Scipio Aemilianus by A. E. AstinReview by: Erich S. GruenThe American Journal of Philology, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Apr., 1969), pp. 228-230Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293431 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 08:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

A. E. ASTIN. Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967. Pp. xiii + 374. $10.40.

Astin's book was long awaited. His readers, however, will utter few complaints: the results more than justify the labors. Scipio Aemilianus has had his share of scholarly ink, but Astin's work easily eclipses all previous studies. It is far the most comprehensive, thorough, and fully documented examination of the subject.

A picture of Scipio emerges, more rounded, more meaningful, and, almost certainly, more accurate than that customarily presented. He had an interest in culture and learning, but probably not a very profound one. Personal courage, magnetism, and great qualities of leadership marked the man. But that did not preclude pride and arrogance. Examples of Scipio's wit abound; it is generally biting and scornful. And Astin rightly points to a strong strain of cruelty. Scipio possessed virtues, but also ambition; and the virtues were sedulously cultivated to promote the ambition. Even his admirer and friend Polybius acknowledged the fact. In Astin's hands the idealized portrait fostered by Cicero crumbles. Scipio's stature is undiminished, but his person takes on flesh and blood.

Astin's analysis of the Spanish Wars and Roman foreign policy warrants particular conmmendation. He is not concerned to condemn Roman ruthlessness and perfidy; indeed, he perhaps excessively soft-pedals it. But the comments are sober, the conclusions com- pelling. Rome was not engulfed in a struggle between "hawks" and "doves." The question of imperialism hardly arose as a con- scious issue. Uncooperative Spaniards were regarded as rebels and Roman honor required nothing less than deditio. When arguments ensued they were arguments over how to win the war, rather than how to negotiate differences. Astin refrains from moral judgment; it is more important to understand the categories within which Roman leaders operated and the attitudes of mind which they took for granted.

Similarly, the background to Ti. Gracchus' tribunate is set forth with sound common sense. Agrarian and urban problems both receive proper consideration. Recruitment difficulties and the manpower shortage are also given their due. Factional struggles played no mean role in the inspiration of Ti. Gracchus. But Astin points out what is too often obscured: these struggles need not preclude a genuine interest in reform. Perhaps most important, he stresses the long series of events in the previous two decades which had already weakened the mos maiorum. Increasing resort to popular dema- goguery, violation of precedent, and a more ruthless exploitation of personal ambition were all part of Scipio's legacy and form the proper context for the " Gracchan revolution."

Not everything in the book, however, will receive a positive reac- tion. Astin's strong suit is his thoroughness. But the delicate art of selectivity eludes him. The volume is weighted down with 12 appendices which, together with 29 "Additional Notes," comprise almost a third of the total contents. Of the appendices, one is most welcome and will be eminently useful: a collection of all quotations ascribed to Scipio, ordered and categorized with some commentary and bibliography. Of the rest, most could be cut down, some should have been left out altogether or published separately.

228

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS.

The portrait of Scipio will arouse little dissent. But that of Ti. Gracchus is another matter. With him Astin is bolder but less per- suasive. As noted above, he is conscientious in laying out the back- ground and precedents for Tiberius' actions. But the case is pressed too far; the antecedents tend to absorb the consequences. Tiberius turns out to be no revolutionary, nor even particularly unusual. The iustitium was "drastic" but not "revolutionary" (p. 204). As for the deposition of a tribune, Astin believes that it was prob- ably not prohibited by law, a lame argument in view of the fact that it had never before been done; the closest parallel he can dredge up (p. 206) is the termination of pro-magistracies! Even the appro- priation of Attalus' legacy is glossed over as a mere counter-thrust to undermine senatorial opposition (p. 212). Attempt at a second consecutive tribunate which set off the terminal riots finds a pre- cedent, but one no more recent than the Struggle of the Orders (p. 215) ! The primary difficulty which Astin confronts is obvious. If Ti. Gracchus was really not so radical after all, why the violence of the reaction, the slaying of the tribune, the hunting down and murder of his followers? Astin's answer: it was all an accident! Nasica and the aristocracy hoped only to halt proceedings, but matters got out of hand and some people were killed (pp. 218-24). Not many will find that view attractive, cancelling, as it does, the unanimity of all available evidence.

