No More Learning

count of prodigies which had occurred ; and praetor | Atilius Serranus, and proposed a law for restoring
B. C. 174, when he obuined the province of Fur- the judicia to the senators, of which they had been
ther Spain. On his return to Italy, he was one of deprived by the Sempronia lex of C. Gracchus.
the ambassadors sent into Macedonia to renounce That this was the object of Caepio's law, appears
the Roman alliance with Perseus; and he was con- tolerably certain from a passage of Tacitus (Ann.
sul in 169 with Q. Marcius Philippus. Caepio re- xii. 60); though many modern writers have infer-
mained in Italy; his colleague had Macedonia as his red, from Julius Obsequens (c. 101), that his law
province. (Liv. xl. 59, xli. 26, xlii. 25, xliii. 13, opened the judicia to the senate and the equites in
14, 17; Cic. Brut. 20, de Senect. 5. )
common. It seems, however, that this law was
4. Q. Fabius Maximus SERVILIANUS, son of repealed shortly afterwards.
No. 3, consul in B. c. 142, was adopted by Q. Fa- As the Cimbri and Teutones were threatening
bius Maximus. [MAXIMUS. )
Italy, Caepio received the province of Gallia Nar-
5. Cn. Servilius Cx. F. CN. N. CAEPIO, son of bonensis. The inhabitants of Tolosit, the capital
No. 3, was consul B. c. 141 (Cic. ad Ati. xii. 5, de of the Tectosagae, bad revolted to the Cimbri;
and
Fin. ii. 16), and censor in 125. In his censorship as it was one of the most wealthy cities in those
one of the aquaeducts, the Aqua Tepula, for sup- districts, and possessed a temple which was cele
plying Rome with water, was constructed. (Fron- brated for its immense treasures, Caepio eagerly
tin. de Aquaed. 8 ; Cic. Verr. i. 55 ; Vell. Pat. ii. availed himself of the pretext which the inhabitants
10. )
bad given him to enrich himself by the plunder
6. CN. Servilius Cn. F. CN. N. Caepio, son of both of the city and the temple. The wealth which
No. 3, consul B. c. 140 with C. Laelius (Cic. Brut. he thus acquired was enormous; but he was thought
43; Obsequ. 82), succeeded his brother, Q. Fabius to have paid for it dearly, as the subsequent de
Maximus Servilianus, in the conduct of the war struction of his army and his own unhappy fate
against Viriathus in Lusitania. His brother had were regarded as a divine punishment for his sacri-
made a treaty of peace with Viriathus, which had legious act. Hence too arose the proverb, “Aurum
been confirmed by the senate ; but Caepio, by re- Tolosanum habet. ” (Strab. iv. p. 188; Dion Cass.
presenting that the treaty was unfavourable to the Frag. xcvii. p. 4); Gell. iii. 9; Justin. xxxi. 3;
interests of Rome, persuaded the senate to allow Oros. v. 15. ) He was continued his command
him at first to injure Viriathus, as far as he could, I in Gaul in the following year (B. c. 105), in which
secretly, and finally to declare open war against some writers place the sack of Tolosa ; and, that
him. Hereupon, Viriathus sent iwo of his most there might be a still stronger force to oppose the
faithful friends to Caepio to offer terms of peace; but Cimbri, the consul Cn. Mallius, or Manlius, was
the consul persuaded them, by promises and great sent with another consular army into Gallia Nar-
rewards, to assassinate their master. Accordingly, bonensis. As however Caepio and Mallius could
on their return to their own party, they murdered agree, they divided the province between them,
Viriathus while he was asleep in his tent, and af- one having the country west, and the other the
terwards filed to Caepio. But this murder did not country east, of the Rhone. Soon afterwards,
put an immediate stop to the war. After burying M. Aurelius Scaurus was defeated by the Cimbri,
the corpse of Viriathus with great magnificence, and Mallius sent for Caepio, that they might
his soldiers elected Tantalus as their general, who unite their forces to oppose the common enemy.
undertook an expedition against Saguntum. Re- Caepio at first refused to come, but afterwards,
pulsed from thence, he crossed the Baetis, closely fearing lest Mallius should reap all the glory by
pursued by Caepio, and, despairing of success, at defeating the Cimbri, he crossed the Rhone and
length surrendered, with all his forces, to the Ro- marched towards the consul. Still, however, he
man general. Caepio deprired them of their arms, would hold no communication with him; he en-
but assigned them a certain portion of land, that camped separately; and that he might have an
they might not turn robbers from want of the ne opportunity of finishing the war himself, he pitched
cessaries of life. (Appian, Hisp. 70, 75, 76; Liv. his camp between the consul and the enemy. At
Epit. 54; Flor. ii. 17; Eutrop. iv. 16 ; Oros. v. 4; this juncture, with such a formidable enemy in
Vell
. Pat. ii. 1; Val. Max. ix. 6. $ 4; Aurel. Vict. their front, the utmost prudence and unanimity
de l'ir. IU. 71; Diod. xxxii. Ecl. 4. ) Caepio treated were needed by the Roman generals: their discord
his soldiers with great cruelty and severity, which
was fatal.
