Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:17:43.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scipio Africanus and Roman Politics in the Second Century B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. H. McDonald
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fortunes of Scipio Africanus after the Second Punic War raise a difficult problem for the student of Roman history. Through his political standing and his personal gifts Scipio's influence must be considered an essential element in the public life of Rome at the decisive period of her imperialistic development; yet the glimpses in recorded history, though significant, are so fleeting that it is almost impossible to gain a complete impression. We know, of course, his Carthaginian policy and his strategy against Antiochus; but in matters relating to Gaul, Liguria and Spain, and in the internal politics of Rome, there is scarcely any evidence of his hand. Most obscure of all is the Second Macedonian War; where the questions of policy were similar to those in the Syrian War, yet Scipio had no share in them that can be directly discerned. Did he withdraw after his victory over Carthage and only re-appear to meet Syria ? Then why should his defeat of Antiochus be followed by his own dishonour, in the face of the claims of gratitude ? His fall suggests a persistent and important political activity, which could only be countered by extreme measures of opposition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , 1938 , pp. 153 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © A. H. McDonald 1938. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The basis of study is now the work of De Sanctis, (Storia [dei Romani], iii, 2, 452 ff.Google Scholar; iv, 1, 25 ff., 576 ff.; Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 196 ff.Google Scholar, in review of Haywood, Scipio Africanus), and Schur (Scipio Africanus), who, in spite of his exaggeration of party interests, is important for the relations of the senatorial groups. Cf. in general also Gelzer (Die Nobilität d. röm. Republik) and Münzer (Röm. Adelsparteien u. Adelsfamilien).

2 Livy xxxii, 7, 1–3; xxxiv, 44, 4.

3 De Sanctis, Storia, iv, 1, 25 ff.; cf. Carcopino, L'impérialisme romain, 58 ff.

4 Frank [Roman Imperialism, 150 ff.; C[ambridge] A[ncient]H[istory]viii,365,368)and Haywood (op.cit., 63 ff.) believe that Scipio did actually lead Rome in a philhellenic policy. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between the philhellenic procedure of Rome and the underlying strategical aims (Holleaux, Rome, [la Gréce et les monarchies hellénistiques], 322 ff.; McDonald, and Walbank, , JRS xxvii (1937), 207Google Scholar).

5 Appian, Mac. 4, 2Google Scholar; Livy xxxi, 29, 4. Holleaux, Rome, 293 ff.; McDonald and Walbank, op. cit., 185.

6 The thesis of Holleaux (Rome, 320 ff.; CAH viii, 157 ff.); cf. McDonald and Walbank, op. cit., 205 ff.

7 Cf. Schur, op. cit., 71 ff.

8 Mommsen, , History of Rome, ii (1901), 413 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, Rome, 306 ff.; CAH viii, 157 ff.; Passerini, , Athenaeum ix (1931), 269 ff.Google Scholar, 542 ff.; Bickermann, , Rev. phil. lxi (1935), 175–6Google Scholar; Griffith, , Camb. Hist. Journ. v (1935), 13–4Google Scholar; McDonald and Walbank, op. cit., 205 ff.

9 Holleaux, Rome, 306 ff.; CAH viii, 160 ff.; McDonald and Walbank, op. cit., 207. Cf. Täubler, , Imperium Romanum, i, 228 ff.Google Scholar; 432 ff. Heuss, , Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen d. röm. Aussenpolitik (Klio, Beiheft xxxi (1933)), 83 ffGoogle Scholar. (cf. Stadt u. Herrscher des Hellenismus (Klio, Beiheft xxxix (1937) ), 216 ff.Google Scholar).

10 Polyb. xvi, 27, 2; 34, 1–7; Livy xxxi, 18, 1–4. McDonald and Walbank, op. cit., 204.

11 Cf. Polyb. xvi, 27, 4. Holleaux, , CAH viii, 161–2Google Scholar.

12 Livy xxxi, 29–31.

13 Polyb. xviii, 12; Plut. Titus, 5; 9–12. De Sanctis, , Storia, iv, 1 76 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, , Rev. E.G. xxxvi (1923), 153 ff.Google Scholar; CAH viii, 168 ff.

