorumque suorumsimillimum, res publica tenere potuisset. All men appear equipped with thepraenomen and either nomen or cognomen; this precluded the form MetellusScipio, the combination of two cognomina. Once Cicero decided on Scipio (and notMetellus), the praenomen P. suggested itself; and it was reinforced by the mentionof Scipio’s maiores: after all when he himself placed on the Capitoline the statuesof his ancestors they were his Cornelian ancestors; cf. Cic., Att. 6.1.17, and above,[7]. (Incidentally this again argues against Scipio’s formal transitio into the gensCaecilia).

On the other hand Livy, Per. 113: Confirmatis in Africa Pompeianis partibusimperium earum P. Scipioni delatum est, is to be explained in the same way asEutropius’ P. Cornelius Scipio; see above, [9]. P. Scipio also at Per. 114 and atSeneca Rhet., Suas. 7.8, in the description of Scipio’s death, the Periocha stressingScipio’s position of imperator. Valerius Maximus 9.5.3 (P. Scipio as the socer ofPompeius) and Suetonius, Tib. 4 (Pater Tiberi, Nero ... pontifex in locum P.Scipionis substitutus) follow the same tradition.

[12] Q. Scipio

Cass. Dio 40.51.2: Pompeius selected as his colleague (in 52) KÊinton Skip¤vna.Shackleton Bailey blasts Dio for this “blunder”: what Dio is doing is “like refer-ring to M. Brutus (Q. Caepio Brutus) as ‘Q. Brutus’”64. But Dio was trying toexplain how Scipio got his new name and the praenomen Q.: oÏtow går gÒnƒ m¢nuflÚw toË NasikoË vÖ n §k d¢ dØ klÆrou diadox∞w §w tÚ toË Met°llou toËEÈseboËw g°now poihye‹w ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ tØn §p¤klhsin aÈtoË f°fvn. He

62 Appian’ s LeÊkiow Skip¤vn (2.24, 87, 95, 100, 101) is a mistake, odd but simple. 63 On the genealogy here indicated, see R. G. Nisbet, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua Ad

Pontifices Oratio (Oxford 1939) 172. In particular it is well to keep in mind that both MetellusScipio and P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 79) were descendants of Q. Metellus Macedonicus,cos. 143 (whose bona were consecrated by C. Atinius Labeo, tr. pl. in 132), in the female line:the mother of Vatia and the grandmother of Metellus Scipio were daughters of Macedonicus(cf. F. Münzer, “Caecilius 130, 131”, RE 3 [1899] 1234; cf. above, [9]). No comfort here forthe defenders of Scipio’s formal adoption.

64 Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 69.



reduced Scipio’s adoptive name to its first and last component. This is the form thatnow appears also on our gem.

[13] Scipio

So the Livian tradition and an assorted variety of other authors: Livy, Per. 107 and114 (where Scipionem praetorem is probably a mistake for proconsulem; cf. ad loc.P. Jal in the Budé edition of the Periochae [Paris 1984] 87–88); Vell. Pat. 2.54.2;Florus 2.13.65–68; Val. Max. 3.8.7, 8.14.5; Seneca Rhet., Suas. 6.2; Seneca, Ep.Mor. 24.10, 71.10; Lucanus 2.473, 6.311, 788, 7.223; Adnot. super Lucanum 6.62,310, 778, 7.223; Lucani Commenta Bernensia (ed. H. Usener) 2.473, 6.788; Quint.5.11.10; Ps.-Quint., Decl. Minores 377.9; Tac., Ann. 4.34.3; Suet., Iul. 35.2, 37.1,59; Oros. 6.16.3–4; Auct. Vir. Ill. 78.8, 80.3; Ampel. 24, 38; Asconius (often Scipio,but cf. above [3]); Sch. Bob. 169, line 16 Stangl; Sch. Gronov. 291, line 25; 322.27Stangl; Appian (he has both Scipio and the odd L. Scipio; cf. n. 62); Josephus, A.J.14.125, 140; B.J. 1.185, 195; Plutarch (normally Scipio: Caes. 30.2, 3, 39.7, 42.1,44.2, 53.1, 55.1; Cat. Min. 47.1, 56–58, 60.3, 62.1; Pomp. 55.4, 62.2, 66.5, 67.5;Comp. Pomp. et Ages. 4.7; for other forms, see above, [8]); Cass. Dio (regularlyScipio, but cf. the forms listed under [12], and in n. 15). {And see also the inscrip-tion on a helmet: Scip(io) imp(erator). See above, section I, in fine.}

Caesar in his Bellum Civile and the author of the Bellum Africum address himinvariably simply as Scipio. He is normally so called also by Cicero and Caelius.In Cicero the prime exhibit is Brut. 212, where we read (Cicero speaking): Quid,Crassum, inquam, illum censes, istius Liciniae filium, Crassi testamento qui fuitadoptatus? Brutus answers: Summo iste quidem dicitur ingenio fuisse, and he con-tinues: et vero hic Scipio, conlega meus (i.e., in the pontificate), mihi sane bene etloqui videtur et dicere, he knew Latin well, and was a good public speaker65. As thecognoscenti will know, Crassus, the son of Licinia, was the younger brother ofScipio. At the dramatic date of the dialogue he was already dead (dicitur fuisse),and he apparently died young. To us of interest is not his stellar promise, but ratherthe way in which Cicero identifies him. Both brothers were “adopted” testamento;the younger brother apparently by his grandfather, L. Licinius Crassus, the orator.It is under his assumed cognomen of Crassus that he appears; on the other hand hiselder brother, “adopted” by Metellus Pius, is steadfastly Scipio. Upon Brutus’remark Cicero embarks on a delineation of Scipio’s family tree (see above [9]), par-ticularly stressing that P. Scipio qui ex dominatu Ti. Gracchi privatus rem publicamin libertatem vindicavit. In the context of the times – the Brutus was composedearly in 46 when Metellus Scipio and Cato were still resisting Caesar in Africa66 –this statement acquires a contemporary urgency. Cicero was lingering in Rome tornbetween his loathing for Caesar and his fear that the victorious Pompeians may

65 Cf. Douglas, Brutus (above, n. 57) 154. In matters prosopographical his commentary is defi-cient. He did not even remark on the important fact that Crassus and Scipio were brothers, andhas no comment on Scipio’s genealogy.

66 P. Groebe in Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 40) 6 (1929) 683.

163


152 Historia et Ius

regard him as traitor (Att. 11.15.1). In the Brutus he looks anxiously to the outcomein Africa (266): et praeteritorum recordatio est acerba et acerbior expectatioreliquorum. When Cicero finished describing Scipio’s multibranched ancestry hehas Brutus exclaim (213): O generosam ... stirpem et tamquam in unam arboremplura genera, sic in istam domum multorum insitam atque <inseminatam>67 sapi-entiam! Sapientia may have flown into the house of Metellus Scipio, but it couldnot overcome Caesar’s legions and the luck of the Julii. Even Brutus soon tobecome the liberator was not able to bend the verdict of history, and lead the stateto freedom. The sonorous and stirring sounds of rem publicam in libertatem vindi-care were annexed at Philippi and at Actium by Caesar’s heir to serve in hisnewspeak as a formula for dominatio.

IV. PROVINCIAE PRIVATIS DECERNUNTUR

In his Bellum Civile (1.6.5–7) Caesar denies constitutional legitimacy to Pompeiancommanders, and in particular he brands nominatim two senior generals, the con-sulars (Metellus) Scipio68 and L. Domitius (cos. 54): Provinciae privatis decernun-tur69, duae consulares, reliquae praetoriae. Scipioni obvenit Syria, L. DomitioGallia (MRR 2.261–62). Philippus et Cotta privato consilio praetereuntur, nequeeorum sortes deiciuntur. in reliquas provincias praetores70 mittunt. Neque expec-tant, quod superioribus annis acciderat, ut de eorum imperio ad populum feraturpaludatique votis nuncupatis exeunt (exeant)71.

Caesar’s writ of accusation contains three points, of unequal value:1) Provinciae privatis decernuntur. The phrase encapsulates an emotional

appeal to the mos maiorum: one intuitively feels it is improper to give provinces toprivati. Traditionally provinces had indeed been assigned to magistrates who

67 So Stangl. See Douglas, Brutus (above, n. 57) in app. ad loc., and in his commentary (155).68 See also 1.4.3: Scipionem eadem spes provinciae atque exercituum impellit (i.e., as of

Lentulus, cf. below, n. 96), quos se pro necessitudine partiturum cum Pompeio arbitratur,simul iudiciorum metus atque ostentatio atque adulatio potentium, qui in re publica iudiciisquetum plurimum pollebant. R. Syme, Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 40, improved on Caesar’sstrictures: “Q. Metellus Scipio, vaunting an unmatched pedigree, yet ignorant as well asunworthy of his ancestors, corrupt and debauched in the way of his life”. ‘Ignorant’ refers tohis venial sin of not knowing that his great-grandfather was not a censor (see above, sectionIII, [9]); ‘corrupt’ hints at his electoral bribery (a thing of which most Roman politicians wereguilty), and ‘debauched’ refers to Valerius Maximus’ (9.1.8) anecdote of Scipio’s participationin a party in a private lupanar which evoked the indignation of assorted ancient and modernmoralists (not that Syme should be counted among them). But the best in the abuse of Scipiois served by J. H. Collins in his marvellous “Caesar and the Corruption of Power”, Historia 4(1955) 457, n. 64.

69 This refers to the meeting of the senate proximis diebus extra urbem, i.e., on Jan. 8 and 9 of49. The senatus consultum ultimum had already been adopted.

70 Praetor is here used in the sense of praetorius.71 Exeunt most codices and editors; exeant U (codex Vaticanus ex bibliotheca Fulvii Ursini) fol-

lowed by A. Klotz in his Teubner edition (1950). The next sentence is corrupt, and this is notthe place to attempt to heal it. On the whole passage, see the commentary by Kraner, Hofmannand Meusel (above, n. 5) 20–22, useful but gullible.

164



would then proceed to administer them with a prorogued imperium. But since thelex Pompeia de provinciis of 52 the constitutional landscape has changed: this lawintroduced the requirement of a five-year interval between a city magistracy and aprovincial command72. Consequently after that date the provinces had to beassigned to former magistrates, and hence perforce privati. Forthwith Caesar’s con-stitutional argument falls to the ground: observe that he does not directly impugnthe validity of the lex Pompeia. It is only at 1.85.9 that he explicitly attacks the law:in se iura magistratuum commutari, ne ex praetura et consulatu, ut semper, sed perpaucos probati et electi in provincias mittantur. The law is not invalid, but it isagainst all precedent; moreover it was conceived ad personam (which it probablywas), a heinous privilegium that unleashed the arbitrary rule of the pauci73. A mas-ter propagandist at work: mixing vera falsis, misleading and underhanded, but car-rying the day74.

