The Cornelian burst 205-190 BCE

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The facts -

205 - Publius Cornelius Scipio (Consul), Gnaeius and Lucius Cornelis Lentulus (Aediles Curula)

204 - Marcus Cornelius Cethegus (Consul)

203 - Publius Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (Praetor)

201 - Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Consul)

199 - Lucius Cornelius Lentulus (Consul), Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Censor), Gaius Cornelius Cethegus (Aedilis Curula)

198 - Lucius Cornelius Merula (Praetor)

197 - Gaius Cornelius Cethegus (Consul), Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Aedilis Curula)

195 - Lucius Cornelius Scipio (Aedilis Curula)

194 - Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Consul II), Gaius Cornelius Cethegus (Censor), Publius Cornelis Scipio Nasica (praetor), Gnaeus Cornelius Merenda (Praetor), Gnaeus Cornelius blasio (Praetor)

193 - Lucius Cornelius Merula (Consul) , lucius Cornelius scipio (Praetor)

191 - Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Consul) , Aulus Cornelius Mammula (Praetor)

190 - Lucius Cornelius Scipio (Consul)

 

That is 9 Consulships in 15 years ! A unique phenomenon since the 7 consecutive Praetorships (Consulships) of the Fabians in the early 5th century .

 

Two questions -

1. Did the success of the Great Scipio had so much influence on the voters, that even Cornelians from other families benefited (keep in mind the at least the Lentuli were considered, by many scholars from the "factoinalist version", as rivels to the Scipio's)

2. Does anybody know the familiy connections of the Cornelii Mammuli, Meruli, Cethegi, Merendi and Blasi with the Scipio's and the Lentuli ? (The stemma of the last two families are well known) .

 

Thanks for any information

[Nephele]

2. Does anybody know the familiy connections of the Cornelii Mammuli, Meruli, Cethegi, Merendi and Blasi with the Scipio's and the Lentuli ? (The stemma of the last two families are well known) .

 

Thanks for any information

 

I'm not sure that family connections will be easily found between the well-known families of the Cornelii and the lesser known families. But perhaps knowing the dates when the lesser-known families were at their peak (as far as holding Republican magisterial positions), might give some sort of clue.

 

I checked Broughton, and compiled the following list of the lesser-known families (from your own list; there were more) of the Cornelii. For each family, I listed the total number of members who held magisterial positions during the Republic. This is followed by the earliest representative from the family, and the latest representative.

 

Blasio: Total of 5

Earliest: Cn. Cornelius P. f. Cn. n. Blasio - Consul in 270 (and again in 257)

Latest: Cn. Cornelius Blasio - Monetal ca. 105

 

Cethegus: Total of 8

Earliest: M. Cornelius M. f. M. n. Cethegus - Curule Aedile and Pontifix Successor in 213; possibly a Flamen in ?-233 (Consul in 204)

Latest: ? Cornelius Cethegus and C. Cornelius Cethegus - both Senators 63.

 

Mammula: Total of 4

Earliest: A. Cornelius Mammula - Praetor of Sardinia in 217

Latest: M. Cornelius Mammula - Ambassador Legate in 173

 

Merenda: Total of 2

Earliest: Ser. Cornelius P. f. Ser. n. Merenda - Lieutenant Legate in 275 (Consul in 274).

Latest: Cn. Cornelius Merenda - Ambassador Legate? in 189-188.

 

Merula: Total of 5

Earliest: L. Cornelius L. f. Merula - Praetor Urbanus in 198 (Consul in 193).

Latest: L. Cornelius Merula - Consul Suffectus and Flamen Dialis in 87.

