[1941] Cato, Orat. i: “Dierum dictarum de consulatu suo.”
[1942] Livy xxvii. 46. 1 f.
[1943] Cato, Orat. xiii; Livy xxxviii. 57. 10; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 459 ff.
[1944] For the cognomen, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1475.
[1945] Polyb. xxiii. 14; Gell. iv. 3-5, 7-12; Diod. xxix. 24 (from Polyb.); Livy xxxviii. 54; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1 d; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 49. 16-9.
[1946] Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 464 f.
[1947] In the story of the trial given by Antias the two Petilii were the prosecutors of Publius (Livy xxxviii. 50 f.). In ch. 54 f. Livy, again following Antias, represents these tribunes as authors of a plebiscite for the appointment of a special court to inquire concerning the money received from King Antiochus, and states that L. Scipio was condemned by this court. The story may not be without foundation; but if such a plebiscite was adopted, it could not have had the desired result.
[1948] This incident is considered doubtful by Bloch, in Rev. d. étud. anc. viii. (1906). 109.
[1949] According to Diod. xxix. 21, Scipio was threatened with the death penalty; but the trial actually took the form described above in the text.
[1950] Gell. vi. 19. 2. It was probably in connection with this trial that Cato delivered his speech “Concerning the money of King Antiochus”; Livy xxxviii. 54. 11; Plut. Cat. Mai. 15; Cato, Orat. xv.