1. callidam malitiam: in fact, in L.'s view, it is Lepidus who is displaying ill-will. 3. 41. 9 is the only other example of malitia in L. Oakley iii. 616 observes that all the instances of callidus in L. are 'to some extent derogatory'.
Link 4. The section number in my edition is one line too low.
Link suae … redderentur: the final clause of the s.c., signa … fieri (§5), is in fact an exception to res omnes. One may doubt whether any restitution was actually made to Ambracia. Lepidus' proxeny at Delphi (Syll.3 585. 48) precedes his election to the consulship, and so cannot be the result of this s.c., as W–M suggest. There is no evidence for the view of A. Mommsen, Philologus, 24 (1866), 34 that Lepidus had acted in the interests of the Greeks against Fulvius before his consulship.
Link in … uterentur: Ambracia was no longer a member of the Aetolian League (cf. 9. 9 n.) and the clause in the peace treaty with Aetolia reported at 11. 9 meant that it could not again become one; this clause of the s.c. therefore, merely confirms the existing position.
For libertate … ac legibus suis cf. 32. 8 n.
Link portoria … essent: in view of L.'s use of socii nominis Latini (cf. 31. 8. 7 n.), one cannot assume that the Italian allies were excluded from the privilege, as pg 156does Harris 94. Nor should the clause be seen as an example of a general practice; cf. Gruen 184, 310–11.
6. per infrequentiam: the phrase reoccurs in Fulvius' complaints about Lepidus' behaviour at 39. 4. 8. L. also uses infrequentia of a poorly attended senate at 2. 23. 12, as does Cicero at Q. fr. 3. 2. 2. At this period (2. 23. 12 should be regarded as anachronistic; cf. Ogilvie ad loc.), except for cases where a quorum was specially prescribed, as in the s.c. de Bacchanalibus (cf. 39. 18. 9 n.; see also 42. 28. 9), and possibly when it was decided in advance that a frequens senatus would be required (cf. 26. 10. 2, 28. 9. 5), there was no illegality about a s.c. passed with only a few senators present. The senate could decide, however, to postpone a decision until there was a larger attendance, as happened in 280 (per. 13) and 193 (35. 7. 1 n.). On the whole issue see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS 47 (1957), 19–20, Bonnefond-Coudry 357–435, F. X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate (Stuttgart, 1998), 13–51. Cf. 50. 3 n.
ui captam esse non uideri: B: non uideri ui captam esse χ. The latter could be right; at 39. 4. 9 non uideri ui captam is unanimously attested, but there is no reason why L. should have used the same word-order on both occasions. For uideri cf. 31. 2 n., on the issue cf. 9. 9 n.
Cato, who had been sent as a legatus to Aetolia (cf. 3. 9–11. 9 n.), appears to have supported the s.c. (orat. 148), though it is not clear whether he did so on this occasion or a later one; see Linderski ap. Wallace and Harris, 395–7.
44. 7–8. Religious matters and departure of the consuls
44. 9–50. 3. Manlius Vulso's request for a triumph
Link 11. pars maior … Paullus: for the names of the commissioners cf. 37. 55. 7 n. Q. Minucius Thermus, of course, is dead (41. 3). The commission had, in my view, a clear Scipionic majority; cf. ANRW II 30. 1099.
Although Paullus is mentioned a number of times in books 34–7 (first at 34. 45. 5), I failed to give my normal summary of his career, and repair the omission here.
L. Aemilius Paullus (114) was quaestor by 195, iiiuir for the settlement of Croton in 194, curule aedile in 193, praetor in Spain 191 with command prorogued in 190 and 189, consul, commanding in Liguria, in 182 with command prorogued in 181 (39. 56. 4, 40. 1. 1, 16. 4–6, 25–28), and one of the patroni chosen by the Spaniards in 171; he was consul again in 168, when he defeated Perseus at Pydna, with command prorogued in 167, and censor in 164. He was an interrex in either 175 or 162 and an augur from about 192 until his death in 160.
For L. Furius Purpureo (86) cf. 31. 4. 4n.
45–6. The speech of Furius or Paullus. Obviously L. does not mean that the two men spoke at the same time. We have to understand that one spoke on behalf of both (Ullmann, 158). The case is unique; elsewhere, when one man speaks on behalf of two or more, L. indicates this clearly; cf. 28. 39. 1, 29. 17. 1, 37. 54. 3.
The speech starts in oratio obliqua (45. 1–6), and continues in oratio recta (45. 7–46. 15); for this technique cf. Lambert 38–41, Oakley i. 119 n. 58. Ullmann 159–60 was unable to make the speech fit rhetorical rules, and regarded the whole as an 'énumeration chronologique des événements'. Walsh modifies this by treating 45. 1 as an exordium and 46. 9–15 as the conclusio. The true break in the speech, however, as Weissenborn realized, starting a new paragraph there (the break was unfortunately removed by H. J. Müller), is at 45. 10 bellum autem ipsum. What precedes deals with the justification of the campaign, what follows with its conduct. The same division occurs in Manlius' reply, with the break occurring at 48. 13.