§38.56.1multa alia in Scipionis exitu maxime vitae dieque dicta, morte, funere, sepulcro, in diversum trahunt, ut, cui famae, quibus scriptis adsentiar, non habeam. §38.56.2non de accusatore convenit: alii M. Naevium, alii Petillios diem dixisse scribunt, non de tempore, quo dicta dies sit, non de anno, quo mortuus sit, §38.56.3non ubi mortuus aut elatus sit; alii Romae, alii Literni et mortuum et sepultum.
Many other things regarding the end of Scipio's life, especially the day he was prosecuted, his death, funeral, and tomb, pull in different directions, so that I do not know which report or which writings to believe. There is no agreement about the accuser: some write that M. Naevius, others that the Petillii brought the charge; nor about the time when the charge was brought, nor about the year in which he died; nor where he died or was carried out for burial; some say he both died and was buried at Rome, others at Liternum.
utrobique monumenta ostenduntur et statuae; nam et Literni monumentum monumentoque statua superimposita fuit, §38.56.4quam tempestate deiectam nuper vidimus ipsi, et Romae extra portam Capenam in Scipionum monumento tres statuae sunt, quarum duae P. et L. Scipionum dicuntur esse,
In both places monuments and statues are shown; for at Liternum too there was a monument, and a statue was placed upon the monument, which we ourselves recently saw thrown down by a storm, and at Rome, outside the Porta Capena in the monument of the Scipios, there are three statues, of which two are said to be of P. and L. Scipio, the third of the poet Q.
§38.56.5tertia poetae Q. Ennii.
Ennius.
nec inter scriptores rerum discrepat solum, sed orationes quoque, si modo ipsorum sunt quae feruntur, P. Scipionis et Ti. Gracchi abhorrent inter se. §38.56.6index orationis P. Scipionis nomen M. Naevii tribuni plebis habet, ipsa oratio sine nomine est accusatoris; modo nebulonem, modo nugatorem appellat. §38.56.7ne Gracchi quidem oratio aut Petilliorum accusatorum Africani aut diei dictae Africano ullam mentionem habet.
Nor is there disagreement only among the historians, but the speeches too, if indeed those which are circulated are theirs, namely of P. Scipio and Ti. Gracchus, are inconsistent with each other. The title of P. Scipio's speech has the name of the tribune of the plebs M. Naevius, but the speech itself is without the name of the accuser; it calls him now a scoundrel, now a trifler. Not even Gracchus' speech has any mention either of the Petillii as the accusers of Africanus, or of a charge being brought against Africanus. An entirely different story must be woven to agree with Gracchus' speech, and those authors must be followed who relate that, when L.
§38.56.8alia tota serenda fabula est Gracchi orationi conveniens, et illi auctores sequendi sunt, qui, cum L. Scipio et accusatus et damnatus sit pecuniae captae ab rege legatum in Etruria fuisse Africanum tradunt; §38.56.9qua post famam de casu fratris adlatam relicta legatione cucurrisse eum Romam et, cum a porta recta ad forum se contulisset, quod in vincula duci fratrem dictum erat, reppulisse a corpore eius viatorem, et tribunis retinentibus magis pie quam civiliter vim fecisse.
Scipio was both accused and condemned for taking money from the king, Africanus was a legate in Etruria; and that, having abandoned this embassy after the report of his brother's misfortune was brought, he hurried to Rome, and when he had gone straight from the gate to the forum, because it was said that his brother was being led into chains, he pushed away the attendant from his brother's body, and, when the tribunes tried to hold him back, he used force against them, in a manner more dutiful to his brother than respectful to the state. For Ti.
§38.56.10haec enim ipsa Ti. Gracchus queritur dissolutam esse a privato tribuniciam potestatem, et ad postremum, cum auxilium L. Scipioni pollicetur, adicit tolerabilioris exempli esse a tribuno plebis potius quam a privato victam videri et tribuniciam potestatem et rem publicam esse. §38.56.11sed ita hanc unam impotentem eius iniuriam invidia onerat, ut increpando quod degenerarit tantum a se ipse, cumulatas ei veteres laudes moderationis et temperantiae pro reprehensione praesenti reddat; §38.56.12castigatum enim quondam ab eo populum ait, quod eum perpetuum consulem et dictatorem vellet facere; prohibuisse statuas sibi in comitio, in Rostris, in curia, in Capitolio, in cella Iovis poni; §38.56.13prohibuisse, ne decerneretur, ut imago sua triumphali ornatu e templo Iovis optimi maximi exiret,
Gracchus himself complains of these very actions, that the tribunician power was broken down by a private citizen, and at the end, when he promises assistance to L. Scipio, he adds that it is a more tolerable precedent for both the tribunician power and the state to appear to be overcome by a tribune of the plebs rather than by a private citizen. But he so loads this single lawless outrage of his with odium that, while reproaching him because he had degenerated so much from his own self, he actually restores to him his accumulated old praises for moderation and self-control in place of the present censure. For he says that the people were once rebuked by him because they wished to make him perpetual consul and dictator; and that he had forbidden statues to be set up to him in the comitium, on the Rostra, in the senate-house, on the Capitol, or in the cella of Jupiter; and had forbidden any decree to be passed that his image, in triumphal garb, should be brought out from the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.