John Briscoe (ed.), A Commentary on Livy Books XXXI–XXXIII
2. Other decisions of the senate
Link 2. 1. Carthaginienses … advexerunt: by the terms of the peace of 201 the Carthaginians had to pay 10,000 talents in 50 years—i.e. 200 talents a year (xxx. 37. 5, Pol. xv. 18. 7, App. Lib. 54). In 191 the Carthaginians asked to pay off the whole of the amount outstanding, and this the Romans refused (xxxvi. 4. 7–9). The first payment was presumably due in 200 and eo anno primum is either an error, or in fact the money arrived at the conclusion of 200, and the events here described occurred at the beginning of 199.
3. obsides … spes facta: the information on the Carthaginian hostages at Rome is conflicting. L. (xxx. 37. 6) and Polybius (xv. 18. 8) talk of 100 hostages. Appian (Lib. 54) says 150 but this probably refers to hostages guaranteeing the preliminary truce. Here, however, L. seems to imply more than 100. In 181 (xl. 34. 14) L. again talks of the return of a hundred hostages and in 168 there is mention of one individual hostage (xlv. 14. 5). This gives us a total of at least 201 hostages. It seems that L. has misunderstood the situation and that hostages were exchanged, not restored. The fullest discussion is by Aymard, Pallas i (1953), 44–63 = ÉHA, 436–50 (though Aymard oddly puts the present episode in 198). Cf. also Walbank, Commentary, ii. 470–1.
Link 4. Norba … Signiam … Ferentinum: Norba, in Latium, is about 32 miles south-east of Rome on the western side of the Monti Lepini (cf. Nissen, IL, ii. 2. 644–5, Philipp, RE, xvii. 925), Signia (mod. Segni) is on the eastern side of the Monti Lepini, about 7 miles north of Norba (cf. Nissen IL, ii. 2. 650–1, Philipp, RE, iiA. 2347–8), and Ferentinum (mod. Ferentino), not to be confused with the Etruscan Ferentium, is a Hernican town 12 miles east of Signia (cf. Ashby, MDAI(R) xxiv , 1–58, Hülsen, RE, vi. 2208, A. Bartoli, BA xxxiv , 293–306, G. Gullini, AC vi , 185–216). We hear also of hostages kept at Fregellae (Nepos, Hann. vii. 2) and Setia (26. 5) but 26. 7–8 is not necessarily evidence for hostages at Circeii and Norba, as Aymard, Pallas i. 54 = ÉHA, 448 assumes (cf. 26. 7 n.). The hostages were clearly dispersed and it is perverse to read Setiam for Signiam here. For the practice of keeping hostages in allied states cf. Toynbee, i. 255.
Link 5. Gaditanis … convenisset: the deditio of Gades in 206 is mentioned at xxviii. 37. 10, the conclusion of a treaty by L. Marcius and the subsequent status of that treaty by Cicero, pro Balbo 34 ff. The present passage is much disputed. Does adversus id … convenisset indicate that the treaty had provided for a praefectus to administer Gades, and the senate now cancelled this clause, or that the treaty had specified that there should be no praefectus, but one had nevertheless been sent? The case for the first alternative is argued by Badian (CPh xlix , 250–2) and McDonald ad loc. Their chief arguments are (i) that if, as the second view requires, the adversus clause depends on petentibus, we should expect sibi, not iis, (ii) that the senate would not have simply broken an agreement, as the second view implies, (iii) that remissum implies conceding a point on which Rome had legal rights. It may be replied to (i) that the adversus clause is L.'s own comment, though the verb is quite naturally attracted into the subjunctive (the subjunctive is far harder pg 171to explain on the first view, where the clause depends on Gaditanis … mitteretur as a whole). As to (ii), in fact the treaty had never been ratified at Rome (Cic. l.c.): it may have been an informal agreement preceding the deditio of Gades, and legally was overtaken by the deditio. (The fact that it was made with Marcius Septimus does not mean that the latter was now in charge of Spain, and that hence the agreement comes after the departure of Scipio, as argued by Dahlheim, 58–9 n. 25, cf. Flurl, 194.) It is quite possible that its terms had been ignored and Gades now appealed to Rome on its basis. This would in itself dispose of (iii) also, though in fact remissum can perfectly well mean 'agree' without implying the waiving of legal rights.
Gades' treaty was ratified by the senate in 78 b.c. though it was never formally ratified by the people (Cic. l.c.). Cf. also H. Gundel, Historia xii (1963), 291–3, and literature quoted by Schlag, 28 n. 40, Dahlheim, 58–9 n. 25.
Link in fidem: the deditio referred to at xxviii. 37. 10.
Link L. Marcio Septimo: (101). At xxviii. 28. 13 he is called Septimus Marcius and at xxv. 37. 2 L. Marcius Septimi filius. B here reads Septimo, χ Septimio. The evidence favours the former quite apart from the fact that cognomina ending in -ius are rare. In 211 he took command of the Roman forces in Spain after the death of the two Scipios (sources in MRR, i. 275) and in 206 he played a large part in Scipio's campaign. His precise status on both occasions is uncertain—that he was a centurion in 206 as Cicero, pro Balbo 34 states is highly unlikely. Cf. Münzer, RE, xiv. 1591–5.
Link 6. Narniensium … iussus: cf. xxxi. 49. 6 n. Narnia (mod. Narni) was a Latin colony founded in 299 on the site of Nequinum. It is in Umbria, on the east of the Tiber. It was one of the defaulting colonies in 209 (xxvii. 9. 7). Cf. Nissen, IL, ii. 1. 406, Philipp, RE, xvi. 1734–6, Brunt, 539. On the issue cf. Toynbee, ii. 91, 108, 144, 202, who points out that the senate's action now is a de facto admission that the defaulters did have a case.
Link immixtos … generis: i.e. Umbrians claiming to be colonists. But it was not impossible for local Italians to become citizens of Latin colonies: cf. xxxiii. 24. 9 n. It is an early example of urban drift (Toynbee, ii. 337).
Cosani: Cosa was a Latin colony on the coast of Etruria, at the modern Ansedonia. It was founded in 273. It remained loyal in 209. Cf. Hülsen, RE, iv. 1666–7, F. E. Brown, Cosa (MAAR xx , xxvi ), F. Castagnoli, MAAR xxiv (1956), 149 ff., Salmon, Colonization, 29–39. Their request was eventually granted in 197 (xxxiii. 24. 8).