2) The selection of consular governors. Caesar’s complaint appears to be this:of the four available consulars only two, Scipio and Domitius, were admitted to thesortition for the two consular provinces; the two others, L. Marcius Philippus (cos.56) and L. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 65), were passed over privato consilio. Of coursewe do remember that the Republic was destined to be saved privato consilio, buthere the phrase has a sinister ring. Its precise meaning, if any, is not easy to gauge.We do not know enough of the procedure envisaged by the lex Pompeia. Did thelaw prescribe that the names of all available consulars be thrown into the urn (asCaesar intimates) or perhaps the precise arrangements were left to the decision ofthe senate? In the latter case privatum consilium will not be a private compact, buta senatorial decree, sponsored and carried out contra Caesarem, it is true, but notnecessarily contra legem.

Solution accrues from a corner not unexpected but unexpectedly neglected. Itis rather disconcerting that despite Cicero’s numerous asides (mostly complaints),and an extensive correspondence from Cilicia, we do not have a clear idea in whichway his provincial appointment under the lex Pompeia came about. Ad Familiares3.2.1 (dated to February or March 51), a passage not well served by interpreters,offers a clue: cum et contra voluntatem meam et praeter opinionem accidisset utmihi cum imperio in provinciam proficisci necesse esset. Now if the law had pre-scribed that the two consular governors were to be selected by lot from all avail-able former consuls (i.e., from those former consuls who had not yet held a

72 On the Pompeian law, see the excellent study by A. J. Marshall, “The Lex Pompeia deProvinciis (52 B.C.) and Cicero’s Imperium in 51–50 B.C.: Constitutional Aspects”, ANRW I.1(1972) 887–921, esp. 890–98 (with ample literature). {K. M. Girardet, “Die lex Iulia deprovinciis. Vorgeschichte-Inhalt-Wirkungen”, RhM 130 (1987) 291–329, argues that the lexPompeia concerned only the praetors (293–307, esp. 298–299); this appears unfounded: cf. RQ654; T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II.402–3, and794 (nn. 110–17); J.-F. Ferrary, “À propos des pouvoirs d’Auguste”, Cahiers Glotz 12 (2001)101–54 at 105–8.}

73 Cf. on this passage, K. Raaflaub, Dignitatis contentio (= Vestigia 20 [München 1974]) 128, n.91.

74 On Caesar’s art of propaganda, see the inspiring piece by J. H. Collins, “Caesar as a PoliticalPropagandist”, ANRW I.1 (1972) 922–66, esp. on the Bellum Civile 942–63.

165


154 Historia et Ius

provincial command) Cicero may well have asserted that his appointment hap-pened contra voluntatem, perhaps contra spem, but hardly praeter opinionem(“quite unexpectedly”) for he certainly could not exclude the possibility of the sorswith his name coming out. Hence, clearly, a procedure in two stages. In the firststage there was no allotment but the senate by its vote would select nominatimprovincial governors. Cicero was selected: against his will and contrary to hisexpectations75. In the second stage the governors (consular and praetorian) and theprovinces were matched by lot. This is precisely the procedure of selection atwhich Caesar is hinting: openly partisan but perhaps not strictly illegal76.

3) The imperium of the Pompeian governors. As the prospective governorswere privati, they could not receive the imperium simply by a decree of the senate;it had to be bestowed upon them by a legislative act: first, it would appear, by a lawin the centuriate or tribal assembly to be followed by the lex curiata de imperio77.This requirement was complied with superioribus annis, apparently in 51 and 50,but not in 49: in their unseemly haste, the Pompeian commanders did not wait ut

75 Tyrrell-Purser 3 (above, n. 52) 5, ad loc., assert that “the oldest consulars who had not yet helda province were to draw lots. The oldest consulars were Cicero and Bibulus”. But if this werethe rule, and if Cicero and Bibulus were the oldest consulars, Cicero’s appointment could nothave come praeter opinionem. It would be a normal thing to expect. As we learn from Caesar,there was an even older consular who had not yet held a provincial command, L. AureliusCotta, cos. 65. Now Cotta may not have been available in 51 for a governorship, perhapsbecause of an illness; but as there were two consular provinces, and Cicero was the second inseniority, he should (on Tyrrell-Purser’s theory) still have expected to go to a province. Wehave to discard seniority as the guiding principle for the selection of consular governors underthe lex Pompeia. There must have been a different rule at play, or no rule at all, the senate hav-ing a completely free rein. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) 23. 249, n. 3, and Marshall,“Lex Pompeia” (above, n. 72) 888, n. 4, also disregard the import of praeter opinionem. It isperhaps worth pointing out that Shackleton Bailey has no comment on this crucial passage. Thesenatus auctoritas of 29 Sep. 51 (transcribed by Caelius, Fam. 8.8.8) regulated the distributionof the praetorian provinces; they were to be assigned to those praetors who had not yet admin-istered a province beginning with the collegium (it appears) of 55, and then moving backwardsuntil all gubernatorial posts were filled (cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 23. 249, nn. 1–2). If thisrule of “reverse seniority” applied also to consular provinces, Cicero’s perplexity is easilyexplained: before the line of the would-be appointees would reach 63 there were other con-sulars eligible for the provincial command, e.g. L. Marcius Philippus, cos. 56. But, for somereason, they were apparently excused, and so Cicero went to Cilicia praeter opinionem. Seenow also the solid study by K. M. Girardet, “Die lex Iulia de provinciis. Vorgeschichte-Inhalt-Wirkungen”, RhM 130 (1987) 291–329 at 293–307, esp. 298–99: he argues that the lexPompeia concerned only the praetors; Cicero and Bibulus received their provincial commandson the basis of a senatus consultum, and the imperium consulare was bestowed upon themextra ordinem “durch eine lex (tributa / centuriata) de imperio”.

76 A curious fact stands out: Metellus Scipio was consul in 52, and thus a quinquennium betweenhis office and his provincial command had not elapsed, and yet Caesar remarkably does notcomment on that apparent violation of the lex Pompeia. Various explanations have beenoffered; for a summary, see Marshall, “Lex Pompeia” (above, n. 72) 892, n. 20; 894, n. 27. Weare apparently dealing with interim arrangements; the quinquennium could have been imple-mented in an orderly way only beginning with the fifth year after the lex Pompeia. Thearrangement postulated for Cicero’s appointment (see above, n. 73) was not operative in 49.

77 Cf. Marshall, “Lex Pompeia” (above, n. 72) 892–95.

166



de eorum imperio ad populum feratur. This strains the imagination. We should notblithely ascribe this amazing legal and ritual negligence to the senate, to Pompey,and to his generals. Caesar must again be dealing in half-truths.

Two, and only two, possibilities obtrude. The Pompeians forwent either thecomitial law or the curiate law; in either case their imperium was tainted, andCaesar was not wholly unjustified in describing them as privati.

Every comitial law, whether in the centuriate or tribal assembly, had to bepromulgated at least three Roman weeks (trinum nundinum) in advance before thescheduled date of the assembly. The Pompeians could not afford to wait that long.The senate could exempt the proposer of the law from this requirement, but per-haps we should read Caesar’s text literally, and conclude that no law was put beforethe people. We can suspect that the comitial laws de imperio were duly promul-gated, but they were never passed: the Pompeians were forced to abandon the cityalready on 18 January. In that situation they decided to satisfy themselves solelywith the lex curiata; the thirty lictors who represented the curiae were easy toassemble. If this was the case, the constitutional fault of the Pompeians receivesillumination from an old stricture of Cicero. Combatting early in 63 the proposalof Rullus, Cicero the consul was particularly indignant because the tribune legecuriata XVviros ornat. Iam hoc inauditum et plane novum, uti curiata lege magis-tratus detur qui nullis comitiis ante est datus (Leg. agr. 2.26). Rullus had in factintended that the lex curiata grant imperium and auspicium to those agrarian com-missioners (XVviri) quos plebs designaverit, but he forgot to include in an earlierchapter of his law a clause stipulating the election of the commissioners by theplebs. Cicero is thus partially disingenuous, as is also Caesar, and the Pompeians.Everything depended upon constitutional and augural interpretation. ThePompeians could well have argued that the curiate law did not create any new mag-istracy but solely bestowed abstract imperium and auspicium on the men whoseprovinciae had been defined by the senate on the basis of the Pompeian law. Wemay trust that the augurs would have come up with a suitable theory, depending onwhether they were on the side of Pompey or of Caesar78.

But in history it is not the constitutional cogency of propaganda but its politi-cal efficacy that is of importance. The Bellum Civile was probably written in instal-ments during the course of events, but it was not published until after Caesar’sdeath79. Thus it was not per se immediately a tool of propaganda. But it was a blue-print. The strictures and accusations it contained would be spouted out at innumer-able contiones apud milites, disseminated in countless pamphlets, and in colloquiawith the Pompeian soldiers. Caesar’s claims will be engraved on his coins. It is inthe context of the struggle for legitimacy that we have to read the Bellum Africum,

78 On the politically charged augural interpretations during the civil war, see J. Linderski, “TheAugural Law”, ANRW II. 16 (1986) 2181–84. In any case in March 49 the augur Cicero hadno doubts as to the validity of Scipio’s imperium (Att. 8.15.3).

79 Cf. the classic study by K. Barwick, Caesars Bellum Civile. Tendenz, Abfassungszeit, Stil(Berichte Verh. Sächs. Akad., Phil.-hist. Kl. 99.1 [Leipzig 1951]) passim; J. H. Collins, “On theDate and Interpretation of the Bellum Civile”, AJP 80 (1959) 113–32.

167


156 Historia et Ius

a tale of Cato and the two imperatores. Scipio did not remain mute: he stillharangues through the images on the coins he struck in 47 and 46 as the Pompeiancommander in Africa.

V. FELIX ET INVICTUM SCIPIONUM NOMEN

The inscription on the gem gives testimony that Scipio was the cognomen the gen-eral himself preferred and stressed. After 49 it regularly appears in close connec-tion with the title of imperator. This was true particularly for the period of Scipio’scommand in Africa in 47 and 46.

The author of the Bellum Africum (4) tells a poignant story of Scipio’s legateC. Considius Longus (MRR 2.267, 281, 290): when a messenger sent to him fromthe Caesarian camp referred to Caesar as imperator, Considius haughtily replied:unus est ... Scipio imperator hoc tempore populi Romani, and had the messengerforthwith executed in conspectu suo for his importunate temerity.

The Caesarians were equally obstinate. At B. Af. 44 Scipio addresses captiveveterani and tirones, urges them to abandon their sceleratus imperator, join theoptimus quisque, and defend the republic. He promises them pardon, and awards.One of the captives, a centurion, responds (45): Pro tuo ... summo beneficio, Scipio,tibi gratias ago – non enim te imperatorem appello, and refuses to fight contraCaesarem imperatorem meum. Enraged Scipio ordered the veterans nefario scelerecontaminatos et caede civium saginatos to be led away and executed80; the tironeshe incorporated into his army.

A powerful motif in the Caesarian propaganda in Africa was the alleged sub-servience of Caesar’s opponents, and of Scipio himself, to King Iuba of Numidia81.At B. Af. 57 this motif is combined with ridicule of Scipio’s imperatorial preten-tiousness. Before the arrival of the King it was Scipio’s custom to wear a purplecloak, but Iuba remonstrated with him that he ought not to wear the same dress asthe king; Scipio meekly submitted to the arrogant and inert barbarian, and changedto white dress: Namque cum Scipio sagulo purpureo ante regis adventum uti soli-tus esset, dicitur Iuba cum eo egisse non oportere illum eodem vestitu atque ipseuteretur. Itaque factum est ut Scipio ad album sese vestitum transferret et Iubaehomini superbissimo inertissimoque obtemperaret. The sagulum purpureum is thepaludamentum, the hallowed purpled cloak of the Roman commander, who donnedit upon the crossing of the pomerium when he departed from Rome for a campaign,wore it in battle and at all official functions; the vestitum album is the toga pura,

80 For Scipio’s execution lust, see also B. Af. 28: the execution of duo Titii ... adulescentes, tri-buni legionis V, quorum patrem Caesar in senatum legerat. Cf. Val. Max. 3.8.7. {And seebelow, No. 15: “Legio V in Messana”.}

81 See B. Af. 57: M. Aquin(i)us (MRR 2.300) disregards instructions from Scipio, but obeys Iuba’sorder; Plut., Cato Min. 57: Iuba takes his seat in the middle between Cato and Scipio, thus indi-cating his superiority; Scipio remains impassive, but Cato saves the day and Scipio’s face;Cass. Dio 43.4.5–6: Scipio promises Iuba all Roman Africa. {On the incident between Jubaand Scipio concerning Scipio’s paludamentum, cf. also M. Reinhold, History of Purple as aStatus Symbol in Antiquity (= Collection Latomus 116 [Bruxelles 1970]) 44–45.}

168



the dress of Roman civilians.82 The author of the Bellum Africum thus imputes toScipio a virtual abdication of his command in favor of the king. The verb obtem-perare highlights Scipio’s shameful conduct: this solemn locution was pronouncedat the secular games in the archaizing prayer for the success of the Roman people:vos (or te) quaeso precorque uti (tu) imperium maiestatemque populi RomaniQuiritium duelli domique auxitis (auxis) utique semper Latinus obtemperassit83.

But the story in Valerius Maximus 8.14.5 presents Scipio as a paragon of oldRoman virtue. After a brave exploit Scipio was distributing dona militaria to cav-alrymen. T. Labienus (MRR 2. 301) suggested that he should give to an eques for-tis, who also happened to be a freedman, the golden armillae. Scipio refused: hecontended the award would be compromised if given to a person who had been aslave (ne castrensis honos in eo, qui paulo ante servisset, violaretur). Labienus,undaunted, ipse ex praeda Gallica aurum equiti largitus est. Whereupon Scipioremarked to the eques: habebis ... donum viri divitis. The cavalryman, ashamed,proiecto ante pedes Labieni auro, vultum demisit. But when he heard Scipio sayimperator te argenteis armillis donat, he went away alacer gaudio. Münzer citesthe passage of Valerius only in order to show that Scipio, who was very“untüchtig”, was not always “mit dem tüchtigen Labienus ... einig”84. Even thisgreat scholar could not free himself from the pull of the victor’s propaganda; forthe moral of the story in Valerius is that it was Labienus who was to be blamed, notScipio. Labienus was contaminated by the Gallic gold he had plundered servingunder Caesar. He behaved like an oriental potentate. The award of golden armletswas reserved for officers; it was not given to simple cavalrymen, and it was cer-tainly extravagant and socially disruptive to give it to a former slave, howeverbrave. The regular award for equestrian bravery consisted of armillae argenteae.Scipio was thus a commander of old, observing the mos maiorum, distributing thedona according to valor, and preserving the distinction of rank and status85.

A true imperator enjoyed divine favor, felicitas, and the proof was victory onthe battlefield86. At the decisive and final battle at Thapsus (6 April 46) Caesar cau-tiously hesitates, but his troops take a trepidatio among the enemy as a propitioussign portending victory. They spontaneously begin to attack; when Caesar realizedthat it was impossible to hold his ranks back, he selected Felicitas as his watch-word, and proceeded against the enemy line: signo Felicitatis dato ... contraprincipes ire contendit (B. Af. 82–83).87 The result: ten thousand of enemy soldiers

82 Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) 13. 408–9 (toga), 431–33 (paludamentum).83 I. B. Pighi, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium libri sex (Milano 1941) 114, 116,

163, 164. Cf. Caes., B.G. 4.21.6: qui polliceantur ... imperio populi Romani obtemperare. 84 Münzer, “Caecilius 99” (above, n. 4) 1227–28.85 On the dona militaria, and esp. on the award of the armillae, see V. Maxfield, The Military

Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 89–90, 128. {On this award, see now indetail J. Linderski, “Silver and Gold of Valor: the Award of armillae and torques”, Latomus 60(2001) 3–15, esp. 4–5 on Scipio and Labienus (reprinted in this volume, No. 14).}

86 Cf. E. Wistrand, Felicitas Imperatoria (= Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 48[Göteborg 1987]) 1–43, 79–90. He does not discuss the contest in felicitas between Scipio andCaesar. See also the good study by P. R. Murphy, “Caesar’s Continuators and Caesar’sFelicitas”, CW 79.5 (1986) 307–17, esp. 314–15 on the Bellum Africum.

87 On military watchwords, see Veget., Epit. rei milit. 3.5: vocalia (signa) dicuntur quae voce

169


158 Historia et Ius

killed; Caesar lost only fifty (B. Af. 86). Scipio’s title of imperator proved fraudu-lent; Caesar’s was genuine. It was manifestly through Caesar’s felicitas that victorywas achieved, and not because of his skill as a commander.

Here also belongs the story in B. Af. 61: secundo equestri proelio facto Scipiolaetus in castra nocte copias reduxit. Quod proprium gaudium bellantibus fortunatribuere non decrevit (for the next day Caesar’s cavalrymen) equites NumidasGaetulosque ex improviso adorti circiter C partim occiderunt, partim vivorumpotiti sunt. Two words stand out: laetus and fortuna. The former is the verbum pro-prium to describe the joy, the gaudium of an imperator after he had received a pro-pitious sign promising victory88; in the case of Scipio it was false joy: it did notflow from his felicitas but was given to him by the fickle and treacherous fortune.A. Alföldi put it well: “felicitas ... is the permanent individual property of theimperator, incompatible with the capricious, illusive Tyche of the Greeks”89.

Lucan (6.788) describes Metellus Scipio as infausta suboles of ScipioAfricanus; and Scipio’s daughter, the gentle Cornelia, the widow of P. Crassus,fallen at Carrhae, and the wife of Pompeius, infelix coniunx et nulli laeta marito(Lucan 8.89), was to contaminate through her misfortune the felicitas of Magnushimself (on Pompeius’ felicitas see the locus classicus, Cicero’s account in De imp.Cn. Pomp. 47–48). In a fragment of Livy (preserved by the Lucani CommentaBernensia 8.91) Cornelia so addresses her husband after the debacle of Pharsalos:Vicit, Magne, felicitatem tuam mea fortuna. quid enim ex funesta Crassorum domorecipiebas nisi ut minueretur magnitudo tua?

But how was it possible that the cause that was not just proved victorious, thecause (to paraphrase Scipio’s words at B. Af. 45) nefario scelere contaminata etcaede civium saginata? Cicero, speaking of Antonius, echoes this sentiment (Phil.2.59): saturavit se sanguine dissimillimorum sui civium; felix fuit, si potest ulla inscelere esse felicitas. On several occasions he denies the felicitas to Caesar, mostexplicitly in a letter to Cornelius Nepos (Ep. fr. 2.5, p. 153 Watt): in perditis impi-isque consiliis, quibus Caesar usus est, nulla potuit esse felicitas. Cicero shifts theunderstanding of felicitas from that of a celestial force and favor to a personalmoral judgment; but even on this new ground the Caesarians had their answer.Their causa not only deis placuit (in Lucan’s bitter words, 1.128)90; it was victrixbecause it was iustior (Lucan himself leaves this in aporia: quis iustius induit armascire nefas, 1.126–27). And it was a causa clemens.

humana pronuntiantur, sicut in vigiliis vel in proelio pro signo dicitur, ut puta, victoria palmavirtus, Deus nobiscum, triumphus imperatoris et alia.

88 On the augural significance of laetus, see J. Linderski, “Roman Religion in Livy”, in W.Schuller (ed.), Livius. Aspekte seines Werkes (= Xenia. Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge undForschungen 31 [Konstanz 1993]) 60–61, 67 (n. 24) = Roman Questions (above, n. 19)615–16, 623; cf. 679.

89 A. Alföldi in his review of S. Weinstock’s Divus Julius, Gnomon 47 (1975) 162 = A. Alföldi,Caesariana (Bonn 1984) 335] (but he is quite wrong in denying a special relationship ofCaesar with felicitas).

90 Cf. on all of this the fine pages by P. Jal, “Les dieux et les guerres civiles dans la Rome de lafin de la république”, REL 40 (1962) 170–200, esp. 183–88; and by Wistrand, Felicitas (above,n. 86) 41–43.

170



After Cato’s suicide the proquaestor L. Caesar (MRR 2.297) professing hisfaith in Caesar’s clementia persuaded the people of Utica to surrender, and portispatefactis Utica egressus Caesari imperatori obviam proficiscitur (B. Af. 88).Caesar of course pardoned him91, and many others, facile et pro natura sua (89).In contrast to the inept, harsh and cruel Scipio he was not only inbued with felici-tas; he was also imperator clemens92.

If the title of imperator advertised Scipio’s felicitas, his cognomen Scipioadvertised his invincibility. There circulated a prophecy that a Scipio cannot sufferdiscomfiture in Africa: felix et invictum in ea provincia fataliter Scipionum nomenferebatur93. This belief spread even to Caesar’s soldiers (Dio 42.58.1). Caesar, per-sonally a sceptic, paid keen attention to the superstitions of the vulgus94. He knewwell that to use reason against belief was to no avail. Irrational opinions had to befought on their own ground. Thus he procured an antidote: he kept in his camp aScipio, as Suetonius (Iul. 59) puts it, despectissimum quendam ex Corneliorumgenere, cui ad opprobrium Salvitoni 95 cognomen erat. Plutarch (Caes. 52.2–3)

91 Unfortunately things are not always as they seem or as the propagandists present them. L.Caesar was later killed, without Caesar’s knowledge, so Suetonius (Iul. 75.3) avers; secretly,on Caesar’s orders, according to Dio (43.12.3). On Cic., Fam. 9.7.1–2, see Shackleton Bailey,Familiares (above, n. 39) 2.178.

92 On the contrast between the crudelitas of the Pompeiani and Caesar’s clementia, see the eru-dite and discerning treatment by K. Raaflaub, Dignitatis contentio (above, n. 73) 293–307, andesp. on the war in Africa 257–58, 300. An utterance of Cicero (in March 49) gives a good ideawhat one could expect from a (bankrupt) but victorious Metellus Scipio: quid enim tu illicScipionem, quid Faustum, quid Libonem prae<ter>missurum sceleris putas quorum credi-tores convenire dicuntur? quid eos autem, cum vicerint, in civis effecturos? (Att. 9.11.4).