14 Livy xxxi, 4, 4; 6, 1 (cf. Holleaux, , BCH lvi (1932), 531 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.).

15 Livy xxxi, 2, 3. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 22–3Google Scholar.

16 Schur, op. cit., 72.

17 Livy xxxii, 28, 3–9. We may note Flamininus' efforts (Polyb. xviii, 11, 1–2; 12; Livy xxxii, 32, 6–8. Gelzer, op. cit., 104; Holleaux, , Rev. E.G. xxxvi (1923), 157 ff.Google Scholar) and the Scipionic opposition (Livy xxxii, 28, 3. Schur, op. cit., 73, 133, 135Google Scholar).

18 Livy xxxv, 10, 4–9. Münzer, op. cit., 117 ff.; Schur, op. cit., 72, 137–8Google Scholar. Cf. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, i, 587Google Scholar; against Frank (CAH viii, 365, 368–9) and Haywood (op. cit., 69 ff.), who argue from their similar philhellenic pronouncements that Flamininus was a protégé of Scipio. We shall attempt to show below that their philhellenism represented different political standpoints.

19 Cf. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 77Google Scholar, with Holleaux, , CAH viii, 169Google Scholar.

20 Polvb. xviii, 34; 36–9; 45; Livy xxxiii, 11–3; 31; xxxiv, 22–4; Plut. Titus, 9–10. Holleaux, , Rev. phil. lvii (1931), 202 ff.Google Scholar; Flacelière, Let Aitoliens à Delphes, 346 ff.

21 Polyb. xviii, 47, 10–1; Livy xxxiii, 34, 10. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 103Google Scholar.

22 Polyb. xviii, 45, 7–12; Livy xxxiii, 31, 4–11.

23 Cf. Mommsen, , op. cit., ii, 443, 449–50Google Scholar; Frank, Roman Imperialism, 157; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 99 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, , CAH viii, 193 ffGoogle Scholar.

24 De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 115 ff.Google Scholar; Bickermann, , Hermes lxvii (1932), 47 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Holleaux, , Rev. E.A. xv (1913), 1 ff.Google Scholar; cf. McDonald and Walbank, op. cit., 204–5.

26 Liyy xxxiii 20, 8. Holleaux, op cit., 1 ff.; cf. Holleaux, , Klio viii (1908), 279 ff.Google Scholar; Leuze, , Hermes lviii (1923), 190Google Scholar; Bickermann, op. cit., 47–8.

27 Polyb. xviii, 47, 1–4. 49–52; Livy xxxiii, 34, 2–4; 39–40; Diod. xxviii, 12; Appian, Syr. 2–3. Bickermann, op. cit.,50 ff., 66 ff.

28 Appian (Syr. 4), going back ultimately to Polybius (through an annalist: Schwartz, P-W ii, art. ‘Appianus’, col. 219), Nepos (Hann. 7, 6), who cites Polybius for his dating of Hannibal's death (13, 1), indicate the year as 196 B.C., and we may accept this as the Polybian date. Livy xxxiii, 45–9 gives 195 B.C. Holleaux, (Hermes xliii (1908), 296 ff.Google Scholar), after reconstructing the situation, accepts 195 B.C., but his reconstruction in fact suits 196 B.C. equally well (cf. Niese, , Gesch. d. gr. u. mak. Staaten ii, 671Google Scholar n. 2; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 115Google Scholar, n. 3).

28 Livy xxxiv, 33, 12. Holleaux, , Rev. E.A. xv (1913), 11 ffGoogle Scholar. For the political effect if he was actually ceded the Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor and Thrace (as Niese, , op. cit., ii, 639Google Scholar; Holleaux, , CAH viii, 187Google Scholar), see Bickermann, op. cit., 71.

30 Livy xxxiv, 42, 3. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 578Google Scholar: cf. Schur, op. cit., 79.

31 Livy xxxiv, 43, 4–5. Cf. Schur, op. cit., 79. We may note that this proves his opposition to Flamininus' policy of withdrawal from Greece.

