This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 The formula retains the subjunctive even in direct quotation.
2 B.C. 187
3 There was no systematic or effective method of verifying a general's returns of the booty he had collected; one device, of uncertain validity, was seen in the case of Glabrio (XXXVII. lvii. 13-14). The episode of Scipio Nasica (XXXVI. xxxvi. 1-2 and the note) suggests that the senate was either unable to secure accurate information or tolerant of plausible irregularities in the accounts of a general and his quaestor. Yet the fears of Manlius and the investigation which follows of the accounts of the Scipios show that some method existed, although one wonders how the Petillii knew that there were discrepancies in the present instance.
4 The protest is not against the auditing of the accounts but at the method, which, to judge from similar incidents in Roman history, was designed to increase the probability of a conviction. The Romans were generally intuitively distrustful of special procedures invented for particular situations.
5 It is clear from XXXIX. vi. 4 that Manlius was afraid of such an inquiry, although he could say that missing property had been carried off by the Thracians.
6 B.C. 187
7 The habit of pronouncing public laudationes over distinguished men was very old (II. xlvii. 11, etc.). It would appear from liii. 8 above that Africanus had not wanted such a eulogy.
8 The alternative formula “uti rogas” is also employed: ef XXXIII. xxv. 7.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.