Caepio

the name of a patrician family of the Servilia gens.

Stemma Caepionum.

1. Cn. Servilius Cn. F. CN. N. Caepio, consul B. C. 253, in the first Punic war, sailed with his colleague, C. Sempronius Blaesus, to the coast of Africa. For an account of this expedition, see Blaesus, No. 1.

2. CN. Servilius CN. F. CN. N. Caepio, was probably a grandson, and not a son, of No. 1. He was elected pontiff in the place of C. Papirius Maso, B. C. 213; curule aedile in 207, when he celebrated the Roman games three times; praetor in 205, when he obtained the city jurisdiction; and consul in 203. In his consulship he had Bruttii assigned to him as his province, and he was the last Roman general who fought with Hannibal in Italy. The engagement took place in the neighbourhood of Crotona, but no particulars of it are preserved. When Hannibal quitted Italy, Caepio passed over into Sicily, with the intention of crossing from thence to Africa. In order to prevent this, the senate, who feared that the consul would not obey their commands, created a dictator, P. Sulpicius Galba, who recalled Caepio to Italy. In B. C. 192, Caepio was sent with other legates into Greece, to encourage the Roman allies in the prospect of the war with Antiochus. He died in the pestilence in 174. (Liv. 25.2, 28.10, 38, 46, 29.38, xxx, 1, 19, 24, 35.23, 41.26.)

3. CN. Servilius CN. F. CN. N. Caepio, son of No. 2 (Liv. 41.26) curule aedile B. C. 179, when he celebrated the Roman games over again, on account of prodigies which had occurred; and praetor B. C. 174, when he obtained the province of Further Spain. On his return to Italy, he was one of the ambassadors sent into Macedonia to renounce the Roman alliance with Perseus; and he was consul in 169 with Q. Marcius Philippus. Caepio remained in Italy; his colleague had Macedonia as his province. (Liv. 40.59, 41.26, 42.25, 43.13, 14, 17; Cic. Brut. 20, de Senect. 5.)

4. Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, son of No. 3, consul in B. C. 142, was adopted by Q. Fabius Maximus. [Maximus.]

5. CN. Servilius CN. F. CN. N. Caepio, son of No. 3, was consul B. C. 141 (Cic. Att. 12.5, de Fin. 2.16), and censor in 125. In his censorship one of the aquaeducts, the Aqua Tepula, for supplying Rome with water, was constructed. (Frontin. de Aquaed. 8; Cic. Ver. 1.55; Vell. 2.10.)

6. CN. Servilius CN. F. CN. N. Caepio, son of No. 3, consul B. C. 140 with C. Laelius (Cic. Brut. 43; Obsequ. 82), succeeded his brother, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, in the conduct of the war against Viriathus in Lusitania His brother had made a treaty of peace with Viriathus, which had been confirmed by the senate; but Caepio, by representing that the treaty was unfavourable to the interests of Rome, persuaded the senate to allow him at first to injure Viriathus, as far as he could, secretly, and finally to declare open war against him. Hereupon, Viriathus sent two of his most faithful friends to Caepio to offer terms of peace; but the consul persuaded them, by promises and great rewards, to assassinate their master. Accordingly, on their return to their own party, they murdered Viriathus while he was asleep in his tent, and afterwards fled to Caepio. But this murder did not put an immediate stop to the war. After burying the corpse of Viriathus with great magnificence, his soldiers elected Tantalus as their general, who undertook an expedition against Saguntum. Repulsed from thence, he crossed the Baetis, closely pursued by Caepio, and, despairing of success, at length surrendered, with all his forces, to the Roman general. Caepio deprived them of their arms, but assigned them a certain portion of land, that they might not turn robbers from want of the necessaries of life. (Appian, App. Hisp. 70, 75, 76; Liv. Epit. 54; Flor. 2.17; Eutrop. 4.16; Oros. 5.4 ; Vell. 2.1; V. Max. 9.6.4; Aurel. Vict. de Vir. Ill. 71; Diod. xxxii Ecl. 4.) Caepio treated his soldiers with great cruelty and severity, which rendered him so unpopular, that he was nearly killed by his cavalry on one occasion. (Dio Cass. Frag. Ixxiii. p. 35, ed. Reimar.)

The two last-mentioned brothers, Nos. 5 and 6, are classed by Cicero (Cic. Brut. 25) among the Roman orators. He says, that they assisted their clients much by their advice and oratory, but still more by their authority and influence. They appeared as witnesses against Q. Pompeius. (V. Max. 8.5.1; Cic. Font. 7.)

7. Q. Servilius Cn. N. Caepio, Q. F., son of No. 6, was praetor about B. C. 110, and obtained the province of Further Spain, as we learn from the triumphal Fasti, that he triumphed over the Lusitanians, as propraetor, in B. C. 108. His triumph is mentioned by Valerius Maximus (6.9.13); but Eutropius (4.27) is the only writer, as far as we are aware, who refers to his victories in Lusitania. He was consul, B. C. 106, with C. Atilius Serranus, and proposed a law for restoring the judicia to the senators, of which they had been deprived by the Sempronia lex of C. Gracchus. That this was the object of Caepio's law, appears tolerably certain from a passage of Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 12.60); though many modern writers have inferred, from Julius Obsequens (100.101), that his law opened the judicia to the senate and the equites in common. It seems, however, that this law was repealed shortly afterwards.

As the Cimbri and Teutones were threatening Italy, Caepio received the province of Gallia Narbonensis. The inhabitants of Tolosa, the capital of the Tectosagae, had revolted to the Cimbri; and as it was one of the most wealthy cities in those districts, and possessed a temple which was celebrated for its immense treasures, Caepio eagerly availed himself of the pretext which the inhabitants had given him to enrich himself by the plunder both of the city and the temple. The wealth which he thus acquired was enormous; but he was thought to have paid for it dearly, as the subsequent destruction of his army and his own unhappy fate were regarded as a divine punishment for his sacrilegious act. Hence too arose the proverb, "Aurum Tolosanum habet." (Strab. iv. p.188; Dio Cass. Frag. xcvii. p. 41; Gel. 3.9; Just. 32.3 ; Oros. 5.15.) He was continued in his command in Gaul in the following year (B. C. 105), in which some writers place the sack of Tolosa; and, that there might be a still stronger force to oppose the Cimbri, the consul Cn. Mallius, or Manlius, was sent with another consular army into Gallia Narbonensis. As however Caepio and Mallius could not agree, they divided the province between them, one having the country west, and the other the country east, of the Rhone. Soon afterwards, M. Aurelius Scaurus was defeated by the Cimbri, and Mallius sent for Caepio, that they might unite their forces to oppose the common enemy. Caepio at first refused to come, but afterwards, fearing lest Mallius should reap all the glory by defeating the Cimbri, he crossed the Rhone and marched towards the consul. Still, however, he would hold no communication with him; he encamped separately; and that he might have an opportunity of finishing the war himself, he pitched his camp between the consul and the enemy. At this juncture, with such a formidable enemy in their front, the utmost prudence and unanimity were needed by the Roman generals : their discord was fatal. The Roman soldiers saw this, and compelled Caepio, against his will, to unite his forces with those of Mallius. But this did not mend matters. The discord of Mallius and Caepio increased more and more, and they appear to have separated again before they were attacked by the Cimbri, as Florus speaks of the defeat of Mallius and Caepio as two separate events. But whether they were attacked together or separately, the result was the same. Both armies were utterly defeated ; 80,000 soldiers and 40,000 camp-followers perished ; only ten men are said to have escaped the slaughter. It was one of the most complete defeats which the Romans had ever sustained and the day on which it happened, the 6th of October, became one of the black days in the Roman calendar, (Dio Cass. Frag. xcviii. xcix. pp. 41, 42; Liv. Epit 67 ; Oros. 5.16; Sal. Jug. 114; Flor. 3.3; Tac. Germ. 37; Vell. 2.12; V. Max. 4.7.3 ; Plut. Mar. 19, Sertor. 3, Lucull. 27.)

Caepio survived the battle, but was deprived of the imperium by the people. Ten years afterwards (B. C. 95) he was brought to trial by the tribune C. Norbanus on account of his misconduct in this war, and although he was defended by the orator L. Licinius Crassus, who was consul in that year (Cic. Brut. 44), and by many others of the Roman aristocracy, he was condemned and his property confiscated. He himself was cast into prison, where according to one account he died, and his body, mangled by the common executioner, was afterwards exposed to view on the Gemonian steps. (V. Max. 6.9.13.) But according to the more generally received account, he escaped from prison through the assistance of the tribune L. Antistius Reginus, and lived in exile at Smyrna. (V. Max. 4.7.3; Cic. pro Balb. 11.)

8. Q. Servilius Caepio, quaestor urbanus in B. C. 100. He may have been the son of No. 7, but as the latter in all probability obtained the consulship at the usual age, it is not likely that he had a son old enough to obtain the quaestorship six years afterwards. In his quaestorship Caepio opposed the lex frumentaria of the tribune L. Saturninus, and when Saturninus insisted upon putting the law to the vote, notwithstanding the veto of his colleagues, Caepio interrupted the voting by force of arms, and thus prevented the law from being carried. He was accused in consequence of treason (majeslas), and it was perhaps upon this occasion that T. Betucius Barrus spoke against him. The oration of Caepio in reply was written for him by L. Aelius Praeconinus Stilo, who composed orations for him as well as for other distinguished Romans at that time. (Auct. ad Herenn. 1.12; Cic. Brut. 46, 56.)

