Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/758

Rh 746 SCIPIO. close, and who feared lest his enemies in the senate might appoint him a successor, was equally desirous of a peace. The terms, however, which the Roman general proposed seemed intolerable to the Car- thaginians ; and as Hannibal at a personal inter- view with Scipio could not obtain any abatement of the hard conditions, he was forced, against his will, to continue the war. Into the details of the campaign, which are related very differently, our limits will not permit us to enter. The decisive battle was at length fought on the 19th of October, B. c. 202, at a place called Naragra on the Bagra- das, not far from the city of Zama. Scipio's victory was complete ; the greater part of the Carthaginian army was cut to pieces ; and Hannibal, upon his arrival at Carthage, was the first to admit the mag- nitude of the disaster, and to point out the impos- sibility of a further prosecution of the war. The terms, however, now imposed by Scipio were much severer than before. Carthage had no alternative but submission ; but the negotiations were con- tinued for some time, and the final treaty was not concluded till the following year, b. c. 201. Scipio returned to Italy in b. c. 201, and entered Rome in triumph. He was received with universal enthusiasm ; the surname of Africanus was con- ferred upon him, and the people in their gratitude were anxious to bestow upon him the most extra- ordinary marks of honour. It is related that they wished to make him consul and dictator for life, and to erect his statue in the comitia, the rostra, the curia, and even in the Capitol ; but that he prudently declined all these invidious distinctions (Liv. xxxviii. 56 ; Val. Max. iv. 1. § 6). As he did not choose to usurp the supreme power, which it seems he might have done with ease, and as he was an object of suspicion and dislike to the majority of the senate, he took no prominent part in public affairs during the next few years. He was censor in b. c. 199 with P. Aelius Paetus, and consul a second time in 194 with Ti. Sempronius Longus. At the same time the censors conferred upon him the title of princeps senatus, a dis- tinction which he had received from the former censors, and which was again bestowed upon him in B. c. 190. In b. c. 193, he was one of the three commissioners who were sent to Africa to mediate between Masinissa and the Carthaginians ; and in the same year, according to a story related by Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, he was one of the ambassa- dors sent to Antiochus at Ephesus, at whose court Hannibal was then residing. The tale runs that he there had an interview with the great Car- thaginian, who declared him the greatest general that ever lived. The? compliment was paid in a manner the most flattering to Scipio. The latter had asked, " Who was the greatest general ? " " Alexander the Great," was Hannibal's reply. the third ? " " Myself," replied the Carthaginian. '* What would you have said, then, if you had conquered me?" asked Scipio, in astonishment. ander, before Pyrrhus, and before all other ge- nerals." (Liv. XXXV. 14.) Whether the story be true or not, there can be no doubt that Scipio towered above all the Romans as a general, and was only second to Hannibal himself. Each of these great men possessing true nobility of soul, could appreciate the other's merits ; and Scipio wiia the only member of the senate who opposed the SCIPIO. unworthy persecution which the Romans chose to employ against their once formidable opponent. (Liv. xxxiii. 47.) In B. c. 190 L. Scipio, the brother of Africanus, and C. Laelius were consuls. Each of the consuls was anxious to obtain from the senate the province of Greece, in order to have the honour of carrying on the war against Antiochus. In order to secure it for his brother Lucius, Africanus offered to serve under him as legatus ; and the senate thereupon granted Lucius the province which he desired. In the war against Antiochus, the young son of Africanus, who accompanied his father, fell into the hands of the Syrian king. The latter offered to restore his captive without ransom, if Africanus would obtain for him a favourable peace ; but al- though the father rejected his proposal, Antiochus sent him back bi^i son while he was absent from the army in consequence of illness. Africanus out of gratitude advised Antiochus not to fight till he himself had rejoined the army. The object which he had in giving this advice it is impossible to say ; it is quite inconceivable that Scipio medi- tated any treachery towards his own country ; it is more probable that he hoped to induce Antiochus to consent to a peace before a defeat should expose him to harder and more humiliating terms. An- tiochus, however, did not listen to his advice ; and the decisive battle was shortly afterwards fought near Mount Sipylus, in which the Syrian king was totally defeated. Antiochus now applied again to Africanus, who used his influence in the king's favour with his brother Lucius and his council of war. The terms of peace were severe, but they did not appear sufficiently severe to the Roman senate, who imposed much harder conditions upon the conquered monarch in the treaty which was finally made. Africanus returned to Rome with his brother Lucius after the completion of the war in b. c. 189, but his remaining years were embittered by the attacks of his old enemies. Shortly after his re- turn, he and his brother Lucius were accused of having received bribes from Antiochus to let the monarch off too leniently, and of having appro- priated to their own use part of the money which had been paid by Antiochus to the Roman state. The glory of his African victory had already grown dim ; and his enemies availed themselves of the opportunity to crush their proud antagonist. The accusation was set on foot by M. Porcius Cato, but the details of it are related with such dis- crepancies by the ancient authorities, that it is im- possible to determine with certainty the true history of the affiiir, or the year in which it occurred. It appears, however, that there were two distinct prosecutions, and the following is perhaps the most probable history of the transac- tion. In B.C. 187, two tribunes of the people of the name of Petillii, instigated by Cato and the other enemies of the Scipios, required L. Scipio to render an account of all the sums of money which he had received from Antiochus. L. Scipio ac- cordingly prepared his accounts, but as he was in the act of delivering them up, the proud conqueror of Hannibal indignantly snatched them out of his hands, and tore them up in pieces before the senate. But this haughty conduct appears to have produced an unfavourable impression, and his brother, when brought to trial in the course of the same year, was declared guilty, and sentenced to pay a heavy fins.
 * Who was the second ? " " Pyrrhus." "Who
 * ' I should then have placed myself before Alex-