^{page 12 note 1} For the story see Livy ix. 2 sqq.

^{page 12 note 2} Calatia=mod. S. Giacomo le Galuzze, between Caserta and Maddaloni: Beloch, Campanien ² p. 372.

^{page 12 note 3} Probably Livy is in error. That the combined consular armies at Caudium comprised four legions is improbable: De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani ii (1907), p. 308Google Scholar n. 1.

^{page 12 note 4} This is the suggestion of Adcock, F. E. in Camb. Anc. Hist. vii (1928), p. 599Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 5} Livy ix, 2, 3.

^{page 12 note 6} The actual scene of the disaster is a subject of dispute. From a visit to the locality the present writer is inclined to agree with Kromayer, , Abh. der sächs. Acad. der Wiss. vol. 34, no. 5 (1921); p. 60Google Scholar sq., who thinks that Livy's description best fits the valley between Arienzo and Arpaja—although there are certain obstacles to this view. Nissen, H., Rh. Mus. XXV (1870), p. 1Google Scholar sq., argues strongly for the valley between Arpaja and Montesarchio—but this valley will not suit the description given in Livy. Adcock, op. cit., following Cluverius, suggests the valley between S. Agata de' Goti (=almost certainly the ancient Saticula) and Moiano, a theory which would appear to entail too many difficulties. Pais, E., Storia di Roma V (1928), p. 502Google Scholar, rather wildly suggests that Caiatia, and not Calatia, is Livy's reading; moreover that Pontius probably came from Telese, and that, therefore, we should perhaps search for the scene of the disaster in some valley, unnamed, a little to the north.

^{page 12 note 7} Cf. Livy ix, 5, 2.

^{page 12 note 8} Livy ix. 8 sqq. Traces of the fictitious Revenge Expedition are also to be found in the older (pre-Gracchan) tradition preserved by Diodorus xix, 10.

^{page 13 note 1} C. P. Burger, Jnr., Der Kampf zw. Rom u. Samn. (1898), p. 24 sq.; K. J. Neumann in P.-W. s.v. ‘foedus,’ col. 2823; De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, II. 313 sq.Google Scholar; B. Niese, Grundriss der röm. Gesch. ⁵ (1923), p. 70; T. Frank, Roman Imperialism (1925), pp. 48, 57; K. J. Beloch, Röm. Gesch. (1926), p. 397 (one of his arguments for rejecting the traditional story is drawn from the coins of Ti. Veturius; this argument is inadmissible (see G. F. Hill, Historical Roman Coins (1909), p. 88)); E. Pais, op. cit. p. 143 sq.; Adcock, op. cit. p. 599. Täubler, E., Imperium Romanum i (1913), pp. 140–152Google Scholar, also deals with the problem. H. Nissen, op. cit. p. 46 f., although admitting that in many of its tinist details the story of Roman treachery after Caudium is an anticipation of what happened after the Numantine disaster in 137 B.C., nevertheless does not reject the Livian account.

^{page 13 note 2} I have not seen this explanation of the Livian passage suggested elsewhere.

^{page 13 note 3} Livy ix, 1, 4 ‘ut coloniae abducerentur.’ cf. Appian Samn. 5. 5. τούς κληρούχους ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων ἀπάξειν. The plural is a rhetorical exaggeration: it cannot refer to Cales (which remained in Roman hands throughout), nor to the, as yet, unfounded Saticula or Luceria (Velleius's (i, 14) date of 325 for th e latter town is a mistake. De Sanctis, op. cit. P. 327). C. P. Burger, Jnr., Der Kampf zw. Rom u. Samn. (1898), P. 25, suggests ‘coloni’ as the reading, but this will not explain Appian.

^{page 13 note 4} Cf. especially Dionys. xv. 12, 5 (period before outbreak of hostilities) ἐκχωεῖν Φρεγέλλης.

^{page 13 note 5} Op. cit. p. 395.

^{page 14 note 1} Cf. Mommsen, in C.I.L. x, p. 546Google Scholar: he accepts the story of the execution of Fregellans in 313, but also accepts the statement that the foundation of Fregellae provoked the war. G. Colasanti, Fregellae (1906), p. 134 sq., thinks that ‘coloni’ were here before the Caudine disaster. Cf. Spaeth, J. W., A Study of the Causes of Rome's Wars from 343 to 265 B.C. (Princeton, 1926), pp. 21Google Scholar sq.

^{page 14 note 2} Livy ix, 12, 5 (on 320 B.C.).

^{page 14 note 3} Livy's words are: ‘fuisse et Satricanos cum iis satis constat.’ ‘Satis’ is significant, implying that there was some evidence for saying the Satricani did not aid the Samnites.

^{page 14 note 4} Livy ix, 28, 3. (on 313 B.C.). For the site of Fregellae (near Ceprano), see Colasanti, op. cit., passim. Those who have visited this site will scarcely believe that its citadel withstood a seven years' siege. Diodorus (xix, 101, 3) knows of the recapture of Fregellae in 313 (317 by his own chronological reckoning), but knows nothing of the Samnite storming of the citadel.