In the contests of the year B. C. 91, Caepio deserted the cause of the senate and espoused that of the equites in opposition to the lex judiciaria of the tribune M. Livius Drusus, who proposed to divide the judicia between the senate and the equites. Caepio and Drusus had formerly been very intimate friends, and had exchanged marriages, by which we are to understand, that Caepio had married a sister of Drusus and Drusus a sister of Caepio, and not that they had exchanged wives, as some modern writers would interpret it. The enmity between the brothers-in-law is said to have arisen from competition in bidding for a ring at a public auction (Plin. Nat. 33.1. s. 6), but whatever may have been its origin, it was now of a most determined and violent character. The city was torn asunder by their contentions, and seemed almost to be divided between two hostile armies. To strike terror into the senate, Caepio accused two of the most distinguished leaders of the body, M. Aemilius Scaurus of extortion (repetundae), and L. Marcius Philippus, the consul, of bribery (amnbitus). Both accusations, however, seem to have failed, and Scaurus, before his trial came on, retaliated by accusing Caepio himself. (Dio Cass. Frag. cix. cx. p. 45 ; Flor. 3.17; Plin. Nat. 28.9. s. 41; Cic. pro Dom. 46, Brut. 62, pro Scaur. 1; Ascon. in Scaur. p. 21, ed. Orelli.) The assassination of Drusus shortly afterwards was supposed by some to have been committed at the instigation of Caepio. (Aurel. Vict. de Vir. Ill. 66.)

On the breaking out of the social war in the following year, B. C. 90, Caepio again accused his old enemy Scaurus under the provisions of the Varia lex, which had been passed to bring all to trial who had been instrumental in causing the revolt of the allies. (Cic. pro Scaur. 1; Ascon. in Scaur. p. 22.) Caepio took an active part in this war, in which he served as the legate of the consul P. Rutilius Lupus, and upon the death of the latter he received, in conjunction with C. Marius, the command of the consular army. Caepio at first gained some success, but was afterwards decoyed into an ambush by Pompaedius, the leader of the enemy's army, who had pretended to revolt to him, and he lost his life in consequence. (B. C. 90.) (Appian, App. BC 1.40, 44; Liv. Epit. 73.)

9. Q. Servilius Caepio, son of No. 8, was a tribune of the soldiers in the war against Spartacus, B. C. 72. He died shortly afterwards at Aenus in Thrace, on his road to Asia. He is called the brother of Cato Uticensis, because his mother Livia had been married previously to M. Porcius Cato, by whom she had Cato Uticensis. (Plut. Cat. Mi. 8, 11.)

10. 11. Serviliae. [Servilia.]

12. Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus. [Brutus, No. 21.]

13. Cn. Servilius Caepio, the father of Servilia, the wife of Claudius, perished by shipwreck. Who he was is uncertain. (Cic. Att. 12.20.)

14. Servilius Caepio, was one of Caesar's supporters in his consulship (B. C. 59) against Bibulus. He had been betrothed to Caesar's daughter, Julia, but was obliged to give her up in favour of Pompey. As a compensation for her loss, he received the promise of Pompey's daughter, who had likewise been betrothed to Faustus Sulla. (Appian, App. BC 2.14; Suet. Jul. 21; Plut. Caes. 14, Pomp. 47; comp. D. C. 38.9.)

conspired with Murena against Augustus in B. C. 22. He was accused of treason (majestas) by Tiberius, and condemned by the judges in his absence, as he did not stand his trial, and was shortly afterwards put to death. (D. C. 54.3; Vell Pat. 2.91; Suet. Aug. 19, Tib. 8; Senec. de Clem. 9, de Brevit. Vit. 5.)

quaestor in Bithynia, accused Granius Marcellus, the governor of that province, of treason in A. D. 15. From this time he became one of the state informers under Tiberius. (Tac. Ann. 1.74.) He may be the same as the Caepio mentioned by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 21.4. s. 10), who lived in the reign of Tiberius, and seems to have written a work on botany.

A Roman consul, B.C. 106, sent into Gallia Narbonensis to oppose the Cimbri, by whom, in 105, he was defeated, together with the consul, Cn. Mallius or Manlius. Eighty thousand soldiers and forty thousand camp-followers are said to have perished. Caepio survived the battle, but ten years afterwards (B.C. 95) he was brought to trial by the tribune C. Norbanus, on account of his misconduct in this war. He was condemned and cast into prison, where, according to one account, he died; but it was more generally stated that he escaped from prison and lived in exile at Smyrna.