^{page 132 note 2} The main evidence is Plut. Cato Min. 25; but cf. also App. B.C. ii. 99; Luc. ii. 329 ff.; Strabo xi. 515; Quint, iii. 5. 11, x. 5. 13; Tert. Apol. 39; August. De Fid. et Op. 7. 10, De Bono Coni. 18. 2 1; Jerome, Adv. Iov. i. 46.

^{page 132 note 3} Plut., Cato Min1. 39. 5.

^{page 132 note 4} For the date and evidence see von der Mühll, R.-E. viii. 2478.

^{page 132 note 5} Plut., Cato Min. 52. 5.

^{page 132 note 6} The evidence in Münzer, R.-E. viii. 2469.

^{page 132 note 7} On this marriage see Münzer, Röm. Adelsp. 286 f.

^{page 132 note 8} Val. Max. v. 9. 2.

^{page 132 note 9} Thus Drumann-Groebe iii. 101 ff.; von der Mühll, R.-E. viii. 2478; van Ooteghem, J., ‘Lucius Marcius Philippus et sa famille’, Mém. Ac. R. Belg. Iv (1961), 183 fGoogle Scholar. apparently holds a different view, though it is not stated on what grounds.

^{page 132 note 10} Thus explicitly also Suet. Tib. 47 fin.

^{page 132 note 11} Syme, Tacitus ii. 746; Koestermann, ad loc.

^{page 133 note 1} Cf. 108 B.C.: he was condemned and a suffectus elected; see Münzer, R.-E. viii. 2465 f. (no. 2) and M.R.R. ii. 645.

^{page 133 note 2} Cf. also F. Bandel, Die röm. Diktaturen (Diss. Breslau, 1910), 114 ff.

^{page 133 note 3} Livy, vii. 17. 6.

^{page 133 note 4} See Münzer, Röm. Adelsp. 80 f.

^{page 133 note 5} Cic. Ad Att. xiii.6.4;cf. 30.2, 32.3, 33. 3.

^{page 133 note 6} Suet. Aug. 41. 1; Dio liv. 17. 3; lvi. 41. 3; liii. 2; cf. Macr. ii. 23.

^{page 135 note 1} Cic. Phil. iii. 17; Dio xlvi. 1. 1; Veil. ii 59. 3.

^{page 135 note 2} For the importance of the family connections between Marcius Philippus and Octavian cf. Münzer, Röm. Adelsp. 364 f.