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

The facts -

205 - Publius Cornelius Scipio (Consul), Gnaeius and Lucius Cornelis Lentulus (Aediles Curula)

204 - Marcus Cornelius Cethegus (Consul)

203 - Publius Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (Praetor)

201 - Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Consul)

199 - Lucius Cornelius Lentulus (Consul), Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Censor), Gaius Cornelius Cethegus (Aedilis Curula)

198 - Lucius Cornelius Merula (Praetor)

197 - Gaius Cornelius Cethegus (Consul), Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Aedilis Curula)

195 - Lucius Cornelius Scipio (Aedilis Curula)

194 - Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Consul II), Gaius Cornelius Cethegus (Censor), Publius Cornelis Scipio Nasica (praetor), Gnaeus Cornelius Merenda (Praetor), Gnaeus Cornelius blasio (Praetor)

193 - Lucius Cornelius Merula (Consul) , lucius Cornelius scipio (Praetor)

191 - Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Consul) , Aulus Cornelius Mammula (Praetor)

190 - Lucius Cornelius Scipio (Consul)

 

That is 9 Consulships in 15 years ! A unique phenomenon since the 7 consecutive Praetorships (Consulships) of the Fabians in the early 5th century .

 

Two questions -

1. Did the success of the Great Scipio had so much influence on the voters, that even Cornelians from other families benefited (keep in mind the at least the Lentuli were considered, by many scholars from the "factoinalist version", as rivels to the Scipio's)

2. Does anybody know the familiy connections of the Cornelii Mammuli, Meruli, Cethegi, Merendi and Blasi with the Scipio's and the Lentuli ? (The stemma of the last two families are well known) .

 

Thanks for any information

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Thanks for the details Nep' and Asc'

 

So, we can conclude that the 2 Consulships of Africanus are not a problem

The consulship of Lucius (later Asiaticus) was reasonable and even that of Nasica ("The best man in the Republic" according to Livy)

The Consulships of the Lentuli brothers are a little more problematic, they went (at least one of them) against Africanus with regard to his command in Africa and explicitly were not his adherents . My conclusion is that the Lentuli were able to represent themselvs as a family/gens by their own, ie "don't count us with the Scipios, we deserve Consulships regardles..." . That is 6 out of 9 but still unusual .

Now, the Cethegi brothers - I can't think of any reason for their sudden rise than their very good relationship with Africanus . Even Develin, who is famous for his opinion against the "factionalistic scholars", was not able to explaine their rise without that notion . I say, one Cetehgi is reasonable, but two ?? and, in addition, a Censura ? a puzzle !

The biggest enigma is, certainty, Merula . No famous father, brothers (?) or sons . Again we should look for his mysterious connectoin with Africanus .

 

One can imagine how the Senate worked in those years -

The Cornelian Consul - "O.K. we now decide who is gonna be our candidates for the Consulships, for the next year" .

The Priceps Senatus (It was Africanus since 199...) - " I suggest ... Ahhhmmm....Cornelius....!!!" .

Senators X, Y, Z, A and B - "Again ???" .

The Priceps Senatus - "It worked well the previous year..." .

Senators D, E, F, G and H (Brothers in law of the Cornelii) - "let us all be friends, give them another Consulship and maybe they will give us, mortals, a Consulship in A.U.C DLXXXIX" .

The Cornelian Consul - "It is closed ! We will represent Novos Cornelius leechus to the Comitia Centuriata and give to the mortals a Consulship when the Moon tures to a Green cheese "

Edited November 12, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[ASCLEPIADES]

One can imagine how the Senate worked in those years -

I wouldn't dismiss your original thesis so quickly; I think it's still the best explanation. I don't think the reported frictions between the Great Scipio and Cn.C. Lentulus were enough to discard a close association, given both their previous administrative relationship and especially the fact that the later succeded the former as Censor.

 

In addition to the virtual monopoly of the patrician executive magistratures for those 15 years, TRS Broughton identified some of their plebeian counterparts as Scipionic proteges (eg, M. Acilius Glabrio, praetor for 196 BC and Consul for 191 BC).

 

T. Livius also assumed such interconelian cooperation during the consular elections of 192 BC (Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXXV, cp. X):

 

" There were many strong candidates,.. But all men's eyes were turned to Quinctius (Flaminius) and Cornelius, for as they were both patricians they were competing for the same place and they each possessed strong recommendations, for each had covered himself with military glory. But it was the brothers of the two candidates who most of all made the contest such an exciting one, for they were the two most brilliant commanders of their day. Scipio (Africanus) had the more splendid reputation, but its very splendour exposed him all the more to jealousy... Moreover, the former (Africanus) had been continually before the public eye for nearly ten years, a circumstance which tends to diminish the reverence felt for great men as people become surfeited with their praises. .. By these arguments he (Quinctus) succeeded in beating his competitor, though his competitor was supported by his brother (cousin) Africanus, by the house of the Cornelii - it was a Cornelius (Merula) who was conducting the election - and by the splendid testimonial which the senate gave when they pronounced Africanus to be the best man among all the citizens and most worthy to receive the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus".

