est than for his personal quarrels, and the Petillii were assailed with abuse because they had tried to become conspicuous by darkening another's reputation and were seeking spoils from a triumph over Africanus.
Thenceforth there was silence regarding Africanus. He spent his life at Liternum, with no desire to return to the City;
when dyingOne infers from this and from liv. 1 below that the death of Scipio soon followed, but in XXXIX. lii. 1 his death is said to have occurred in 183 B.C. The same uncertainty prevailed regarding his burial-place and the circumstances of his death, on which Livy declines to express an opinion. He gives, however, in chap. lvi. below, some interesting historical criticism which contrasts strangely with his dogmatic statements elsewhere (but note ferunt in this section). they say that heB.C. 187 gave orders that he should be buried in that same place in the country and that his tomb should be erected there, that his funeral might not be held in
is said, especially about the end of Scipio's life, his trial, his death, his funeral, his tomb, all so contradictory that I find no tradition, no written documents, which I can accept.
There is no unanimity as to his accuser: some say that Marcus NaeviusNaevius was tribune in 184 B.C. (XXXIX. lii. 4 below). accused him, others the Petillii; there is no agreement as to the time when he was prosecuted nor as to the year when he diedLivy returns to this question in dealing with the year 183 B.C. (XXXIX. lii.). nor as to where he died or was buried; some say that both death and burial took place at Rome, others at Liternum.
In both places tombs and statues are shown;
for at LiternumSeneca, writing to Lucilius from Scipio's villa at Liternum, says . . . ara quam sepulchrum esse tanti viri suspicor (Ep. LXXXVI. 1). Strabo (p. 243) also mentions the tomb, but there seems to be no other reference to the statue of which Livy speaks. there is a tomb and a statue placed upon th
he precinct of Vulcan;It was near the temple of Concord (lvi. 6; XL. xix. 1 below). and a period of prayer was proclaimed by the decemvirs as expiation for this prodigy.
Before the consulsThese events should then belong to the winter of 184-183 B.C. or the early spring of the latter year. Polybius (XXIV. i. ff.) puts them after the departure of the consuls, and so some months later in 183 B.C. set out for their provinces, they introduced the embassies from across the seas to the senate. Nev183 B.C. set out for their provinces, they introduced the embassies from across the seas to the senate. Never before had there been so many people from this region in Rome.
For from the time that the news spread among the tribes that live near Macedonia that charges and complaints against Philip were listened to not inattentively by the Romans, and that many had found it profitable to make complaints, each city and tribe for itself and many individuals privately —for
everyone found him a neighbour hard to get along with —came to Rome either in the hope of redressing their wrongs or for th
thus concludes that Scipio was dead before the lectio by Cato and Flaccus. Their active term as censors extended from March 15, 184 B.C., to about mid-September 183 B.C., and the lectio might have been held late in the period. So far as this evidence goes, then, Scipio's death might have occurred as late as the summer of 183 B.C.183 B.C., and Livy's criticism is not necessarily valid. The refutation of Antias as an authority is the tribune of the people Marcus Naevius, against whom was directed, according to the title,Cf. XXXVIII. lvi. 6 and the note. Livy forgets here his own remark, that the speech itself did not contain the name of Naevius. B.C. 183 the speechbefore the censorship of Lucius Valerius and Marcus Porcius.
The last sentence seems to be an attempt to reconcile conflicting testimony. Livy has rejected 183 B.C. (Polybius and Rutilius) because he believes that Scipio was dead before the censorship of Cato and Flaccus beginning March 15, 184 B.C. He has rejected 187