There are also occasional lapses in Astin's methodology. A single passage in Polybius (XXXI, 23, 1 f.) records the anecdote that Scipio, as a young man, felt distress because men considered him lacking in ambition. The remark refers only to hesitancy in pleading before the bar. Yet Astin proclaims that Scipio "was widely regarded as an unworthy representative of his family and ancestors" (p. 20) and even "underlying all Scipio's public activities was the consciousness that as a young man he had been thought unworthy" (p. 22). Elsewhere he cavalierly discards important evidence alto- gether. Cicero reports that P. Scaevola publicly defended Nasica's slaying of Ti. Gracchus (De Domo, 91; Pro Planc., 88). Astin does not believe it; with no professed explanation he simply scraps the explicit testimony (pp. 228; 350). The remark that "Cicero else- where names Scaevola as one of the Gracchan leaders in the following years" (p. 228) is simply false (cf. the reviewer's article in Athenaeum, 1965). The only evidence for relations between the con- suls of 131, Crassus and Flaccus, shows a bitter quarrel over the Asian military command. Astin chooses to ignore that and puts both men in the Gracchan faction on the basis of a tenuous conjecture by Miinzer (pp. 192; 232). Elsewhere Astin denies that Ti. Gracchus' artistocratic supporters abandoned him (pp. 349-50). Some did indeed stay with him to the end and beyond. It does not follow that all did. Definite evidence exists for desertion by P. Scaevola and Q. Tubero; Cicero suggests that there were others (De Amicit., 37). Astin dismisses all that with no counter-argument. And can one take the following seriously: " By ESpacKvv Diodorus (Polybius) need not necessarily mean that Scipio shed a flood of tears, that he truly wept. It is also possible to envisage moist eyes, with a tear or two trickling down either cheek" (p. 285) ?

Other statements are ill-fitting and even contradict some of Astin's

229

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.

themes. A strong case is made for Scipio's appeal to popular interests and his strength in the assemblies (Chapter III, passim; see also p. 113). Yet Astin recounts Scipio's opposition to popular ballot for the priestly colleges and uses it as evidence for his lack of influence with the people (p. 102). On foreign policy in Spain, Astin, as noted above, denies the existence of groups divided on the basis of policy. But in describing the clash between Caepio and Popillius in 139, he puts it definitely in a context of policy difference (pp. 144-6). Astin's analysis of Scipio Nasica's opposition to the 3rd Punic War is principally an argument against Hoffman (His- toria, 1960) who sees Nasica's stance as a post-eventum fabrication (pp. 276-80). Yet the conclusion arrived at is rather surprisingly close to Hoffman's (p. 280), and one wonders what the point of the whole discussion was.

Prosopography plays a large and repeated role in this work. In that area, Astin is not always sure-handed. He lists the Calpurnii Pisones as enemies of Scipio (pp. 316-19). But that rests only on the account of Appian who speaks of Scipio's supplanting of L. Piso in Africa in 147 (Lib., 115-16). And the passage by no means shows that Scipio "repeatedly castigated (Piso's) incompetence and failure" (p. 91). The Servilii are placed by Astin among Scipio's friends (pp. 82-3; 315-16). Fabius Servilianus was indeed born a Servilius Caepio and was adopted by the Fabii who also adopted Scipio's brother. But that will hardly make the Servilii adherents of Scipio. An overt clash is recorded between Fabius Servilianus and his blood brother Q. Servilius Caepio (Appian, Iber., 70). Astin's treatment of the Metelli is particularly awkward. He makes the whole family staunch backers of the Scipios until 139 or 138 when, so it is conjectured, Scipio and Metellus Macedonicus had a falling out (pp. 85-6; 110; 311-15). Once again only a single passage can be cited (Cic., De Amicit., 77). And Cicero's point there is that political differences divided Scipio and Macedonicus, not that a broken friendship split them politically. The notion that Mace- donicus later became a Gracchan (pp. 231; 237) is unsupported and inconceivable in light of his actions in 133. Finally, consular col- legiality, the weakest kind of evidence, is too often used to prove associations between families (cf. pp. 95; 104; 114).

These prosopographical failings, a few methodological slips, and weakness in selectivity mar Astin's final product. They do not significantly impair its value. This work will long be standard fare for students and indispensable for scholars.

ERICH S. GRUEN. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY.

230

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Fri, 9 May 2014 08:04:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions