Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 41, Summary
Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. and Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D., Ed.

1 The asterisk indicates that the events described in the following sentence were related in a lost portion of the book.

2 Another instance of this ominous occurrence is related in XXVIII. xi. 6, and Valerius Maximus I. 1. 6 (206 B.C.); a general discussion of the going out and rekindling of the fire is given by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, II. 66. 3.

3 Gracchus and Albinus were, strictly speaking, praetors, but Livy uses the term “proconsul” freely for the praetors who governed Spain, cf. XLII. iii. 1 with XLII. x. 5.

4 The town had existed previously under the name of Ilurcis (Festus Pauli ed. K. O. Müller, p. 97, s.v. Gracchuris). Later it had Latin rights (Pliny, Natural History III. 24) and coined its own money. Its citizens are mentioned in the Fragment of Bk. XCI, and it also appears in the late geographical works.

5 This was Antiochus IV Epiphanes, son of Antiochus III the Great (d. 187 B.C.). According to Appian, Syrian Wars ch. viii. 45, he was released from Rome by his brother Seleucus IV, who sent his son Demetrius to replace Antiochus. The ex-hostage spent some time in Athens on his way home, receiving honours and making himself agreeable, particularly in the matter of the temple of Zeus Olympius, begun under Peisistratus and only finished, in spite of the munificence of Antiochus, by Hadrian. At this time Antiochus probably gave the golden aegis with the Gorgon which Pausanias (V. xii. 4) saw above the theatre. Antiochus established himself on the throne in 175 B.C. by driving out a usurper, Heliodorus, who had murdered Seleucus; the kingdom of Pergamum assisted Antiochus at this time.

6 Polybius (XXVI. la and 1) seems to have been the source for Livy's description of Antiochus (cf. ch. xx. of this book); Polybius XXVI. 1. 10-11 is closely parallel to this statement of the Periocha.

7 The figure is variously given in the MSS.; in view of the statement in XLII. x. that the next census figures were “somewhat less” because of the elimination of Latin pretenders to Roman citizenship, I should prefer the larger figure as given in the critical note. Other activities of these censors are described in XL. Li—lii.

8 The first provision of this law seems to have run: “ne quis heredem virginem neve mulierem faceret” (Augustine, De Civitate Dei III. 21) and it applied to those listed in the census as having 100,000 asses or more (Cicero, Second Verrine Oration I, chs. 41-45), although Dio Cassius LVI. 10 gives the sum as 25,000 drachmas = 100,000 sesterces, or twice Cicero's sum, which may have been changed by judicial interpretation in the course of time. The Vestal Virgins were exempt, and might devise as they chose (Cicero, De Republica, III. 10). However, legacies might be made to women, and their share, if there was no will, was not limited (Cicero, loc. cit.). The law continued: ne cui plus legatorum nomine mortisve causa capere liceret quam heredes caperent, si plus legarit quam ad heredem heredesve perveniat (Gaius II. 226), i.e., probably no single legatee might receive more than the residual estate falling to the heir or heirs. This second part of the Voconian Law became obsolete with the subsequent growth of huge fortunes, and was superseded by the Falcidian Law of 40 B.C.; the prohibition of heirship by women seems to have become a dead letter after about A.D. 100 (latest reference in Pliny, Panegyric 42).

9 A fragment of Cato's speech is preserved in Gellius, Noctes Atticae XVII. 6: “In the beginning the woman brought you a great dowry; then she holds back a large sum of money, which she does not entrust to the control of her husband, but lends it to her husband. Later, becoming angry with him, she orders a slave whom she has reserved as her own to hound him and demand the money,” tr. Rolfe, L.C.L.; the rendering of servum recepticium (the phrase for the sake of explaining which Gellius quoted the fragment, has been altered).