534 CAEPIO. No. 2 (Liv. xli. 26) curule aedile B. c. 179, when he celebrated the Roman games over again, on ac- count of prodigies which had occurred ; and praetor B. c. ] 74, when he obtained the province of Fur- ther Spain. On his return to Italy, he was one of the ambassadors sent into Macedonia to renounce tlie Roman alliance with Perseus ; and he was con- sid in 169 with Q. Marcius Philippus. Caepio re- mained in Italy; his colleague had Macedonia as his province. (Liv. xL 59, xli. 26, xlii. 25, xliiL 13, 14, 17 ; Cic. Brut. 20, de Senect. 5.) 4. Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, son of No. 3, consid in b. c. 142, was adopted by Q. Fa- bius Maximus. [Maximus.] 5. Cn. Servilius Cn. f. Cn. n. Caepio, son of No. 3, was consul B. c. 141 (Cic. ad Att. xii. 5, de Fin. ii. 16), and censor in 125. In his censorship one of the aquaeducts, the Aqua Tepvla., for sup- plying Rome with water, was constructed. (Fron- tin. de Aquaed. 8 ; Cic. Verr. i. 55 ; Veil. Pat. ii. 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 re- presenting that the treaty was unfiivourable 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 af- terwards 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. Re- pulsed from thence, he crossed the Baetis, closely pursued by Caepio, and, despairing of success, at length surrendered, with all his forces, to the Ro- man general. Caepio deprived them of their arras, but assigned them a certain portion of land, that they might not turn robbers from want of the ne- cessaries of life. (Appian, Hisp. 70, 75, 76; Liv. Epit. 54 ; Flor. ii. 17 ; Eutrop. iv. 1 6 ; Oros. v. 4 ; VeU. Pat. ii. 1 ; Val. Max. ix. 6. § 4 ; Aurel. Vict. de Vir. III. 71 ; Diod. xxxii. Eel. 4.) Caepio treated his soldiers with great cruelty and severitj', which rendered him so unpopular, that he was nearly killed by his cavalry on one occasion. (Dion Cass. Frag. Ixxiii. p. 35, ed. Reimar.) The two last-mentioned brothers, Nos. 5 and 6, are classed by Cicero {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. (VaL Max. viii. S. $ 1; Cic. pro Font. 7.) 7- Q. Servilius Q. f. Cn. n. Caepio, son of No. 6, was praetor about b. c. 11 0, and obtained the province of Further Spain, as we leani from the triumphal Fasti, that he triumphed over the Lusitanians, as propraetor, in B.C. 108. His tri- umph is mentioned by Valerius Maximus (vi. 9. § 13); but Eutropius (iv. 27) is the only writer, CAEPIO. 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 {Aim. xii. 60); though many modern writers have infer- red, from Julius Obsequens (c. 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 Nar- bonensis. 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 cele- brated 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 enonnous ; but he was thought to have paid for it dearly, as the subsequent de- struction of his army and his own unhappy fate were regarded as a divine punishment for his sacri- legious act. Hence too arose the proverb, "Aurum Tolosanum habet." (Strab. iv. p. 188 ; Dion Cass. Frag, xcvii. p. 41 ; GeU. iii. 9 ; Justin, xxxii. 3; Oros. v. 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 array into Gallia Nar- bonensis. 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 ^lallius 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 en- camped separately ; and that he might have an opportunity of finishing the war himself, he pitched his camp between the consul and the enem3^ 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 imite 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 separatelj', 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. (Dion Cass. Frag, xcviii. xcix. pp. 41, 42 ; Liv. Epit. 67; Oros. V. 16; Sail. Jug. 114; Flor. iii. 3; Tac