 

Now this was how the Senate was working those years.

 

Actually, the main support for your thesis would be negative; the virtual dissapearance of cornelian magistrates after the Asiatic judicial affaire and the subsequent decline of the Scipio brothers. In fact, the younger Scipios (Asiaticus & Nasica) were defeated as candidates for the Censorship, both in 189 BC & 184 BC, the last time by their sworn enemy MP Cato.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

One can imagine how the Senate worked in those years -

I wouldn't dismiss your original thesis so quickly; I think it's still the best explanation. I don't think the reported frictions between the Great Scipio and Cn.C. Lentulus were enough to discard a close association, given both their previous administrative relationship and especially the fact that the later succeded the former as Censor.

 

In addition to the virtual monopoly of the patrician executive magistratures for those 15 years, TRS Broughton identified some of their plebeian counterparts as Scipionic proteges (eg, M. Acilius Glabrio, praetor for 196 BC and Consul for 191 BC).

 

T. Livius also assumed such interconelian cooperation during the consular elections of 192 BC (Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXXV, cp. X):

 

" There were many strong candidates,.. But all men's eyes were turned to Quinctius (Flaminius) and Cornelius, for as they were both patricians they were competing for the same place and they each possessed strong recommendations, for each had covered himself with military glory. But it was the brothers of the two candidates who most of all made the contest such an exciting one, for they were the two most brilliant commanders of their day. Scipio (Africanus) had the more splendid reputation, but its very splendour exposed him all the more to jealousy... Moreover, the former (Africanus) had been continually before the public eye for nearly ten years, a circumstance which tends to diminish the reverence felt for great men as people become surfeited with their praises. .. By these arguments he (Quinctus) succeeded in beating his competitor, though his competitor was supported by his brother (cousin) Africanus, by the house of the Cornelii - it was a Cornelius (Merula) who was conducting the election - and by the splendid testimonial which the senate gave when they pronounced Africanus to be the best man among all the citizens and most worthy to receive the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus".

 

Now this was how the Senate was working those years.

 

Actually, the main support for your thesis would be negative; the virtual dissapearance of cornelian magistrates after the Asiatic judicial affaire and the subsequent decline of the Scipio brothers. In fact, the younger Scipios (Asiaticus & Nasica) were defeated as candidates for the Censorship, both in 189 BC & 184 BC, the last time by their sworn enemy MP Cato.

 

 

 

It was Nasica who received the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus in 204 CE and was titled the best man among all the citizens . See, among numerous sources, Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy : Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday . No matter

 

For another view about the Scipio's "sworn enemy MP Cato" see Erich S. Gruen - THE "FALL" OF THE SCIPIOS in Leaders and masses in the Roman world ,studies in honor of Zvi Yavetz . He saw no enmity between them and saw no fall of the Scipio's . A very interesting article .

Gruen tries, successfully, to break out of old cenceptios about Cato Major as leading an Anti-Scipionic faction etc'

Edited November 12, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Nephele]

LC (Lf) Merula seems to have been the first known ocurrance of this agnomen; his family is nevertheless considered patrician.

I found no evidence of his previous cursus honorum (somebody should check on Broughton); kind of an enigma to me.

 

Broughton's citing of this Merula's magistracies is as follows:

 

198 - Praetor Urbanus, in which year he distinguished himself by suppressing a conspiracy of slaves and Carthaginian hostages (Liv. 32.26.4-18).

 

194 - one of the triumviri coloniis deducendis (along with an unidentified Quintus and a C. Salonius) for colonized Tempsa (Liv. 34.45.3-5).

 

193 - Consul.