32 Livv xxxiv On the false association with spain, (plut. Cato m., 11; Nepos Cato z) see De sanctis, op. cit., n. 161. The position shows that the Senate, despite the tendency to retain garrisons in Grece, was determined to maintain Flamininus' Settlement, in accordance with the original plan, rather than allow Scipio to intervene with his own policy. The agreement; in regard to the occupation of Greece is only superncial for Scipio had radically difierent aims in view. See below p. 160.

33 De Sanctis, , op. cit., iii, 2, 557 ff.Google Scholar, 616 ff. (with references); Zancan, Le cause delta terza guerra punica (Atti Reale Instituto Veneto, xcv, 2 (1935–1936)), 553 ffGoogle Scholar.

34 Livy xxxiii, 46, 1–47, 2, cf. xxxvi, 4, 7; Nepos, Hann. 7. Kahrstedt, Gesch. d. Karthager, iii, 584 ff.; Gsell, , Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, ii, 274 ffGoogle Scholar; Groag, Hannibal als Politiker, 115 ff.; Hallward, , CAH viii, 467 ff.Google Scholar; Ehrenberg, Karthago (Morgenland, 14), 35 ff.; against Zancan, op. cit., 566 ff., whose case for the economic decadence of Carthage goes beyond the archaeological evidence (Gauckler, Nécropoles puniques de Carthage, 518 ff.; Gsell, , op. cit., iv, 90 ff.Google Scholar) and dismisses good historical records (cf. below, p. 157, n. 44).

35 Livy xxxiii, 47, 3–10; Appian, Syr. 4; Nepos, Hann. 7; Justin xxxi, 1–2. Schur, op. cit., 74–5, 139–40, cf. above, p. 156, n. 28.

36 Cf. Appian, Syr. 10–1; Plut. Titus, 20–1; and below, p. 158, n. 52.

37 Livy xxxiv, 48, 1. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 578Google Scholar, cf. 407 ff.

38 Livy xxxiv, 43–5; 53; cf. xxxii, 7, 1–3. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 576 ffGoogle Scholar.

39 Livy xxxiv, 60–1; Appian, Lib. 67; Syr. 8 Justin xxxi, 4.

40 Livy xxxiv, 62.

41 Polyb. xxxi, 21. Kahrstedt, , op. cit., iii, 592–3Google Scholar; Gsell, , op. cit., iii, 314–7Google Scholar; against Pais, Histoire romaine, i (Glotz, Histoire ancienne, iii), i, 599, n. 21.

42 Cf. Livy xxxiii, 47, 8, which may reflect its beginnings.

43 Appian, Lib. 67; cf. Livy xxxiv, 62, 16–8; Zonaras ix, 18. I t may be doubted whether at this early stage the Roman policy was to support Masinissa at the expense of Carthage (as Appian, loc. cit.; cf. Livy 62, 17): Masinissa more probably made his case good and Scipio allowed the adjustment to his settlement of Africa, which lasted until the systematic aggression of Masinissa a generation later. Scipio's action might easily be misunderstood in the light of the subsequent Roman policy. Cf. Gsell, , op. cit., iii, 300Google Scholar.

44 Polyb. xxxi, 21 (τὴν πολυχρόνιον εἰρήνην, §3); Appian, Lib. 67 (καὶ συνθῆκαι.,..ἐγένοντο αἴ διέμειναν ὲς ἔτη πεντήκοντα, ὲν οἷς μάλιστα ἡ Καρχηδὼν εἰρηνεύουσα ὲς μέγα δυνάμεως καὶ εὐανδρίας ἦλθεν κτλ. The agreement of Appian with the Polybian passage, which supports the general assumption of ultimate Polybian authority behind Appian (see above, p. 156, n. 28), may be taken to establish its value: the term ‘fifty years’ is applied broadly to the peaceful period in the first half of the century.

45 Livy xxxiv, 57–9; Diod. xxviii, 15; Appian, Syr. 6. Bickermann, op. cit., 61 ff.

46 Cf. Frank, op. cit., 171; Holleaux, , CAH viii, 200Google Scholar. On the possible change in the political situation after the Syrian treaty with Egypt, see Bickermann, op. cit., 71 ff. Cf. above, p. 156, n. 29.

47 Polyb. xxi, 3; 11, 9; Livy xxxv, 31, 5; xxxvi, 35, 13; xxxvii, 25, 12; Appian, Syr. 20.

48 Livy xxxv, 37, 1–3; Plut. Philop., 15.

49 Livy xxxiv, 59, 3. See Bickermann, op. cit., 50ff.

50 De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 141 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, , CAH, viii, 201 ff.Google Scholar; Bickermann, op. cit., 73 ff.; against Mommsen, , op. cit., ii, 447, 449Google Scholar; Passerini, , Athenaeum x (1932) 126Google Scholar.

51 Polyb. iii, 11, 1–2; Livy xxxiv, 59, 8; xxxv, 13–7; Appian, Syr. 9–12; Justin xxxi, 4.

52 Livy xxxv, 14, 5–12 (Claudius following Acilius); Appian, Syr. 10–1; Plut. Titus, 20–1; Zonaras ix, 18. For a detailed study of the evidence, see Holleaux, (Hermes xlviii (1913), 75 ff.Google Scholar), who has shown that the circumstances would have allowed Scipio to go from Carthage to Ephesus, as Zonaras (loc. cit.) states: his consequent part in the negotiations would allow the loose use cf the phrase in ea legatione (Livy, 14, 5). As to the story of the interview with Hannibal, both Appian and Plutarch contrast it with the account of Hannibal's death at the instigation of Flamininus, to the greater glory of Scipio, and this bias, as well as their independent agreement, confirms the assumption of Polybian authority behind their narratives (for Appian, see above, p. 156, n. 28; for Plutarch, Nissen, Krit. Unters. über d. Quellen d. 4 u. 5 Dekade des Livius, 169, 227–8, 291). Livy and Appian (the former from Claudius) have to make an insertion into their reproduction of the Polybian narrative for the year (Holleaux, op. cit., 78 ff.), because Polybius gave the anecdotes later, with the record of Hannibal's death (cf. Polyb. xxiii, 13), just as in the case of Scipio (Polyb. xxiii, 14).

53 Livy xxxv, 31–4; 39; Plut. Titus, 15.

54 Livy xxxvi, 30–4; Appian, Syr. 21; Plut. Titus, 15; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 166–8Google Scholar.

55 Livy xxxvi, 45, 9; xxxvii, 1, 7–10.

56 Schur, op. cit., 83; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 583Google Scholar.

57 Polyb. xxi, 2; Livy xxxvi, 35, 1–6; xxxvii, 1; 4, 6; Diod. xxix, 4.

58 Polyb. xxi, 4–5; Livy xxxvii, 6–7; Appian, Syr. 23. Note Polyb. xxi, 4, 14: τὁ μἡ γίνεσθαι τἡν άπόϕασιν άκὁλουθον τῦ προγενομένη λαλιἆ. Livy emphasises the part of Africanus (6, 6–7; 7, 6).

59 Livy xxxvii, 7, 7–16, cf. xxxix, 28, 8–9; Appian, Syr. 23; Mac. 9. 5. Schur, op. cit., 84 ff.

60 Polyb. xxi, 13–5; Livy xxxvii, 34–6; Diod. xxix, 7–8; Appian, Syr. 29.

61 Polyb. xxi, 15, 6–11; Livy xxxvii, 36, 3–8.

62 Livy xxxvii, 37, 8; Diod. xxix, 8; Appian, Syr. 30.

63 Cf. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 585Google Scholar.

64 Polyb. xxi, 11, 1–11; Livy xxxvii, 25, 4–12. Livy, through contemporary historiographical licence, has elaborated Antiochus' appeal in the form of a parallel letter.

65 SEG. ii3, 618 (wrongly attributed to Manlius Vulso); De Sanctis, , Atti Acc. Torino, lvii (1921–1922), 242 ffGoogle Scholar. (cf. Holleaux, , Riv. fil. (NS) ii (1924), 29 ffGoogle Scholar.) and Storia, iv, 1, 576–7.

66 Holleaux, , Riv. fil. (NS) ii (1924), 31 ffGoogle Scholar.

67 Polyb. xxi, 4, 10 (τάς τε κατὰ τὴν Ἰβηρίαν καὶ τὴν Λιβύην πράξεις καὶ.…τίνα τρόπον κέχρηται τοῖς κατ᾿ ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους αὐτῷ πιστεύσασιν); cf. above, p. 159, n. 58.

68 Livy xxxi, 6, 3–5.

69 The tradition that Scipio was offered the consulship and dictatorship for life (Livy xxxviii, 56, 8–13) is to be rejected as an invention of Caesarian propaganda (E. Meyer, Caesar's Monarchie 2, 531–2; cf. De Sanctis, , Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 189Google Scholar).

70 Livy xxxvii, 50, 1–3; 51, 10. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 217–8Google Scholar; Schur, op. cit., 88–9.

71 Livy xxxvii, 50, 8. Gelzer, op. cit., 105; Schur, , op. cit., 89, 136–7Google Scholar, 139; Münzer, P-W xiv, art. ‘Cn. Manlius Vulso,’ col. 1221–2; against Haywood, op. cit., 66 ff., who has to argue (cf. Frank, op. cit., 178) that Manlius actually received Scipionic support in superseding the Scipios: this before Magnesia! (De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 217, 583Google Scholar). De Sanctis at one point (ibid., 583) also makes Manlius and Fulvius follow the same policy as Scipio, but elsewhere grants the Scipionic connection of Aemilius Paullus' attack on Manlius (ibid., 225, n. 182), which points to the contrary (cf. below, p. 163, n. 88). The later opposition of Cato, also, to Fulvius proves the latter's middle position (cf. Malcovati, Or. Rom. frag., i, ‘Cato,’ xxxiv, fr. 151–3; Janzer, Hist. Unters. z. d. Redenfragmenten des M. Porcius Cato, 58 ff.).

72 De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 224 ffGoogle Scholar. (with references); cf. Holleaux, , CAH viii, 231 ffGoogle Scholar; Täubler, , op. cit., i, 442 ff.Google Scholar; Heuss, Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen u.s.w., 90 ff.; Bickermann, , Rev. E.G. l (1937), 217 ffGoogle Scholar.

73 Munzer, Röm. Adelsparteien, 146; Schur, op. cit., 134; Malcovati, , op. cit., i, 30 ff.Google Scholar; Janzer, op. cit., 18 ff.

74 Livy xxxv, 3, 1–6; 11, 1–13; 20, 6; 21, 7–11; xxxvi. 38, 1–4; xxxvii, 46, 1–2

75 Malcovati, op. cit., i, ‘Cato,’ vi, fr. 61–5.

76 Ibid., vii, fr. 66.

77 Janzer, op. cit., 18 ff. (with references).

78 Malcovati, op. cit., i, ‘Cato,’ iii, fr. 23–57. The date is after the battle of Thermopylae in 191 B.C. (fr. 51), and a study of the situation points to 190 B.C. (Malcovati, ibid., 25–6).

79 Janzer, op. cit., 6 ff.

80 fr. 52. Janzer, ibid., 14.

81 Livy xxxvii, 57, 9–10. Gelzer, op. cit., 104 ff.; Schur, op. cit., 89–90; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 586–7Google Scholar. Cf. the similar evidence of the censorial elections for 184 B.C. (Livy xxxix, 40–1; Münzer, op. cit., 193–4). This is decisively against the view that ‘philhellenism and political alliance with Scipio went hand in hand’ (Haywood, op. at., 63 ff.), which in any event ignores the degree to which Greek culture had become a recognised mode of life, and not merely a sentimental preoccupation, for the Roman aristocracy. Cf. De Sanctis, , Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 196–7Google Scholar.

82 Livy xxxvii, 57, 11–58, 2; xxxviii, 28, 1. On Cato's part (57, 13–4), see Malcovati, , op. cit., i, 33–4Google Scholar; ‘Cato,’ xi, fr. 84; Schur, op. cit., 89–90; Janzer, op. cit., 27 ff. On Acilius, cf. Gelzer, op. cit., 104–5; Münzer, op. cit., 91–2.

83 Livy xxxviii, 28, 2.

84 Livy xxxviii, 43, 1–44, 6; xxxix, 4, 1–5, 6. Despite its literary elaboration this narrative appears to reproduce a circumstantial report, and its differences from the Polybian account (Nissen, op. cit., 210–1, cf. Niese, , op. cit., ii, 767Google Scholar, n. 3) may be attributed to a variant tradition giving the case against Fulvius. Schur, op. cit., 91–2: cf. Janzer, op. cit., 58 ff.

85 Livy xxxviii, 44, 9–46, 15; Appian, Syr. 43. This passage may also be held to embody a good variant tradition (Nissen, op. cit., 211–2). Schur, op. cit., 92.

86 Livy xxxvii, 47, 6–7; xxxviii, 35, 1.

87 Münzer, op. cit., 170 ff.; Schur, , op. cit., 91–2, 136–7Google Scholar. Lepidus' measures against the pecuarii as aedile in 193 (Livy xxxv, 10, 11) do not prove his purely Italian agrarian policy, on the side of Cato (De Sanctis, , Storia, iv, 1, 588Google Scholar; Haywood, op. cit., 67–8, 104). His colleague, Aemilius Paullus (Livy, loc. cit.), who shared in these measures, was undoubtedly connected with the Scipionic group (cf. below n 88).

88 On L. Funus Purpurio, see Schur, op. cit., 132, 135; Janzer, op. cit., 43; cf. Münzer, P-W vii, art. ‘L. Furius Purpurio,’ col. 363 (cf. below, n. 92). On L. Aemilus Paullus, Gelzer, op. at., 105; Münzer, op. cit., 64 ff.; Schur, op. cit., 92, 136–7; De Sanctis, , op. cit. iv, 1, 225Google Scholar, n. 182.

89 Livy xxxviii, 50, 1–3; xxxix, 5, 1–6. We may note the support in the Asiatic commission, on which the Scipionic group appears to have obtained a majority (cf. Schur, op. cit., 91), for the charges against Manlius (Livy xxxviii, 44, 11).

90 Polyb. xxi, 17, 5; Livy xxxvii, 45, 14; Appian, Syr. 38; Mommsen, Röm. Forsch., ii, 432 ff.; Fraccaro, , ‘I processi degli Scipioni’ (St. storici per l'ant. classica, iv (1911), 376 ffGoogle Scholar.

91 Polyb. xxiii, 14, 7–11 (cf. Diod. xxix, 21); Gellius, NA iv, 18Google Scholar, 7 ff.; Livy xxxviii, 55, 10–2; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 591Google Scholar.

92 Polyb. xxiii, 14, 1–4 (cf. Diod. xxix, 21); Gellius, NA iv, 18Google Scholar, 3–5. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 592 ff.Google Scholar For the part of Cato, cf. Livy xxxviii, 54, 1, 11; Plut. Cato m. 15, 1; Gellius, NA iv, 18Google Scholar, 7. Malcovati, op. cit., 1, 35. L. Funus Purpurio (see above, n. 88) appears to have tried to divert the attack on to Manlius Vulso (Livy xxxviii, 54, 6–7).

93 Gellius, , NA vi, 19Google Scholar, cf. Livy xxxviii, 54–5. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 595 ffGoogle Scholar. On the position of Gracchus, cf. Carcopino, Autour des Gracques, 49 ff.

94 Livy xxxviii, 53, 8; 56, 3; xxxix, 52, 1–6. De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 597Google Scholar, n. 277.

95 Cf. Polyb. vi, 13; 15. Gelzer, op. cit., 43 ff; De Sanctis, , op. cit., iv, 1, 512 ffGoogle Scholar.; Frank, , CAH viii, 356 ffGoogle Scholar.; Bloch and Carcopino, Histoire romaine ii (Glotz, Histoire ancienne, iii), 3 ff.; Scullard, History of the Roman World, 753–146 B.C., 349 ff. The development of this subject, it may be added in conclusion, appears to lie in further study of the middle senatorial group, with a proper appreciation of the importance (under the special social conditions of the time) of family politics.