^{page 115 note 1} Plut., C. Gracchus, ch. 9:

^{page 115 note 2} History of Rome (Engl. Transl.), IV. p. 473.

^{page 115 note 3} Geschichte Roms (ed. 1870), II. p. 39

^{page 115 note 4} History of Rome (Engl. Transl., ed. 1894), p. 365.

^{page 115 note 5} History of Rome, p. 243.

^{page 115 note 6} The Roman Republic, I I. 310.

^{page 115 note 7} Romische Altertumer, III. p. 44.

^{page 115 note 8} Das Kriminalrecht der romischen Repuilik bk. II. p. 77.

^{page 115 note 9} The Decline of the Roman Republic, I. p. 276.

^{page 116 note 1} Appian, B.C. I. 35, § 156.

^{page 116 note 2} Plut., C. Gracchus, ch. 9;

^{page 116 note 3} Lange, loc. cit

^{page 116 note 4} Edd. Jacobs (1857), Capes (1S66), Hinzpeter (1867), Guibert (1892), Opitz (1897).

^{page 117 note 1} Zumpt and Long, loc. cit.

^{page 117 note 2} De Rebus Numidicis, ch. 2:

^{page 117 note 3} The only known instance of this collocation is in the Lex Malacitana, ch. 53. But a document drawn up in a provincial town, at an age when the historic distinction between Romans and Latins was fast becoming blurred, can hardly be quoted as evidence of ordinary Latin usage.

^{page 117 note 4} Zumpt (op. cit., pp. 66–67) admits that there is no evidence in favour of the theory that Roman soldiers were ever exempted from lia-bility to scourging. The coin of Porcius Lacca (Hill, Historical Roman Coins, no. 36, p. 68) cannot be adduced as testimony, for the appel-lant there portrayed is ostentatiously clad in a toga–i.e. he is not a soldier.

^{page 117 note 5} Pliny, Hist. Naturalis, III. §§ 7, 30, 135; Tacitus, Histories, III. 55.

^{page 117 note 6} Thus Mommsen, History of Rome, V. 132, 179. This theory has the countenance of Sue-tonius, Diuus Iulius, 28, § 3, Strabo, p. 213, and Plutarch, Iulius Caesar, 29, who assert or imply that Nouum Comum was a colony with full rights of Roman franchise. Appian III. 26 allows that Caesar's colony had only Latin rights, but states that Marcellus' victim was an ex-magistrate, and therefore a Roman. But it is grossly improbable that Marcellus should have ventured to scourge a Roman citizen in Rome, Such a violation of the well-established Laws of Appeal would have greatly damaged the party of constitutional purists with which Marcelhis was making common cause, and the memory of Cicero's punishment for his far more excusable action in executing the accomplices of Catiline should certainly have had a deterrent effect upon Marcellus. It would seem that later tradition improved upon the details of the story by way of making it more sensational.

^{page 118 note 1} Zumpt, bk. II. p. 77.