93 Suet., Iul. 59. Also Plut., Caes. 52.2–3; Dio 42.57.5. This oracle was invented for ScipioAemilianus: Flor. 1.31.12: Quamvis profligato urbis excidio tamen fatale Africae nomenScipionum videbatur. Igitur in alterum Scipionem conversa res publica finem belli reposcebat.S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971), 98, maintains that “The oracle was probably cre-ated for Scipio Maior during the Second Punic War and was used again in 147 B.C. for ScipioAemilianus”. Hardly so. Until Zama no Roman had ever conquered Africa; and until the arrivalon the scene of the future Africanus the nomen Scipionum was calamitous to the Romans: P.Scipio, the father of Africanus, was routed at Trebia, and he found death in 211 in the companyof his brother Gnaeus in their debacle in Spain. It was Africanus who through his victorybecame a dux fatalis, and bequeathed this fame to his line.

94 This is well illustrated by a well-known incident: on disembarking in Africa he slipped (a badsign!), but verso in melius omine: “Teneo te”, inquit, “Africa” (Suet., Iul. 59.1; cf. Dio 42.58.3).Other sources in Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 40) 3 (1906) 522, n. 3.

95 Sallustio (Plut., Caes. 52.3); Salutio (Dio 42.58.1); Salvitto (Plin., N.H. 35.8; for variant read-ings, see C. Mayhoff in his Teubner edition [1897] ad loc., and esp. Billows [see below]63–64). At 7.54 Pliny explains the origin of this nickname; oddly enough both an ancestor ofMetellus Scipio and this Cornelius Scipio received their nicknames from their similarity to per-sons of lowly status, Scipio Nasica (cos. 138) the name of Serapio from a slave, a suarii nego-tiatoris vile mancipium, and Cornelius Scipio, the mascot of Caesar, from a Salvitto mimus. Onthis shadowy Scipio, see F. Münzer, “Cornelius 357”, RE 4 (1900) 1505–6; and, recently, and better (though his belief that the testamentary adoption was a full adoption is quite misplaced),a detailed investigation by R. A. Billows, “The Last of the Scipios”, AJAH 7 (1982 [1985])53–68. The opprobrium will reside not in the name itself (no opprobrium was attached to thename of Serapio), but rather in the manner of life that in some way united the mimus and thearistocrat. But the characterization of Salvitto as despectissimus may derive from a hostile

171


160 Historia et Ius

adds that Caesar paraded in battles this Scipio in the forefront as if commander ofthe army. Plutarch, who had curiosity but no discernment, wonders (xalepÚnefipe›n) whether Caesar kept this negligible nobody to mock Scipio, the commanderof the enemy, or in order to apppropriate the omen for himself (e‡te ka‹ spoudªtÚn ofivnÚn ofikeioÊmenow)96. The latter is of course the right answer, but it requiresclarification.

Two omina of equal potency would annul each other, but in divinatory realitythe omen of Salvitto was stronger. Metellus Scipio could claim descent from theAfricani only in the cognatic line97 (his abavus married a daughter of Africanus);on the other hand, as Plutarch reports, Salvitto was of the House of the Africani. Hedescended, it has been suggested, from the line of the elder Africanus himself, moreprecisely from Africanus’ younger son L. Scipio (pr. 174). This branch will havebeen submerged for more than a century to reappear from obscurity to the light ofhistory at an opportune moment in the camp of Caesar in Africa98.

The literary sources tell only part of the story, and they tell it mostly from thevantage point of the victor. The other part is told by Scipio himself through themedium of coins he struck in Africa. They not only display the proud denomina-tion of imperator; his coinage, as Michael Crawford (RRC 2.738) aptly put it, “ispathetically true to its author’s belief in the felix et invictum Scipionis nomen, over-come at Thapsus by the felicitas of Caesar”99.

source; there was at least an equal amount of opprobrium that could be hurled at his rivalomen-bearer Metellus Scipio (see above, n. 68).

96 Not much better Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 93) 98: “one may not be so sure whetherCaesar really had the other Scipio in his camp”. It is amazing that a scholar who devoted abook to the various aspects of Caesarian symbolism refuses to take seriously the symbolism ofthe names. At B.C. 1.4.2 Caesar records another unfulfilled prophecy: Lentulus (i.e., L.Cornelius Lentulus Crus, cos. 49; MRR 2.256) ... seque alterum fore Sullam inter suos glo-riatur, ad quem summa imperii redeat.

97 We may suspect that Scipio glossed over this fact; cf. Lucan 6.788–89: deplorat Libycis perit-uram Scipio terris / infaustam subolem; not inaccurate but misleading. The Scholiasts are quitepositive (and wrong): Adnot. super Lucanum 6.310: Scipio enim Africanus fuit, qui vicitHannibalem, ex cuius genere hic Scipio in Africa est interemptus; 6.788: Scipio enim in Africaperiit, qui fuit e familia Scipionis Africani; Lucani Commenta Bernensia; 6.788: Scipio neposAfricani.

98 Billows (above, n. 95) 61–62. There may be a sequel to this bizarre tale. Billows (59–60) pro-posed that the father of Propertius’ mournful Cornelia, and the (adoptive father) of P. Scipio,the consul in 16, was none other than Salvitto! He also assigns to Cornelius Scipio Salvitto thesuffect consulship in 35, but this idea must now be discarded for we have recently learned thatthe suffectus of 35 was a Cornelius Dolabella (see above, n. 23). In view of this new findBillows’ stemma of the last Cornelii will have to be substantially revised.

99 A. Alföldi, “Iuba I. und die Pompeianer in Africa”, Schweizer Münzblätter 8/9 (1958/1959) 9= Caesariana (Bonn 1984) 223, claims that in Scipio’s coinage “ist nur der Name desFeldherrn und seiner Legaten römisch. Alles andere ist afrikanisch – ein Stück derBeschwichtigungspolitik der dorthin geflüchteten Senatspartei”. This is a gross exaggeration.Of course references to Africa (the lion-headed Genius Terrae Africae, the head of Africa wear-ing elephant’s skin [cf. n. 100], also the corn-ear, and a goddess with a mural-crown [cf. below,n. 149] appear on joint issues of Scipio and his legates, but they hardly predominate; seeCrawford, RRC 2.738, esp. n. 5. The recent paper by M. Paz García-Bellido, “PunicIconography on the Roman Denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus”, AJN 1 (1989), 37–49, esp.

172



VI. THE LANGUAGE OF COINS

The idiom of symbols is opaque and allusive, but it has its own grammar. Theimages on Scipio’s coins evoke the past of his family, stress the constitutional legit-imacy of the imperator, and look forward to a prosperous peace after victory. First,the elephant. Next the sella curulis and lituus. Then tropaeum, Victoria, caduceusand cornucopiae.

[1] The Elephant

Scipio issued coins either alone or jointly with his legates, M. Eppius (MRR 2.301)and P. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (MRR 2.301; 3.119). On the coins he minted alone(RRC 1.471, no 459) perhaps the most important item is not the laureate head ofJupiter on the obverse (with the inscription METEL PIUS) but rather an elephant onthe reverse, with the inscription SCIPIO above, and IMP below100. The elephant wasan emblem of the Metelli101; and we note that among the Caesarian mints there wasalso an issue displaying an elephant about to trample on a rising snake, with CAESAR

inscribed in the exergue (RRC 1.461, no. 443). Our curiosity should not turn intofantasy102. However enticing the idea of Caesar countering with his elephant issue

37–41, also overestimates the African elements on the coins of Scipio while entirely disregard-ing Scipio’s Roman and anti-Caesarian message. Scipio was not an African chieftain. On therepresentations of Africa, see now the excellent corpus by J. A. Ostrowski, Les personnifica-tions des provinces dans l’art romain (Varsovie 1990) 81–99.

100 On the denarii he issued together with his legate (M.) Eppius there appears on the obverse“head of Africa r., laureate and wearing elephant’s skin”, with the inscription Q METELL SCIPIO

IMP (Crawford, RRC 1.472, no 461). A similar motif on a coin of Iuba, adduced by H. H.Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (Ithaca-London 1974) 279 (n. 137).

101 The elephant or elephant’s head figured on a number of issues by the moneyers from the fam-ily of Metelli who thus commemorated the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 251; RE 72)over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250, and the capture of Carthaginian elephants; see Crawford,RRC 1.287–88, nos 262–63; 292–93, no 269; 387–88, no 369; 390, no 374; Scullard, TheElephant (above, n. 100) 151–52, and pl. XXIV a–c.

102 A. Alföldi, “Die Erklärung des Namens ‘Caesar’ in den spätrömischen Kompendien (zu v. Ael.2,3–5)”, Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1966/1967 = Antiquitas, Rh. 4, Bd. 4 (Bonn1968) 9–18 (reprinted in Caesariana [Bonn 1984] 175–88) dated this issue to 47/46, and pro-duced an elaborate pageant of Caesar the Elephant trampling the Dragon of Africa. The proof:according to late Roman sources Caesar was a word for elephant lingua Maurorum orPoenorum, and it also appears in a Punic inscription as a personal name. Next (p. 14) the storyin Pliny (N.H. 8.32–33): Elephantos fert Africa ... bellantesque cum his perpetua discordiadracones tantae magnitudinis, ... idem (dracones) obvii deprehensi in adversos (elephantos)erigunt se oculosque maxime petunt. This is the text as reproduced by Alföldi: it is the worstsort of quotation, a truncated quote. It should read: Elephantos fert Africa ... sed maximos Indiabellantesque cum iis ... dracones. To conclude his account Pliny reports at 8.35: generat eos(sc. dracones) Aethiopia Indicis pares. Aelian, Hist. Anim. 2.21, notes that in Ethiopia snakesare so big that they can kill elephants; so also Diod. 3.37.9, misinterpreted by Alföldi: Ethiopiadoes not equal Africa. But as the peculiar place of the eternal struggle of elephants and giantsnakes Pliny specifically names India. So also does Aelian, Hist. Anim. 6.21: ÉEn ÉIndo›w ...§l°faw ka‹ drãkvn ¶xyista (at 5.48 he speaks in general of the bitterest enmity between the

173


162 Historia et Ius

the elephant issue of Scipio, the evidence of hoards suggests an earlier date forCaesar’s coins; almost certainly it was his first issue of the civil war, minted in49–48. The obverse with its pontifical emblems advertised Caesar’s dignity of pon-tifex maximus, and his constitutional legitimacy, of great importance for his earlysteps in Italy and Rome; and the elephant on the reverse, a symbol of victory andstrength, promised destruction of his treacherous enemies103. Thus if there was anyduel of symbols on coins104, it was Scipio’s elephant that was a response toCaesar’s. But much more likely Scipio’s coinage simply continued the tradition ofthe Metelli that currently acquired a poignant topicality: the elephants of Iuba werean important ingredient of Scipio’s army, much feared by the Caesarians. The storyof the elephants, real and symbolic, ended at Thapsus: Caesar captured sixty fourof the beasts, and paraded them, turreted, before the walls of the city (B. Af. 86);and for conspicuous bravery in fighting them he bestowed on the famed FifthLegion, the Alaudae, the elephant as its badge105. For over two hundred years, fromPanormus to Thapsus the Metelli had claimed a special relationship with the ani-mal; now it was all Caesar’s, and the future Emperors were to regard the elephantas their exclusive privilege and prerogative106.

[2] The Sella Curulis

The sella curulis was a seat proper to the magistratus curules, but it was also usedby the magistrates who functioned pro consule or pro praetore107. By putting the

elephant and the draco). Alföldi’s references (14, n. 12) to Manilius 4.664 (who mentions hor-rendos angues and [666] vastos elephantas as inhabiting Libya), and to Horace, Carm. 3.10.18(who refers to Mauris anguibus) are beside the point for in none of these texts (cf. also Sall.,Iug. 89.5; Plin., N.H. 5.26) do we hear of a struggle between elephants and snakes (cf. alsoPlin., N.H. 8.37: nota est in Punicis bellis ad flumen Bagradam a Regulo imperatore ballististormentisque ut oppidum aliquod expugnata serpens CXX pedum longitudinis, but hardly any-one bent upon the conquest of Africa would recall Regulus). Caesar the elephantine dragonslayer of Africa is a figment. The story is instructive for it shows a great and perspicaciousscholar so charmed by his theory that he saw in Pliny’s text only Africa, erased India, andrefused to look further.

103 See Crawford, RRC 1.89; 2.735, with a vigorous critique of Alföldi’s dating and interpretation.On Caesar’s association with elephants, cf. also Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 93) 77–78.{On the symbolism of the elephant, see also J.-L. Voisin, “Le triomphe africain de 46 etl’idéologie césarienne”, Antiquités africaines 19 (1983) 7–33 at 32–33.}

104 I very much doubt that the dragon head on RRC no 461/1–2 (reverse) “picks up and implicitlyrejects the hostile reference of the dragon’s head on no 443/1”, i.e., on Caesar’s elephant coin,as Crawford tentatively suggests. Cf. below in the text, VI, [2], and n. 110.

105 Appian, BC 2.96 (cf. B. Af. 84). On the legion in question, see [E.] Ritterling, “Legio”, RE 12(1925) 1564–66.

106 Cf. Scullard, The Elephant (above, n. 100) 195–201, 279–80. He notes (197) that at Thapsusthe Romans “had fought their last battle with elephants for some 300 years”.

107 Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) I2. 399–402; T. Schäfer, Imperii insignia: sella curulisand fasces (Mainz 1989) 50–52, 63–69. When used by promagistrates in camp the chair wastechnically called sella castrensis (Mommsen I2. 399–400, n. 3).

174



sella on his aurei and denarii (RCC 1.472, no. 460/1–2, reverse108) Scipio alludedto his legitimate imperium109; but there is more to this image. As Mommsen hasshown, the sella curulis was not only a symbol of imperium, but also of jurisdic-tion. And indeed on our coin we have above the chair scales balanced on cornu-copiae. Thus imperium iustum coupled with iustitia and abundantia110. On the leftside of the sella there appears a corn-ear, and on the right a dragon’s head. Thecorn-ear refers to the grain-rich Africa, and the dragon’s head was perhaps anemblem of Numidia111.

The African corn suggested to some a different interpretation. A. Wallace-Hadrill, in an article that offers much more than its title might suggest112, pointsout that there is only scant evidence from Roman antiquity for the imagery of libraas a symbol of justice; when coupled with Aequitas it is rather a symbol of hon-est measure. With respect to the issue of Metellus Scipio he observes (28–29) that“the linking of scales and cornucopiae looks forward to the normal attributes ofAequitas”, and perhaps “the scales suggest fairness in dispensing corn”. And fur-ther (31): “while Justice could conceivably be indicated, there is nothing to com-pel this interpretation; and much to be said for seeing a simple symbol of the actof weighing”. This interpretation is probably on the mark as far as various impe-rial coin types are concerned, but as to the coin of Metellus Scipio it curiouslyneglects to give full weight to the symbolism of the sella. Wallace-Hadrill erro-neously terms Metellus Scipio as “legate of Pompey in Africa” (28), and thusoverlooks the link between the imperator and the sella as the seat of authority andjustice. Cicero identifies iustitia and aequitas in the following definition, Top. 90:Atque etiam aequitas tripertita dicitur esse; una ad superos deos, altera ad manes,tertia ad homines pertinere. Prima pietas, secunda sanctitas, tertia iustitia aut (ina narrower sense) aequitas nominatur113. The scales on Scipio’s coin may have,

108 With the inscription CRASS IUN LEG PRO PR; Scipio’s inscription, METEL PIUS SCIP IMP, is on theobverse, together with a bust of Jupiter, eagle’s head and scepter. The imperator, the owner ofthe sella curulis, is thus under the direct protection of Jupiter (cf. Schäfer, Imperii insignia[above, n. 107] 99). García-Bellido, “Punic Iconography” (above, n. 99) 38, thinks that this isthe Punic Ba’al Hammon, often identified with Jupiter. Unlikely. Below the cornucopiae andimmediately above the sella, Schäfer discovers the triskeles, a symbol of Sicily, the island withwhich the Metelli hadbeen long connected.

109 The idea of Alföldi, “Iuba” (above, n. 99) 9 = 223, that the sella on this coin “zugleich einAbzeichen der von Rom verliehenen Königswürde gewesen ist”, i.e., of Iuba’s title, is hardlypersuasive. For a sella curulis on a coin of Iuba II, see Schäfer, Imperii insignia (above, n. 107)57–58.

110 On iustitia, see the solid book by B. Lichocka, Justitia sur les monnaies imperiales romaines(Varsovie 1974). She points out that “La liaison de la chaise curule avec les cornes d’abon-dance est la liaison des symboles du droit et de la richesse” (47, with further literature in n. 84).

111 Schäfer, Imperii insignia (above, n. 107) 98–99: der Drachenkopf as a Wappentier of Numidia.Alföldi, “Iuba” (above, n. 99) 9 = 223, instead of a dragon saw rather a “Silphiumblüte”, sil-phium being another famous product of the continent. Sydenham, CRR 175, no 1047, inter-prets the image as a “head of carnyx”.

112 A. Wallace-Hadrill, “Galba’s Aequitas”, NC 141 (1981) 20–39. 113 On the juridical concept of aequitas, see P. Pinna Parpaglia, Aequitas in libera republica

(Milano 1973) passim.

175


164 Historia et Ius

114 It is important to note that lituus was used solely by the augurs, never by magistrates. For ref-erences, see Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2252, n. 412; 2271, n. 488.

115 Gruber, CRR 2.357–58, n. 1, no 47, where he takes capis = jug as a pontifical attribute (cf. also1.537, n. 2; 3.97 in the Index s.v. “capis”); he does not explain what was its function and sym-bolic value as compared to that of simpuvium and simpulum (cf. 3.127–28, Index s.vv.; and seebelow, n. 118). So also Sydenham, CRR 175, no 1049. In this interpretation of the jug Gruberwas unfortunately followed by Roberta Stewart in her otherwise interesting and spirited arti-cle “The Jug and Lituus on Roman Republican Coin Types: Ritual Symbols and PoliticalPower” (forthcoming). This unfortunate terminology also in R. Newman, “A Dialogue ofPower in the Coinage of Antony and Octavian (44–30 B.C.)”, AJN 2 (1990) 37–63, esp. 55.{The article by R. Stewart has in the meantime appeared: Phoenix 51.2 (1997 [1998]) 170–89,esp. 179–86. I remain unconvinced by her argument; I still believe we have to distinguishbetween the libation jug (pontifical) and the sortition jug (augural). Nor do I see any immedi-ate connection between the pontiffs and a magistrate’s claim to legitimate imperium. There cer-tainly was no connection whatsoever (as intimated by Stewart, 172, n. 11) between lituus andlitatio. The priestly symbols on coins have also been treated by L. Morawiecki, especially inthe articles “Symbole urze∫dów religijnych na monetach republiki rzymskiej” [“Augural andPontifical Symbols in the Roman Republican Coinage”], in D. Musia¬ and M. Zió ¬kowski(eds.), Religie w såwiecie staroz≥ytnym [Religions in the Ancient World] (Torunå 1993) 73–79;“Pontificalia atque Auguralia Insignia and the Political Propaganda in the Coinage of theRoman Republic”, Notae Numismaticae (Cracow) 1 (1996) 37–57: an interesting discussion ofthe evolution of the symbolic significance of the representations of lituus and of lituus and jug(for which Morawiecki employs the tradional denomination capis). He believes (p. 46) that thelituus and jug on the denarii of Metellus Scipio may have “a two-fold meaning: a reference toSulla’s rule and an allusion to the imperium of the moneyer’s ancestor”, a traditional (andunlikely) interpretation. But at the same time he perceptively regards the tropaion as hinting atScipio’s imperium.}

116 I quote this text according to the edition of C. F. Walters and R. S. Conway (Oxonii 1919); itcontains an abundant apparatus.

conceivably, alluded to the dispensing of the African corn, but in conjunction withthe sella curulis the libra is better taken as an expression of the imperator’saequitas = iustitia, and as an answer to Caesarian accusations of crudelitas.

[3] The Jug and the Lituus

Pride of place in ideology and propaganda goes to the reverse of a denarius (RRC1.472, no 460/3) displaying a tropaeum flanked by a lituus and a jug (with a han-dle). The inscription reads METEL PIUS SCIP IMP.

The lituus was an augural instrument par excellence114; the jug causes prob-lems. Its association with the augurs is not self-evident. No literary source attrib-utes it to the augurs or connects it with any known augural function. Two widelyused numismatic compendia ascribe to the jug the name of capis115. Now capis isattested as a pontifical vessel. In Livy (10.7.10) P. Decius Mus so argues for theadmittance of the plebeians to the pontificate and augurate: cui deorum hominumveindignum videri potest ... eos viros, quos vos sellis curulibus, toga praetexta, tunicapalmata, et toga picta et corona triumphali laureaque honoratis ... pontificaliaatque auguralia insignia adicere? Qui Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus, curruaurato per urbem vectus in Capitolium ascenderit, is <non> conspiciatur cumcapide et lituo, <cum> capite velato victimam caedet auguriumve ex arce capiet?116

176



117 See the collection of evidence in the little known dissertation by H. Freier, Caput Velare (Diss.Tübingen 1963) 39–83.