The Roman soldiers saw this, and
rendered him so unpopular, that he was nearly compelled Caepio, against bis will, to unite his
killed by his cavalry on one occasion. (Dion Cass. forces with those of Mallius. But this did not
Frag. lxxiii. p. 35, ed. Reimar. )
mend matters. The discord of Mallius and Caepio
The two last-mentioned brothers, Nos. 5 and 6, increased more and more, and they appear to have
are classed by Cicero (Brut. 25) among the Roman separated again before they were attacked by the
orators. He says, that they assisted their clients Cimbri, as Florus speaks of the defeat of Mallius
much by their advice and oratory, but still more and Caepio as two separate events. But whether
by their authority and influence. They appeared they were attacked together or separately, the result
as witnesses against Q. Pompeius. (Val. Max, vui. was the same. Both armies were utterly defeated;
5. Ø 1; Cic. pro Font. 7. )
80,000 soldiers and 40,000 camp-followers perished;
7. Q. Servilius Q. F. Cn. N. CAEPIO, son of only ten men are said to have escaped the slaughter.
No. 6, was praetor abont B. c. 110, and obtained It was one of the most complete defeats which
the province of Further Spain, as we learn from the Romans had ever sustawied; and the day on
the triumphal Fasti, that he triumphed over the which it happened, the 6th of October, became one
Lusitanians, as propraetor, in B. c. 108. His tri- of the black days in the Roman calendar. (Dion
umph is mentioned by Valerius Maximus (vi. 9. Cass. Frag. xcviii. xcix. pp. 41, 42; Liv. Epit. 67;
$ 13); but Eutropius (iv. 27) is the only writer, Oros. v. 16; Sall. Jug. 114 ; Flor. iii. 3; Tac


## p. 535 (#555) ############################################

CAEPIO.
535
CAERELLIA.
Germ. 37; Vell Pat. ii. 12; Val. Max. iv. 7. $ 3; | following year, B. c. 90, Caepio again accused his
Plut. Mar. 19, Sertor. 3, Lucull. 27. )
old enemy Scaurus under the provisions of the
Caepio survived the battle, but was deprived of Varia lex, which lad been passed to bring all to
the imperium by the people.
Ten years afterwards trial who had been instrumental in causing the
(B. C. 95) he was brought to trini by the tribune revolt of the allies. (Cic. pro Scaur. 1; Ascon. in
C. Norbanus on account of his misconduct in this Scaur. p. 22. ) Caepio took an active part in this
war, and although he was defended by the orator war, in which he served as the legate of the consul
L. Licinius Crassus, who was consul in that year P. Rutilius Lupus, and upon the death of the
(Cic. Brut. 44), and by many others of the Ro- latter he received, in conjunction with C. Marius,
man aristocracy, he was condemned and his pro- the command of the consular army. Caepio at
perty confiscated. Ile himself was cast into prison, first gained some success, but was afterwards de-
where according to one account he died, and his coyed into an ambush by Pompaedius, the leader of
body, mangled by the common executioner, was the enemy's army, who had pretended to revolt to
afterwards exposed to view on the Gemonian steps. him, and he lost his life in consequence. (B. c. 90. )
(Val. Max. vi. 9. § 13. ) But according to the (Appian, B. C. i. 40, 44; Liv. Epit. 73. )
more generally received account, he escaped from 9. Q. SERVILIUS CAEPIO, son of No. 8, was a
prison through the assistance of the tribune L. tribune of the soldiers in the war against Spartacus,
Antistius Reginus, and lived in exile at Smyrna. B. C. 72. He died shortly afterwards at Aenus in
(Val. Max. iv. 7. $ 3; Cic. pro Ball. 11. )
Thrace, on his road to Asja. He is called the
8. Q. SERVILIUS Caepio, quaestor urbanus in brother of Cato Uticensis, because his mother Livia
B. C. 100. He may have been the son of No. 7, had been married previously to M. Porcius Cato,
but as the latter in all probability obtained the by whom she had Cato Uticensis. (Plut. Cai.
consulship at the usual age, it is not likely that he Min. 8, 11. )
had a son old enough to obtain the quaestorship 10. 11. SERVILIAE. [SERVILIA. ]
six years afterwards. In his quaestorship Caepio 12. Q. ServiliUS CAEP10 BRUTUS. [BRUTUS,
opposed the lex frumentaria of the tribune L. No. 21. )
Saturninus, and when Saturninus insisted upon put- 13. CN. SERVILIUS CAEPIO, the father of Ser-
ting the law to the vote, notwithstanding the veto vilia, the wife of Claudius, perished by shipwreck.
of his colleagues, Caepio interrupted the voting by Who he was is uncertain. (Cic. ad Att. xii. 20. )
force of arms, and thus prevented the law from 14. SERVILIUS CAEPIO, was one of Caesar's
being carried. He was accused in consequence of supporters in his consulship (B. C. 59) against Bi-
treason (majestas), and it was perhaps upon this bulus. He had been betrothed to Caesar's daugh-
occasion that T. Betucius Barrus spoke against ter, Julia, but was obliged to give her up in favour
him. The oration of Caepio in reply was written of Pompey. As a compensation for her loss, he
for him by L. Aelius Praeconinus Stilo, who com- received the promise of Pompey's daughter, who
posed orations for him as well as for other distin- had likewise been betrothed to Faustus Sulla.
guished Romans at that time. (Auct. ad Herenn. (Appian, B. C. ii. 14 ; Suet. Caes. 21; Plut. Cues.
i. 12; Cic. Brut. 46, 56. )
14, Pomp. 47; comp. Dion Cass. xxxviii. 9. )
In the contests of the year B. c. 91, Caepio de CAEʻPIO, FA'NNIUS, conspired with Murena
serted the cause of the senate and espoised that of against Augustus in B. c. 22. He was accused of
the equites in opposition to the lex judiciaria of treason (majestas) by Tiberius, and condemned
the tribune M. Livius Drusus, who proposed to by the judges in his absence, as he did not stand
divide the judicia between the senate and the his trial, and was shortly afterwards put to death.
equites. Caepio and Drusus had formerly been (Dion Cass. liv. 3; Vell. Pat. ii. 91; Suet. Aug.
very intimate friends, and had exchanged mar- 19, Tib. 8 ; Senec. de Clem. 9, de Brevit. Vit. 5. )
riages, by which we are to understand, that CAEʻPIO CRISPI'NUS, quaestor in Bithynia,
Caepio had married a sister of Drusus and Drusus accused Granius Marcellus, the governor of that
a sister of Caepio, and not that they had exchang- province, of treason in A. D. 15. From this time
ed wives, as some modern writers would interpret he became one of the state informers under Tibe-
it. The enmity between the brothers-in-law is rius. (Tac. Ann. i. 74. ) He may be the same as
said to have arisen from competition in bidding for the Caepio mentioned by Pliny (H. N. xxi. 4.
a ring at a public auction (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 1. s. 10), who lived in the reign of Tiberius, and
8. 6), but whatever may have been its origin, seens to have written a work on botany:
it was now of a most determined and violent CAERE'LLIA, a Roman lady of the time of
character. The city was torn asunder by their Cicero, who was distinguished for her acquirements
contentions, and seemed almost to be divided be and a great love of philosophical pursuits. She
tween two hostile armies. To strike terror into was connected with Cicero by friendship, and stu-
the senate, Caepio accused two of the most distin- died his philosophical writings with great zeal.
guished leaders of the body, M. Aemilius Scaurus She was a woman of considerable property, and
of extortion (repetundae), and L. Marcius Philip had large possessions in Asia. These estates and
pus, the consul, of bribery (ambitus). Both accusa- their procuratores were strongly recommended, in
tions, however, seem to have failed, and Scaurus, B. C. 46, by Cicero (ud Fam. xiii. 72) to the care
before his trial came on, retaliated by accusing of P. Servilius. Cicero, in his recommendatory
Caepio himself. (Dion Cass
. Frag. cix. cx. p. 45; letter, speaks of her as an intimate friend, though,
Flor. ii. 17; Plin. H. N. xxviii. 9. s. 41; Cic. on other occasions, he seems to be rather inclined
pro Dom. 46, Brut. 62, pro Scaur. l; Ascon. in to sneer at her. (Ad. Att. xii. 51, xiii. 21, 22, xiv.
Scaur. p. 21, ed. Orelli. ) The assassination of 19, xv. 1, 26. ) Q. Fufius Calenus charges Cicero
Drusus shortly afterwards was supposed by some with having, in his old age, had an adulterous con-
to have been committed at the instigation of Cae-nexion with Caerellia. (Dion Cass. xlvi. 18. ) How
pio.