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

It was Nasica who received the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus in 204 CE and was titled the best man among all the citizens . See, among numerous sources, Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy : Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday . No matter

Of course it was Nasica; my apologies.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

For another view about the Scipio's "sworn enemy MP Cato" see Erich S. Gruen - THE "FALL" OF THE SCIPIOS in Leaders and masses in the Roman world ,studies in honor of Zvi Yavetz . He saw no enmity between them and saw no fall of the Scipio's . A very interesting article .

Gruen tries, successfully, to break out of old cenceptios about Cato Major as leading an Anti-Scipionic faction etc'

An intriguing title from an excellent author.... in a JSTOR restricted-access source.

 

Would you be able to post a summary?

 

I think the always patriotic Roman historians had essentially an insolvable problem by trying to present both PC Scipio Africanus Maior and MP Cato Maior as utterly perfect, impolute and exemplary heroes.... ie, both at the same time; a true nightmare. More or less like the French historians regarding Robespierre and Napoleon I.

 

In fact, I think that for some time the Roman republic was at real danger for becoming subjugated by the Scipio brothers.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

For another view about the Scipio's "sworn enemy MP Cato" see Erich S. Gruen - THE "FALL" OF THE SCIPIOS in Leaders and masses in the Roman world ,studies in honor of Zvi Yavetz . He saw no enmity between them and saw no fall of the Scipio's . A very interesting article .

Gruen tries, successfully, to break out of old cenceptios about Cato Major as leading an Anti-Scipionic faction etc'

An intriguing title from an excellent author.... in a JSTOR restricted-access source.

 

Would you be able to post a summary?

Please forgive me and forget that; I've eventually found the open source.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Caesar CXXXVII]

In any case, Dr. Gruen is very far from denying Cato's anti-Scipionic opposittion; actually, he quoted it many times (almost all his primary sources mentioned such animosity).

 

 

You see, I have got the impression that he denyied Cato's anti-Scipionic opposition !

In the same year (187) Vulso was attacked to, He was no Scipionic . Much more important, Gruen said that Cato's involment in the case was Zero to allmost nothing . Cato, maybe (and Gruen actually dismiss the sources for that notion) was behind the Petillii brothers - that's it . No more . To conclude from that, that he was an enemy of the Scipio's - It is up to us . Cato was behind so many things, and attacked so many politicians . my conclusion, and Gruen said so, is that the inviolment of such a great figure as Africanus catched the eyes of ancient historians that they covered the, not so big issue, with romantic detailes about a strugle between these two men . Gruen was explicit when he said that the "Trials of the Scipio's" was not a political trial but a part of a larger process . Cato's motive (If he was involved in the case at all) was not hate for the Scipio's but an attempt to strengthen the control of the Republic with regard to booty . So say Gruen - "Cato - and doubtless not he alone - probed for means to curtail the aothority of commanders over the spoils of war" . I see no political strugle with the Scipio's here . In addirion, Gruen said that the attack was against Lucius (not Africanus) and rasied the possibility that it was connected to the election for the Censura of 184 . Again, no hate, no strugle, no enemy - just ad hoc politics .

That's Gruen .

Edited November 13, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I read Astin's "Cato the Censor" again and surprisingly he had the same ideas as Gruen .

First he says that behind the details were " A complicated history of carelessness, cavalier speculation, and colourful fabrication, extending even to the names of the participants . Events have been telescoped and distorted, gaps filled by surmise and invention , narratives enlivened with dramatic detail , and patently incompatible versions combined to produce bewildering confusion" . I agree with that .

And now for his conclusion - Astin recognised 3 possible motives for the (so un proven involvment of Cato) in the case :

1. "Political expediency, notably in the form of attempts by rival candidates for the censorship to discredit each other" - Gruen's and mine "ad hoc politics"

2. "Partisan and factional conflicts between individuals and groups, notably between Cato and the Scipio's" - In other words, generally, the notion that Cato was an enemy of the Scipio's

3. "A genuine concern about improprieties in the conduct of public affairs" - Gruen's notion about the attempt to curtail commanders

 

Astin conclude - "in view of this surprising lack of evidence there must be a cautious reserve about those passage which reffer in general terms to deep and long-standing enmity, a suspicion that they are indeed generalizations, projecting backwards the intense and exacerbated antagonisms of the 180' and exaggerating the significance of any earlier ill-feeling" .

 

So, at least for me, there was no grand struggle between Cato and the Scipio's. We must be careful not to fall to a dichotomy .

 

EDIT : A comment - In 181, just 3 years after the "Great struggle between Cato and the Scipio's", Marcus Porcius Cato the son, married Aemilia the daguther of Scipio Africanus' brother in law - Love overcame hatred !

Edited November 13, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[ASCLEPIADES]

Check Gruen and your own notes.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Check Gruen and your own notes; highlighting is mines:

 

Your original misstatement was...

For another view about the Scipio's "sworn enemy MP Cato" see Erich S. Gruen - THE "FALL" OF THE SCIPIOS in Leaders and masses in the Roman world ,studies in honor of Zvi Yavetz . He saw no enmity between them ...

 

And then...

You see, I have got the impression that he denyied Cato's anti-Scipionic opposition !

It's a misstatement too.

 

Cato, maybe (and Gruen actually dismiss the sources for that notion) was behind the Petillii brothers - that's it .

First mention of both Q. Petillius is in page 80; here comes the whole sentence:

"According to his narrative (Antias'), two tribunes, both named Q. Petillius, brought a range of allegations against Africanus".

What Gruen actually dismissed is that there was a trial against Africanus, not if Cato may or may not have been behind the Petillii: on that, he said nothing.

 

Now...

In addirion, Gruen said that the attack was against Lucius (not Africanus) and rasied the possibility that it was connected to the election for the Censura of 184 .

1.- Last time I checked, being against Lucius Scipio is anti-scipionic.

2.- Actually, one of the main points of Gruen is the quite convincing and absolute discarding of 184 BC as the date of Lucius Scipio trial by V. Antias, based on his missinterpretation of a quote on Maevius as prosecutor.

 

Much more important, Gruen said that Cato's involment in the case was Zero to allmost nothing

No, he didn't said that; that is not among the conclusions in this article.

Again: any mention of Cato by Gruen is tangential at best, as he was not the purpose of this article.

 

Now...

In the same year (187) Vulso was attacked to, He was no Scipionic . Much more important, Gruen said that Cato's involment in the case was Zero to allmost nothing ... Gruen was explicit when he said that the "Trials of the Scipio's" was not a political trial but a part of a larger process . Cato's motive (If he was involved in the case at all) was not hate for the Scipio's but an attempt to strengthen the control of the Republic with regard to booty . So say Gruen - "Cato - and doubtless not he alone - probed for means to curtail the aothority of commanders over the spoils of war" . I see no political strugle with the Scipio's here . Again, no hate, no strugle, no enemy - just ad hoc politics .

All of this is indeed what Gruen said; as you can see Gruen is very far from denying Cato's anti-Scipionic opposittion; actually, he quoted it many times; the very first one is in page 59:

 

"And he (Lucius Scipio) endured the ignominy of removal from the equestrian order by Cato..."

Please check on the primary source (Livius Ab Urbe Condita Liber XXXIX, cp. XLIV, sec. I).

 

There's virtually universal consensus among the primary sources used by Gruen (and there are no more): Cato and the Scipio brothers were enemies; no one denies it.

 

 

I have read Gruen, and you too - We came to a different conclusion - Fine with me .

You ignored Gruen's conclusion that Cato acted (there is no proof for that but historians who lived hundreds of years afterwards no matter how many time you quote them, Polybius said nothing about Cato's involvment) with regards with ad hoc politics - fine with me .

You ignord Astin words - No matter

You even ignord the marriage between Scipio's niece and Cato's son - such an enmity !!!

If you want to think that Cato hated the Scipio's or was their enemy - Fine with me . Dichotomy - Such a nice thing...

Edited November 13, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[ASCLEPIADES]

EDIT : A comment - In 181, just 3 years after the "Great struggle between Cato and the Scipio's", Marcus Porcius Cato the son, married Aemilia the daguther of Scipio Africanus' brother in law - Love overcame hatred !

Sorry to dissapoint you, but nope, they were no Romeo & Juliet.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES