The Historians' History of the World 05

The death of Scipio struck consternation into the hearts of the senators. Metullus exclaimed that he had been murdered. It is said that on the neck marks as of strangulation appeared; and when he was carried out to burial the head was covered, contrary to custom. At the moment suspicion attached to C. Gracchus, and to his sister Sempronia, the wife of Scipio. But these unfounded rumours soon passed over; and it was confidently affirmed that Carbo was the murderer. Cicero speaks of it as an undoubted fact; the character, as well as the subsequent history, of the man justifies the belief.b Appian,

g on the other hand, is non-committal, mentioning rumours against Cornelia as well as Sempronia, and adding that “some believe he gave himself this death, because he saw he could not perform what he promised”; while others assert “that Scipio’s slaves under torment confessed that some unknown men they had let in at the back door had strangled him, and that they dared not disclose the murder, because they knew that the people, hating Scipio, rejoiced at his death.” Of modern authorities, George Longd

thinks “the circumstances of Scipio’s death were suspicious.” But he doubts even that Cicero believed his own charge against Carbo; and adds “the conclusion should be that Scipio died a natural death.” Ihnef says: “After a minute and careful examination of the circumstances, there appears to be no reason to doubt that Scipio’s death was natural.” This, however, is perhaps stating the case a little too strongly. Whatever the balance of probability, it can never be proven conclusively whether Scipio died naturally or by violence: in the minds of some investigators, the question will always hold a place in the long list of historical uncertainties.

a

Thus died the younger Africanus. No public honours attested his public services. The funeral feast was furnished in the most thrifty manner by his nephew Q. Tubero, a rigid stoic, who was glad thus to remind the people of their ingratitude.

Scipio possessed no lofty genius like the great man whose name he bore; yet there was at Rome no one of his own time to be compared with him. To say that he was the best general of the day is little praise, for military talent was at that time scarce; but no doubt his abilities for war would have won him glory in the best times of the republic. His disinterested generosity has been already noticed; at his death he was found to be no richer than when he succeeded to the inheritance of the great Scipio. His love of the country and his habitual reserve led him to shun public life. But the austere manner and severe gravity which he commonly affected gave way among his friends; and there is nothing that more raises our esteem for Scipio than the warm attachment borne to him by such men as Polybius, as well as Lælius, Rupilius, and others, whom Cicero has introduced into his beautiful dialogues. Scipio has usually been represented as a stiff adherent of the oligarchy, but the facts of history disprove this opinion. He might have lived some years to moderate the fury of party strife, to awe the factious, and to support just claims; for at his death he numbered no more than six-and-fifty years. His death at this moment was perhaps the greatest loss that the republic could have suffered.b

The general verdict on Scipio is laudatory. Even George Long,d who ridicules the usual historical summing-up of great men, finds Scipio worthy of much praise, but Beesly is of such contrary mind that he may well be quoted: