De iure belli tt pads Romanorum 1836.

Liv. xxxvi. 3. (I quote Livy throughout by Weissenborn's annotated.text 1885.)

^{page 183 note 3} Such was Cato's suggestion that Caesar should be delivered up to the Gauls. Plut. Caes. 22. App. Res Gall. 18.

^{page 183 note 4} Cf. Dessau Inscr. Lat.sel. i. 182,915,916,940,991,1001,1017,1040,1048,1065,1067,1080,1094,2935: ii. 4984.

^{page 183 note 5} Suet. C.aud. 25.

^{page 184 note 1} Mommsen Röm. Staatsrecht iii. I (1887) pp. 590 ff., cf. pp. 645 ff.

^{page 184 note 2} Thus (iii. I, p. 593, n. 2) he speaks of ‘die beiden Kategorien der blossen amici and der socii et amici.’

^{page 184 note 3} In Röm. Forsch. i. pp. 326 ff. Mommsen identifies this amicitia with the publicum hostitium an identification which has been from the first disputed.

^{page 184 note 4} In iii. I, p. 593, n. 2 he mentions ‘die formale Gleichbehandlung der beiden Kategorien der blossen amici und der socii et amici.’

^{page 185 note 1} See Pauly-Wissowa Realencycl. s.v. amicus.

^{page 185note 2} Ferrenbach, Virgil, Die Amici populi Romani rtpublikanischer Zeit. Strassburg, 1895.

^{page 185 note 3} His list of socii et amici is not yet published had already drawn up my own list of amici and of socii, before I saw that of Ferrenbach. This list I hope to publish with references and terminology at a later date. In many particulars it does not agree with that of Ferrenbach

^{page 185 note 4} Dittenberger Syll. Iriser. Gr. i. (1898) no. 307. Cf. for another example Dittenberger Orientis Graec. Inscr. ii. no. 445.

^{page 185 note 5} Besides the exx. quoted above cf. C.I.G. xii. 2 35 b. (Mytilene), C.I.G. iii. 173 (Astupalaia). Ditt. Syll. Inscr. Gr. ii. (1900) 928 ii. b (Magnetes ad Maeandrum), etc

^{page 186 note 1} Moritz, Voigt-Das ius naturals etc., vol. i., note 30 calls it ‘eine grenzenlose Nachliissigkeit.’

^{page 186 note 2} Cf. Voigt loc. cit.

^{page 187 note 1} I have examined the language of Tacitus, Suetonius, Cornelius Nepos, and some of the epitomists. There seems to be a tendency in the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, and other writers of the early Empire to keep the words amicus, amicitia for friendship only.

^{page 188 note 1} There is not enough evidence to show whether the Noricans were hospites or amici at this date.

^{page 188 note 2} Pol. (ed. Hultsch, 1868) xxx. 5. 6

^{page 188 note 3} Other less important passages are quoted by Voigt: Das ius naturale etc. vol. ii. p. 57, and there are a few others, which he does not mention.

^{page 188 note 4} L. xxvi. 24. 14, xxix. 12. 4, xxxiii. 34. 7, xxxiv, rrj 23.

^{page 188 note 5} L. xxxix. 37. 10, xli. 23. 5 9

^{page 188 note 6} Tac. Ann. ii. 53. 3.

^{page 188 note 7} L L. xxxiv. 32. 16

^{page 188 note 8} L. xxxiii. 35. 5, xlii. 25. 4, 62. 5, xliv. 16. 5.

^{page 189 note 1} Those amici who were nonfoederate had generally been admitted to friendship by a senatusconsultum.

^{page 189 note 2} As a matter of fact, the Romans considered the foedus to have been broken by the Aetolians in 205 B.C. (see infra): hence the reply of the fetials is that there is now no necessity for a formal declaration of war by the Romans.

^{page 190 note 1} Tac. A. ii. 70 and vi. 29. 3, Suet. Gai. 3, Cic. Verr. ii. 2. 36 §89.

^{page 191 note1} Pol. xxi. 45. i = L. xxxviii. 38. 2.

^{page 191 note 2} Pol. xxi. 45. 2 = L. xxxviii. 38. 2. 3.

^{page 191 note 3} Pol. xviii. 39 and 44=L. xxxiii. 30.

^{page 191 note 4} Pol. xviii. 39 and 44 = L. xxxiii. 30. 2–10. Polxxi. 45. 6–20 = L xxxviii. 38. 6. 15. App. Mithr. 55.

^{page 191 note 5} This military status of the socii is obvious, and has been accepted by all. I have, therefore, not thought it necessary to give proofs. Perhaps all the early foedera did not contain this clause, but by the time the amicitia emerged (c. 250 B.C.) the principle was well established that a socius had to supply troops. There may have been a very few exceptions: perhaps Tauromenium, Cic. Verr. v. 19. 50.

^{page 192 note 1} There is no exception in L. xxxviii 13. 8 or 37.7. The reference here is to corn, which had to be brought by Antiochus as a price of the indutiae, as was usual. The use of foedus for indutiae is negligence on Livy's part, and a quite inaccurate rendering ot Pol. xxi. 43 (foedus) (indutiae). The foedus was on the point of being completed, hence the looseness of Livy's language.

^{page 193 note 1} This is the reading of cod. Moguntinus alone. All other codd. have ‘omnes gentes fidos et amicos.’

^{page 193 note 2} Though, of course, they could always withdraw their help by simply revoking their decree. Hence they must still be reckoned as amici, while e.g. the Aetoli must be reckoned as socii horn 188 B.C.: for in their case this clause occurs in their foedus or contract, from which they could never be freed.

^{page 194 note 1} See p. 189.

^{page 194 note 2} See p. 191.

^{page 195 note 1} It is interesting to notice how this has been confirmed by the recently discovered fragment of Sosylos. From it we learn of the very great importance of the Massilian fleet to Rome during the Second Punic War, a fact passed over by Livy and to some extent by Polybius. See Wilcken in Hermes xli. p. 103.

^{page 196 note 1} Mommsen Hist, of Rome English Translation 1894 vol.iii. p. 25.

^{page 197 note 1} There is a doubtful story that Eumenes, in spite of his promises in 172 B.C. (L. xlii. 26. 7. 8), had refused help in 169 B.C., without assigning any proper reason (L. xliii. 13. 12). This rests on the authority of Valerius Antias, and is on a par with the story of Eumenes' negotiations with Perseus.

^{page 197 note 2} Cf. L. xxxviii. 12.6. ‘Eumenem haud in tempore abesse credere consul, gnarum locorum hominumque et cuius interesset frangi Gallorum opes. Attalum igitur fratrem eius accersit a Pergamo, hortatusque ad capessendum secum bellum pollicentem suam suorumque operam domum ad comparandum dimittit.’ The result is an advance-guard alone of 1000 foot and 500 cavalry. Cf. the 10000 foot and 1000 cavalry with which the Achaei came to the war against Nabis, in whose destruction they were so interested (L. xxxiv. 25. 3), with the 1000 and 1500 men only contributed to the war against Antiochus. (L. xlii. 44. 6, 55- I o f- 1000 men in xxxv. 50 3)

^{page 198 note 1} See Mommsen. Hist, of Rome iii. pp. 491, 492 (Engl. transl. 1894).

^{page 198 note 2} Such mercenaries as Rome hired from her friends were naturally under her own orders and discipline cf. L. xxxvii. 39. 12

^{page 199 note 1} L. xxxi. 41. 3–42. 9. (Expedition of the Aetoli 200 B.C.); xxxii. 13. 10–15, 14. 4 (activity of the Aetoli and Amynander 198 B.C.); xxxviii. 7. 2 (naval expedition of Pleuratus 189 B.C.); xxxii. 4. 2 (the Aetoli try to relieve Thaumaci 199 B.C.); xxxiii 14. 1–15. 16 (the Achaei in Peloponnese 197 B.C.); xxxv. 25 (the Achaei against Nabis 192 B.C.);xxxvii. 20 (the Achaei in Asia 190B. C ); and many other examples, especially in naval warfare.

^{page 199 note 2} Oros. vi. 16. 3, Hirt. Bell. Afr. 48 and Bell. Alex. 63. This, perhaps, was hardly considered a privilege, cf. L. xlii. 26. 7–8. Probably again a matter of arrangement: cf. Cic. ad Att. vi. I. 14. For the use of the same camp cf. L. xxxvi. 10. 12; xlii. 55. 10; xliv. 13. 12 and perhaps xxxiv. 25. 3.

^{page 199 note 3} The notorious case of the Aetoli at Cynoscephalae (L. xxxiii. 10. 6, 11. 8). However bitter the complaints of the Romans were, they only serve to show how completely unfettered were the Aetoli by the discipline of the Roman general: cf. also perhaps L. xxxvii. 8. 8. In L. xxiv. 21. 9 we read of spoil ‘given,’ ‘ data dono,’ to Hiero by the Roman people. The same in L. xxxvii. 31. 6 to the Rhodians.

^{page 199 note 4} In the case of Athens this was particularly noticeable, as she contributed practically nothing to the wars, of one of which she had been the ostensible cause. Yet Attic legati are ubiquitous at the negotiations, etc. L. xxxi. 30. 1–11; xxxii. 19.5. 12, 21. 2 1; xxxiii. 29. 8 - I I; xxxiv. 23. 2–5; xxxv. 32. 7. 12–14, 33. 2; xxxvii. 6. 4–7. 6; xxxviii. 3. 7, 9. 3, 10. 2. 4–6; Pol. xviii. 10. II. It was not so much that the Athenians were very favoured allies, as that they were useful for doing Rome's dirty work.

^{page 200 note 1} With Syracuse indeed, an amicilia was first formed—but this did not last after the death of Hiero, and Syracuse became socia like the rest of Sicily

^{page 201 note 1} Or with Rhodes in 306, if this early date be correct.

^{page 202 note 1} A similar and much earlier case among the Ligurians in 236 B. c. is found in Dio Cass. fr. 45 (Bekker), cf. fr. 61 for the attitude of the Carthaginians towards the traditio.

^{page 204 note 1} The Jewish soldiers mentioned later in §§II, 12, etc. of the same ch. were liable to conscription, because they were Roman citizens, resident in some Eastern city: cf. passim.