118 See R. von Schaewen, Römische Opfergeräte, ihre Verwendung im Kultus und in der Kunst(Berlin 1940) 35–38. This thorough study, with ample references to literary and iconographi-cal sources, has unfortunately remained unknown to all recent scholars who discussed pontif-ical and augural implements on coins. The entry on capis in W. Hilgers, LateinischeGefässnamen (= Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 31 [Düsseldorf 1969]) 138–39, is disappoint-ing (he disregards the connection between capis and simpuvium). Cf. also Taylor, “Symbols”(below, n. 119) 353, n. 8: “The capis ... was probably used interchangeably with the ladle (sim-pulum or simpuvium)”. So also Crawford, RRC 2.860 (index): “Capis = Simpulum” (but heincorrectly identifies simpuvium and culullus). See now on priestly emblems the erudite paperby E. Zwierlein-Diehl, “Simpuvium Numae”, in H. A. Cahn and E. Simon (eds.), TainiaRoland Hampe dargebracht (Mainz 1978) 405–22.

119 L. R. Taylor, “Symbols of the Augurate on Coins of the Caecilii Metelli”, AJA 48 (1944)352–56 at 353.

120 On the sacrifices performed by the augurs, see the references in Linderski, “Augural Law”(above, n. 78) 2254, n. 421; cf. 2222–23.

121 The prime exhibits are the coins on which the pontifical and augural emblems are juxtaposed:RRC no 456 (obverse: axe and simpuvium; reverse: jug and lituus); no 467 (reverse: simpu-vium, aspergillum; jug and lituus; above: AUGUR; below: PONT MAX); no 489/1–3 (obverse:lituus, jug, raven; reverse: simpulum, aspergillum, axe, apex); no 500/1, 6 (obverse: axe, sim-puvium, knife; reverse: jug, lituus).

Two pairs of priestly emblems and of priestly functions stand out: capis goes withvictimam caedere, lituus goes with augurium ex arce capere, and caput velatumpertains to both functions; indeed it is amply attested that the pontiffs sacrificed andthe augurs took auguries with the back of their head veiled117. But capis is thus notonly firmly established as a distinctive pontifical implement; literary descriptionsvirtually identify capis with simpuvium. This is welcome for in other texts it is sim-puvium that is a characteristic feature of the pontiffs. Capis = simpuvium was abowl or beaker with a handle, rather short and stout; it was used for sacrificial liba-tions118. It was very different in shape from the much larger, lean and tall jug thatappears in the company of the lituus.

In her famed article L. R. Taylor was adamant: we ought to keep the jug, what-ever its name and its function, apart from the pontifical and sacrificial capis, andfirmly in the sphere of the augurs; in any case the augurs “had nothing to do withsacrifice”119. This statement, a rarity in Taylor’s opus, is inaccurate120; but her mainpoint, the augural character of the jug, is born out overwhelmingly by numismaticevidence121. To Taylor the jug looked “more like the ordinary Roman water pitcher,urceus”; in her later, even more famous work, she devised an ingenious explicationof its use, and of its association with the augurs. She starts with the procedure ofsortitio. It took place in an inaugurated spot, the templum. The templa and theactivities conducted in them stood under the religious supervision of the augurs.The augurs were also called in to decide the validity of the lot. And she concludes:“Such a function of the augur may explain the symbol of the augurate frequentlyfound on coins, the pitcher, combined with the lituus. ... In every example thepitcher has a small opening usually with a spout, which may mean that it representsnot the urna versatilis of the comitia but a pitcher that could be used to decide, with

177


166 Historia et Ius

122 L. R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar(Ann Arbor 1966) 73–74 and 144 (n. 32). On the augurs, templum and sortition, see alsoLinderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2173–75, and (with corrections to Taylor’s presenta-tion) 2193–94, n. 173.

123 The lituus on coins of Faustus Sulla (quaestor 54, MRR 1.223) perhaps alludes to his own andnot to his father’s augurate (so Crawford, RRC 1.449–50, no 426/1–3). He was augur by 57(MRR 1.207), and Crawford argues for placing his issues in 56 (RRC 1.88); Broughton optedfor dating his office of monetalis to ca 62 (MRR 1.437; cf. 3.76).

124 J. Gagé, “Romulus-Augustus”, MEFRA 47 (1930), 138–81, esp. 160–61, on the connectionbetween lituus and imperium: “Plus la notion d’imperator se charge d’éléments mystiques, etplus l’exercise de l’auspication regagne sa valeur originelle. L’imperator est le général hereux,ayant pour lui les auspices”; A. Alföldi, “The Main Aspects of Political Propaganda on theCoinage of the Roman Republic”, in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland (eds.), Essays inRoman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford 1956) 63–95, esp. 81–89 (lituus as anattribute of imperatorial might).

125 J. R. Fears, “The Coinage of Q. Cornificius and Augural Symbolism on Late RepublicanDenarii”, Historia 24 (1975) 592–602 at 597. Fears (598) unfortunately continues to use thedenomination capis for the jug that appears together with lituus.

126 See the summary of the discussion in T. R. Martin, “Sulla Imperator Iterum, the Samnites and

a smaller number of lots, the division of command for consuls and praetors”122. Nobetter solution has since been offered, but a debate has raged about the very signif-icance of augural symbols.

Traditionally the sacerdotal emblems on coins had been taken to refer either toa priesthood of the moneyer himself or to a priesthood of a moneyer’s ancestor. Thelatter solution imposes itself for most of the issues minted by the triumviri mone-tales, all young men, few of whom could have been priests themselves123. If noancestor with a suitable priesthood was on record, such a priesthood had to be pos-tulated for a suitable ancestor. However, in the later years of the republic somemonetales started putting on coins priestly emblems that did not refer to their fam-ily members but rather to the great party leaders, Caesar and Pompeius, Antoniusand Octavian. If an issue with sacerdotal symbols was minted under the authorityof a magistrate cum imperio the reference, again especially in the later years of therepublic, could often well be to the magistrate himself.

A group of spirited scholars blazed past those traditional positions, still upheldby Taylor, and developed a theory of augural symbols that placed them squarely inthe center of ideology and the struggle for power in the later republic124. Theessence of this “theology of victory” has been admirably summarized by J.R.Fears: “Down to Sulla ... the lituus did signify the augurate, but with Sulla it under-went an important change: it came to symbolize the auspicium, which along withimperium, was the essential prerogative of the Roman magistrate. The lituus refersto the supreme military authority of the charismatic leader”125.

A fierce controversy first swirled aroud the lituus and jug on Sulla’s coinage:do these symbols refer to Sulla’s actual possession of the augurate or to the augu-rate he had only claimed for himself? Or perhaps, more in general, are they intima-tions of Sulla’s constitutional position, the legitimacy of his imperium?

Into this fray I do not propose here to enter126, but a technical augural pointdemands clarification. Scholars who treated of these matters were all keen numis-

178



Roman republican coin propaganda”, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 68 (1989)19–44 at 20–24, 43–44.

127 Fears, “The Coinage” (above, n. 125) 598. Cf. also 600: “the lituus ... must represent the ideathat through the auspices ... the patron deity aids his favorite, showing sanction or disapprovalof his planned actions. The charismatic leader who was also an augur had received divine sanc-tion to interpret these auspices”. Cf. already in a similar sense Gagé, “Romulus” (above, n.124) 161.

128 On all of this, see Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2195–96, 2215–18, 2228–29, 2266,n. 472.

129 Taylor, “Symbols” (above, n. 119) 354–56, endorsed by E. Badian, “Sulla’s Augurate”,Arethusa 1 (1968) 26–46 at 27–28, and by Crawford, RRC 2.738, n. 7.

matists and perceptive historians, but alas often ignorant of the baffling auguralminutiae, and of the abstruse modern literature dealing with them. Their disquisi-tions abound in statements loose, misleading, inaccurate.

J. R. Fears adduces the coinage of Q. Cornificius (RRC 1.518–19, no 509/1–4):on the reverses of his aurei and denarii Cornificius is represented as augur, capitevelato and holding lituus in his right hand; the inscription proclaims Q. CORNIFICIUS

AUGUR IMP. Fears employs this coin, with its image and inscription reenforcingeach other, as a key to unlock the true significance of augural emblems on otherlate republican issues: “On all of these coins of known augurs the lituus does notsymbolize merely the auspices of the imperator or even his military authority. Thetheme is rather ... augur et imperator. The magistrate who was also an augur stoodin a special position. He could interpret the auspices as well as take them”127.

The idea that only augurs could interpret the auspices is patently and mani-festly wrong. The impetrative auspices, regularly taken by magistrates, were allwell defined, and did not require any particular interpretation. Most oblative aus-pices, the signs that occurred unasked, were also easy to interpret; they could beaccepted or rejected by the observer128. The magistrates and the augurs acted inseparate but intersecting spheres. Only the points of intersection are germane to ourdiscussion (see below).

After this long but necessary detour, back to Metellus Scipio. He was a pontiff(MRR 2.171, 172, n. 4), and not an augur, hence lituus and jug cannot denote hisown priesthood. L. R. Taylor produced an elaborate explanation, in two stages.129

Scipio’s coin (like his elephant issue) is an imitation of the denarii struck by hisadoptive father Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80). On these issues the obversefeaturing the head of Pietas (an allusion to his surname Pius which he acquired forhis incessant efforts to secure the restoration from exile of his father Q. CaeciliusMetellus Numidicus, cos. 109) is combined with two reverses, one showing an ele-phant, and the other a jug and a lituus, with IMPER in the exergue (RRC 1.390, no374/1–2). The trouble with the obverse is that Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius was, likeScipio, a pontiff (even pontifex maximus, MRR 2.113–14) but not an augur. Taylorsuggests that the augural symbols refer to the (unattested) augurate of his father Q.Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. This is not impossible; Metellus Numidicus wasknown for his opposition to the agrarian law of Appuleius Saturninus which, he

179


168 Historia et Ius

130 Taylor, “Symbols” (above, n. 119) 354. Broughton was moderately convinced (or moderatelyunconvinced); in his “Index of Careers” (MRR 2.539) he recorded the augurate of MetellusNumidicus but with a query. Cf. Crawford, RRC 1.390, no 374.

131 B. Frier, “Sulla’s Priesthood”, Arethusa 2 (1969) 189 and 195, n. 27.132 Syme, Roman Revolution (above, n. 68) 45. Describing the array of the camp of Pompeius in

49 (in 47–46 in Africa the ranks were thinner but the essence the same) he opined: “It was theoligarchy of Sulla, manifest and menacing in its last bid for power, serried but insecure”.

133 See above, n. 128. Badian’s article there adduced was a rejoinder to an earlier piece by B. Frier,“Augural Symbolism in Sulla’s Invasion of 83”, ANS Museum Notes 13 (1967) 111–18.

134 This was well seen by A. Keaveney, “Sulla Augur”, AJAH 7.2 (1982 [1985]) 150–71. Theaugural symbols on Sulla’s coinage denoted that his imperium was iustum. The following dis-quisition owes much to his perceptive argument (see esp. 158–60). And see now also incisiveremarks by Stewart, “Jug and Lituus” (above, n. 115) 178–79.

said, was not iure rogata, and if he “was an augur, his insistence on the unconsti-tutionality of the law becomes more intelligible”130. The coin of Metellus Scipiowould thus be merely an imitation of the coinage of Metellus Pius, and would com-memorate the augurate of his adoptive grandfather. This is a tepid association; inview of the onslaught of the Caesarian propaganda, we need an allusion possessedof contemporary urgency.

Such an allusion was produced by B. Frier. He pointed out that Metellus Piusissued his coins when he was a Sullan commander operating in Cisalpine Gaul; andhe further observed that his augural reverse clearly imitates the reverse of Sulla’saurei and denarii struck one or two years earlier. The conclusion: the reverse ofScipio’s denarius “specifically recalled the reverse of his adoptive father MetellusPius, but even more the earlier reverse of Sulla”. And further: “Whatever familialprecedent Pius could claim, Metellus Scipio could also; but the meaning of therevived reverse should be much broader. The coalition of Sulla, which Scipio mightbe said to symbolize, was gathering anew against Caesar” 131. Frier invoked thepotent name of Syme132; in vain: he was curtly dismissed by Badian andCrawford133. Frier was perhaps off the mark, but he was on the right track: weshould not only consider the past history of the emblem, but also investigatewhether it is possible to tie it with the present.

Now about the jug and lituus on the issues of Sulla Crawford himself wrotethus (RRC 1.374): “it seems more satisfactory to hold that they were regarded bySulla as symbolizing a claim to imperium”; and he added perceptively: “it wasapparently necessary ... for Augurs to be present to attest the passing of the LexCuriata conferring a magistrate’s powers on him”. The lex curiata was only oneitem in the chain of acts transmitting and bestowing the magisterial power; stillCrawford’s proposition offers a clear legal and religious perspective in which toview the lituus on coins.

The validity of a magistrate’s or pro-magistrate’s imperium and auspiciumdepended on a series of constitutional acts. All these acts involved divine approvalsignified by the auspices134:

a) The election in the comitia centuriata. If there was any fault in the impe-trative auspices under which the assembly was convoked; if during the



135 On the augural concept of vitium, and magistratus vitiosus, see Linderski, “Augural Law”(above, n. 78) 2159–77.

136 See the discussion in Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2168–72.137 On the thorny question of the character of the lex curiata, see the sensible remarks by

Keaveney, “Sulla Augur” (above, n. 134) 161–64, 168–71.138 On the renovatio and repetitio auspiciorum, cf. Linderski, “Roman Religion in Livy” (above,

n. 88) 69, n. 31.139 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.5.1–2; 2.6.1–2; Varro, Ling. Lat. 6.86. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht

(above, n. 14) I3. 79–81.

assembly any adverse signs occurred, and were disregarded, and if finallyany error was committed in the ritual that caused the auspices to be viti-ated, the magistrates were elected vitio, were magistratus vitiosi, and wereexpected to resign (though technically could not be forced to do so)135.Interregnum would follow, and then with the new election the renovatioauspiciorum (not to be confused with the repetitio auspiciorum; seebelow).

b) The first auspication (“the auspices of investiture”) coinciding with theentry upon the office. It could be vitiated by an adverse sign. This was abad omen for the whole year, the gods indicating that the auspicia of themagistrate were not in order. The magistrate was expected to abdicate136.

c) The passage of the lex curiata that granted the imperium militiae137. Again,the auspices under which the curiate assembly was convoked had to be rit-ually without any fault.

d) The taking of the auspices on the Capitol by the magistrate (or pro-magistrate) before his departure for a campaign. These auspices of depar-ture (or of military investiture) corresponded structurally to the first auspi-cation, but in one significant way they were different from it. If a fault wasdiscovered the magistrate (or pro-magistrate) was not expected to resign,but he was obliged to return to Rome ad auspicia repetenda138.

All these acts endowed the magistrate with imperium and auspicium; they formedthe legal and religious foundation that allowed the magistrate (or pro-magistrate)to take the auspices and offer sacrifices on behalf of the Roman people.

The military concept of imperio aupicio (and ductu, denoting the actual com-mand; the commanders without imperium fought ductu suo but imperio and auspi-cio alieno) was of course an old one, but its symbolism on coins was new. Therewas no agreed way in which the auspices or the right to the auspices could be visu-ally represented. The magistrates entering upon office, and censors before the lus-trum, impetrated auspicium de caelo in the shape of lightning, fulmen139. Andindeed on a stone from Africa, referring to a local magistrate, we find a represen-tation of lightning accompanied by the inscription deo loci ubi auspicium dignitatistale (CIL 8.774). But this monument remains an isolated example. The command-ers in the field employed before battles the auspicia pullaria, divination from theeating behavior of sacred chickens, the pulli. The pullarius, the keeper of pulli, wasa constant and ubiquitous attendant of the magistrate; and on imperial reliefs there

180


170 Historia et Ius

140 On the pulli and pullarii, see esp. Cic., De div. 2.71–74 (and the commentary ad loc. by A. S.Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Libri Duo [Urbana 1920–23, repr. Darmstadt 1963]);Livy 10.40; 41.18.14; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.6.2. Two pulli, feeding, are represented on athird century bronze ingot, RRC 1.133, no 12, but they are perhaps connected with the Dioscuri(Crawford, RRC 2.718, n. 2). On the altar from the vicus Sandalarius, the new augur LuciusCaesar holds lituus, and a pullus at his feet is pecking at something, thus denoting thetripudium (I. Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art [= Memoirs of theAmerican Academy in Rome 22, Rome 1955] 60–61, and pl. XVI, fig. 31). For further refer-ences, see Zwierlein-Diehl, “Simpuvium” (above, n. 118) 409–13 (and pl. 79, 3–4). For a mil-itary pullarius, and the image of the pulli in a cage, see A. von Domaszewski, Die Fahnen imrömischen Heere (= Abhandlungen des Archäologisch-Epigraphischen Seminars derUniversität Wien, Heft V, 1885) 31–32.

141 Plaut., Asin. 259–61; Cic., De div. 1.12, 85. Cf. Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78)2285–86.

142 Full references, and discussion, in Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2151–25.

appear occasionally representations of the pulli, pecking on the ground, or kept inthe cage, the cavea140. There were four canonical birds the flight or voice of whichwas observed at the auspicia impetrativa: picus, cornix, corvus, parra141, and itwould appear that they could very well be employed as indications of auspicium.And indeed on a denarius of Antonius we encounter a raven (corvus), next to jugand lituus (RRC 1.489, no. 489/1–3). But this emblem too remains an isolatedexample. The answer why this was so is to be sought in the augural doctrine.Fulmen, pulli, and corvus allude each to a particular type of auspicium; they werenot well suited to indicate in abstracto the legitimacy of a general’s twin pillars ofcommand, imperium and auspicium. For legitimacy of command depended on theabsence of vitium at any and all stages of magisterial investiture from the auspicesof the election to the auspices of departure. And vitium, resulting in faulty auspices,the inability to communicate with the gods, could be brought about not only by anadverse oblative sign, which was unobserved or unheeded, but also by an error inthe ritual. The augurs assisted at all public meetings, at elections, at the passage ofthe curiate law, at the entry upon office, the sortitio for the provinces, and at theceremonies of departure for war. Individual augurs had the right to announce (nun-tiare) with binding force adverse signs that appeared after the beginning of the pro-ceedings; and the college of augurs could pass decrees concerning errors inprocedure. The final decision rested with the senate; but the presence of a vitiumwas always established by the board of experts, the college of augurs, on whoserecommendation the senate would base its decree142. And the symbols of the augu-rate were the lituus, the instrument of auspicium and augurium, and in the secondplace the jug, associated with the procedure of sortitio. The jug and lituus on thecoins of commanders were like the stamps of approval; they did not guaranteefelicitas or victory, but proclaimed nihil obstat: the path was open to proceed disiuvantibus.

Metellus Scipio had every reason to insist that his path to final success wasopen. The Caesarians, from the sceleratus imperator himself down to a simple vet-eran, were loudly denying legitimacy to Scipio’s position: he obtained his com-mand in a rigged sortitio, and his auspices, and hence his imperium, were

181



143 Alföldi, “Iuba” (above, n. 99) 9 = 223. A. J. Janssen, Het antieke tropaion (= VerhandelingenVlaamse Akad. Klasse. der Letteren 27 [Brussel 1957]) 176, repeats the assertion of Gruberabout the Spanish arms, but judiciously remarks: “waaronder-een zeer zeldzame verschijning– een boog en een pijlkoker”. Rare and curious indeed; see below, n. 146.

144 Taylor, “Symbols” (above, n. 119) 355. 145 B. Afr. 32: Interim Numidae Gaetulique diffugere cotidie ex castris Scipionis et partim in reg-

num se conferre, partim, quod ipsi maioresque eorum beneficio C. Marii usi fuissentCaesaremque eius adfinem esse audiebant, in eius castra perfugere catervatim non intermit-tunt; 35 (the speculatores Gaetuli speaking): Saepenumero ... imperator, complures Gaetuli,qui sumus clientes C. Mari ... ad te voluimus in tuaque praesidia confugere; see also 56.

contaminated with all sorts of irredeemable vitia. The answer to these slanders wasthe lituus and the jug. His imperium was iustum.

[4] The Trophy

On the coin of Scipio between lituus and jug there is a trophy. According to Gruber(CRR 2.572) “it is composed of Spanish arms, consisting of cuirass with swordattached to the waist, helmet, bow and quiver, and round shield”. Crawford ven-tures no description, but Alföldi apparently had doubts about Spanish arms for inhis description of the trophy he conspicuously attaches a mark of interrogation:“Tropäum mit spanischen (?) Waffen”143. This mark ought to be very large indeedfor Gruber’s description was not based on an analysis of the arms themselves. Itderives from his conviction that as the lituus and jug (‘capis’ in his erroneous ter-minology) imitate the emblems on the denarii of Metellus Pius, so also thetropaeum may be a memorial of Pius’ victory over Sertorius (cf. CRR 2.357), “andmay not have been intended to relate to the campaign for which these coins werestruck” (CRR 2.572, n. 1), i.e., to Scipio’s current campaign in Africa. But we haveto remember that there is no tropaeum on the denarii of Metellus Pius, and thataccording to Crawford (RRC 1.390, no 374) Pius did not strike his coins in 79–77in Spain in the war against Sertorius but rather when he was commanding in 81 inCisalpine Gaul.

Gruber’s “Spanish trophy” was erected on a shaky ground; it was always readyfor a reinterpretation, and L. R. Taylor once again offered a theory elegant andingenious. If jug and lituus refer to Caecilius Numidicus (they hardly do, we haveseen), why not assign to him also the trophy? The trophy “would seem to commem-orate the victories over Jugurtha that gave Numidicus his triumph and his honorarycognomen”144. This “Numidian” trophy Taylor placed in a broader context of prop-aganda and counter-propaganda of the war in Africa. Caesar made use of his adfi-nis Marius to win over the Numidians and the Gaetulians145; Scipio counteredinvoking on his coins the memory of Metellus Numidicus. Elegant and ingeniouscertainly, and certainly not persuasive.

Not persuasive because too involved; and one wonders whether it would havebeen prudent for Metellus Scipio to advertise on his coins Roman victories over theNumidians in a situation when a King of Numidia was his main and indispensableally. But above all, like Gruber, Taylor shows no interest in the particular arms of

182


172 Historia et Ius

146 [O.] Fiebiger, “Sagittarius”, RE 1 A (1920) 1743–46. At the siege of Numantia Iugurthabrought to Scipio twelve elephants and a body of archers and slingers who were attached tothem (toÁw suntassom°nouw aÈto›w); they did not form a separate unit (App., Bell. Hisp. 89).In the Bell. Jug. Sallust mentions the archers five times, but they are always Roman archers,never Numidian. On bow and/or quiver as attributes on Roman representations of Armenia,Parthia, and Sarmatia, see the still very useful study by P. Bienåkowski, De simulacris barbaro-rum gentium apud Romanos (Cracoviae 1900) 32–34, 36, 66; and see now Ostrowski, Les per-sonnifications (above, n. 99): no trace of bow or quiver in the representations of Hispania(163–71) or Mauretania (186–88) or Numidia (192). García-Bellido, “Punic Iconography”(above, n. 99) 40–42, points out that bow and quiver were the attributes of Tanit, but he curi-ously forgets that bow and quiver as parts of a trophy convey an entirely different image frombow and quiver as an attribute of a deity. The bow and quiver as a trophy represent the cap-tured enemy arms; and thus if the turreted deity on the obverse of the coin is Tanit (cf. below,n. 149), and if the bow and quiver forming part of the trophy on the reverse belong to her, themessage would be that of the victory over Africa and not of the victory in Africa. But Scipiowas not fighting Africa (Iuba was his ally!): he was fighting Caesar. The interpretation ofGarcía-Bellido collapses: the bow and quiver on Scipio’s trophy have nothing to do with Africaor Tanit.

147 It is well to remember that this was a second appellatio for Scipio: after his praetorship headministered a province and celebrated a triumph (Varro, De re rust. 3.2.16; MRR 3.42), andfor a triumph the acclamatio imperatoria was a necessary prerequisite. Scipio’s felicitas wastwice tested and proven. Curiously enough, in the Bellum Civile (3.36) Caesar himself stressesthe celeritas of Scipio as a commander, and celeritas was one of a true imperator’s cardinalvirtues (Cf. Cic., De imp. Cn. Pomp. 29; Combès, Imperator [above, n. 6] 280, n. 115).

148 Crawford thinks that she holds a patera; this is unlikely: the patera was normally held with theright (and outstretched) hand. See von Schaewen, Opfergeräte (above, n 118) 24. But cf. theActa of the Severan ludi saeculares: Pighi, De ludis (above, n. 83) 162, lines 48–49, where

which the trophy on Scipio’s denarius is composed. Now among those arms twopieces stand out: bow and quiver. Neither the Spaniards nor the Numidians wereknown for their prowess in archery; on the other hand Parthian and Syrian bowmenwere famous146. This brings to mind Scipio’s victory in the Amanus mountains; thevictory impugned by Caesar147. It is most natural to take the trophy on Scipio’s coinas a reference to that glorious and numinous moment. Numinous for it was only onthe victorious battlefield that the felicitas of the commander, the favor of the gods,manifested itself. Only after a victory was he a true imperator, and could put thistitle before his name and on his coins, and the laurel on his fasces. The auguralsymbols, jug and lituus, indicated that no vitium contaminated the commander’sauspicium, but the final and only proof was victory. Not only was Scipio’simperium and auspicium iustum; he was also imperator felix.

[5] Victory, Peace and Prosperity

Will Scipio’s felicitas hold in Africa? No reason to ask: a Scipio could not fail onthis continent. Hence the anticipation of victory so lavishly displayed on Scipio’scoins.

On the reverse of a denarius (RRC 1.472, no. 460/4) we encounter Victoria her-self, standing; she holds caduceus in her right hand, and in the left, close to thebody, a round shield148. On the obverse there is a representation of the lion-headed

183



according to Pighi’s reconstruction the patera would be held in the left hand. AlsoGarcía–Bellido, “Punic Iconography” (above, n. 99), 38, interprets the object as a small roundshield, caetra. T. Hölscher, Victoria Romana (Mainz 1967), has a lengthy discussion of“Victoria mit Schild” (98–135), but he does not mention the coin of Scipio.

149 The former is the traditional interpretation, the latter was ingenuously proposed and arguedby García–Bellido, “Punic Iconography” (above, n. 99) 38–41.

150 Crawford, RRC 2.738, takes it as an emblem of felicitas; but Varro, De vita populi Romani (inNonius 528 Mercerius = 848 Lindsay) is explicit: caduceus, pacis signum. Cf. Plin., N.H.29.54; Gell. 10.27.3–5.

151 R. Syme, “Oligarchy for Rome. A Paradigm for Political Science”, Diogenes 141 (1988) 63 =Roman Papers 6 (Oxford 1991) 329; and “Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature”,Historia 7 (1958) 188 = RP 1 (1979) 377.

G(enius) T(errae) A(fricae), holding an ankh, the symbol of life, in his right hand.Thus victory in Africa.

But not only victory. The caduceus also appears on the obverse of anotherdenarius (RRC 1.472, no 460/3). It flanks on the right the head of a female turreteddeity, perhaps the city goddess of Utica or Tanit, the chief goddess of Carthage, inthe Roman interpretation the Dea Caelestis149; on the left there is a corn-ear, belowrostrum tridens, and above a rectangular object that may represent earth (soCrawford, RRC 2.738, n. 1). This is the coin that shows on the reverse lituus, tro-phy and jug. The caduceus was a symbol of peace150, and its close association withVictoria and the insignia of victory spells a political program: pax terra marique.

The program looks beyond the augural or auspical legitimacy, and the felicityof victory, to the fruits of peace. The cornucopiae over the curule chair herald pros-perity. Images of corn-ears appear with the curule chair, with the turreted goddess,and with the Head of Africa, laureate and wearing elephant’s skin (RRC 1.472, no461, Scipio’s joint issue with M. Eppius). On this coin, below, there is a plough,another symbol of peaceful and fruitful labor. A golden age brought about by Scipioimperator.

Peace came, and prosperity; not with Scipio, and not with Caesar.

VII. IMPERATOR SE BENE HABET

“Had Fortune reversed her decision in the African campaign (in 46), Rome mighthave known a ruler bearing the style Imperator Scipio Invictus”. Or “Imp. ScipioPius”. So Syme, inadvertently or perceptively substituting the blind Fortuna for theprovident Felicitas151. Still better – and real: Q. Scipio imp.

Against the mirage of vainglorious hopes and aspirations the death of Scipiocomes in the Bellum Africum (96) as an insignificant footnote. When after thedefeat at Thapsus Scipio was escaping from Africa to Spain storm carried his shipsto Hippo Regius; there they were encircled by the fleet of the Caesarian P. Sittius,and promptly sunk: ibique Scipio interiit.

Other sources, less or differently partisan, tell a heroic story of Scipio’s death.His vessel surrounded, when the enemies inquired where the imperator was, heplunged his sword into his chest, and defiantly uttered the words that won himimmortality, and the company of Cato and Lucretia: imperator se bene habet152.

184


174 Historia et Ius

152 Liv., Per. 114; Val. Max., 3.2.13; Flor., 2.13.68; Seneca Rhet., Suas. 6.2; Seneca, Ep. Mor. 24.9(Seneca 24.11 adds: an aliter debebat imperator, et quidem Catonis, mori?); Ps.-Quint.,Declamat. Minores 377.9. On Livy’s admiration for Scipio, see Tac., Ann. 4.34.3: Titus Livius... Scipionem, Afranium, hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas,quae nunc vocabula imponuntur, saepe ut insigni<s> viros nominat. Other sources on Scipio’sdeath in Münzer, “Caecilius 99” (above, n. 4) 1228, and Broughton, MRR 2.297 (addQuintilian 5.11.10, who also admires Scipio’s courage in death, associates him with Cato, butfinds Lucretia even more admirable: ad moriendum non tam Cato et Scipio quam Lucretia).Cicero probably did not yet know the exact circumstances of Scipio’s death when he wrote(Fam. 9.18.1): Pompeius, Lentulus tuus, Scipio, Afranius foede perierunt. At Cato praeclare.Or perhaps Scipio’s utterance was merely a hagiographic invention?

153 Cf. Seneca Rhet., Suas. 7.8: P. Scipionem a maioribus suis desciscentem generosa mors innumerum Scipionum reposuit.

154 As Seneca was well aware, Ep. Mor. 71.10: Omnia licet fiant ... et Scipionem in Africa nominissui fortuna destituat. In Ampelius’ Liber memorialis 24 the history of the illustres Scipiones isso summarized: Scipio magnus Africanus qui vicit Hannibalem. Scipio minor Numantinus quiNumantiam et Carthaginem diruit. Scipio Asiaticus qui de Antiocho triumphavit. Scipio Nasicaqui a senatu vir optimus est iudicatus. Scipio qui occiso Pompeio partes restituit et victus seinterfecit. But Scipio was not a worthy opponent of Caesar, in life or death. It was Cato’s sui-cide, glowingly acknowledged even by the author of the Bellum Africum (88), and the legendof Cato, that demanded the victor’s response. The response came in Caesar’s Anticato, lost andnotorious (cf. H.-J. Tschiedel, Caesars ‘Anticato’. Eine Untersuchung der Testimonien undFragmente [Darmstadt 1981]). We remember that Scipio and Cato had once been enemies,rivals in love (see above, n. 22), and that Scipio (apparently as late as 56 or 55) composed aninvective against Cato (Plut., Cato Min. 57). The victor Caesar used Scipio’s strictures as ifspoils of victory in his own denigration of Cato. With Scipio as an ally no wonder that this wasone battle he lost. On Caesar as a literary imitator of Scipio, see E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchieund das Principat des Pompeius3 (Stuttgart u. Berlin 1922) 436, n. 2; R. Fehrle, Cato Uticensis(Darmstadt 1983), 294, both scholars endorsing the incisive investigation by L. Piotrowicz,“De Q. Caecilii Metelli Pii Scipionis in M. Porcium Uticensem invectiva”, Eos 18 (1912)129–36. The author of this Latin gem was my First Master and Teacher: it is only appropriatethat his should be the last name quoted in a paper honoring the memory of a scholar whom Iregard as my Second Master and Teacher.

Vox haec – opines Seneca (Ep. Mor. 24.10) – illum parem maioribus fecit etfatalem Scipionibus gloriam in Africa non est interrumpi passa. Multum fuitCarthaginem vincere, sed amplius mortem153. Words only: the Metelli lost their ele-phant, and the Scipiones lost their Africa154. But it is well to remember thatImperator Caesar had only two years left for his felicitas to endure.

185


J.Linderski, Q. Scipio Imperator. RQ II, 2007.

Documents

Transcript of J.Linderski, Q. Scipio Imperator. RQ II, 2007.