^{page 14 note 5} Cicero, , ad Q. Frat. iii, 1, 4Google Scholar: cf. Nissen, H., Ital. Landesk. ii (1901), p. 674Google Scholar; Pais, E., St. di Roma v (1928), p. 23Google Scholar.

^{page 14 note 6} Livy ix, 16, 3, if the Satricum of the passage is the same as the Satricum of ix. 12, 5, which cannot well have been in the Volscian country (see below).

^{page 14 note 7} C.I.L. x, 5779. The case of the two Satricums is paralleled by the case of the two Lucas, of which the one near Pisa (=mod. Lucca) is famous, while the other ‘in Volscis’ would be unknown but for Livy viii, 19, 1 and x, 33, 1.

^{page 15 note 1} Livy, vi, 16 6. The colonists numbered 2,500; despite this high number, E. Pais, Mem. della r. acc. dei Lincei, Ser. V, vol. xvii (1924), p. 321Google Scholar, would still reckon Satricum-Conca a Roman colony. For the site: Not. d. Sc. 1896, pp. 23, 69, 99, 167, 190; 1898, p. 166; Röm. Mitt. xi (1894), pp. 157Google Scholar, sq.; Ashby, T., The Roman Campagna in Classical Times (1927), p. 209Google Scholar (he underestimates the distance between Conca and Anzio).

^{page 15 note 2} See Colasanti. loc. cit.

^{page 15 note 3} Op. cit. p. 360. Adcock's words (op. cit. p. 602) ‘northwards as far as Satricum’ would imply Conca. but he does not discuss the point.

^{page 15 note 4} Op. cit. p. 399.

^{page 15 note 5} Adcock, op. cit. p. 602, is aware of this chronological difficulty and would place the Satricum events in 313, the year of Papirius's fifth consulship Livy ix, 28, 2). In point of fact, we may retain the dates given by our authorities, without making it ‘one of the victories of the fictitious war of revenge,’ if we are prepared to place the Satricum concerned in the Liris valley.

^{page 15 note 6} Nissen, H. (Rhein. Mus. XXV (1870), p. 23Google Scholar) sees no reason for rejecting the dates 320 and 319, and the present writer agrees with him. For the recovery of Satricum, see Livy ix, 16, 3.

^{page 15 note 7} Ital. Landesk. ii, p. 674.

^{page 15 note 8} Teanum, Canusium, Livy ix, 20, 4; Diod. xix, 10, 1; Forentum, Livy ix, 20, 9; Diod. xix, 65, 7—he calls it Φερέντη. Beloch, op. cit. pp. 402, 465 shows that the reference at this juncture to Nerulum (Livy ix, 20, 9) is anachronistic, belonging to 277, when likewise a consul, C. Junius, was active in that region.

^{page 15 noet 9} Diodorus xix, 10: he associates, unnecessarily, these small expeditions with the Samnite War.

^{page 16 note 1} Livy ix. 23, 1; Diod. xix, 72, 2 vulg. chron. gives the same date. Despite Livy (loc. cit.), it should be noted that Sora in 315 was not yet a colony, although, as Diodorus says, it had a Roman garrison. Cf. Mommsen, in C.I.L. x, p. 560Google Scholar; it was ‘colonised’ in 303—Livy x, 1, 1. For its defection cf. Val. Max. viii, 1, abs. 9.

^{page 16 note 2} Livy ix, 23: ‘ancipiti proelio.’

^{page 16 note 3} The site is definitely known (cf. Nissen, H., Ital. Landesk. ii (1901), p. 542Google Scholar) and is confirmed by Livy, vii, 39, 7: elsewhere, e.g. in book ix, Livy seems uncertain as to the whereabouts of the place, at times apparently placing it near Saticula. The narrative of Diodorus xix, 72, 7, would lead us to believe that it was in Apulia!

^{page 16 note 4} Diod. xix, 72, 7. Livy, ix, 23, 5, also knew of this version, but preferred one favourable to the Fabian house, which, in an attempt to glose over the defeat sustained by the dictator Q. Fabius Rullianus at Lautulae, actually invented an otherwise unknown C. Fabius ‘magister equitum suffectus.’ Adcock, op. cit. p. 601.

^{page 16 note 5} For the causes of the renewal of the war see Adcock, op. cit. p. 601. In the opinion of the present writer, however, we have no reliable notices of hostilities for 316, and therefore 315 is to be preferred as the date of the fresh outbreak. The battle of Lautulae, at any rate, certainly took place in 315.

^{page 16 note 6} Livy ix, 25.

^{page 16 note 7} Diod. xix, 72, 7.

^{page 16 note 8} Diod. xix, 72, 3.

^{page 16 note 9} Diod. xix, 76.

^{page 16 note 10} Diodorus' text has περὶ Κίναν πόλιν. Burger (Mnem. 83, and Kampf zw. Rom u. Samn., p. 62) suggested Ταρακίναν—a conjecture widely accepted and possibly right.

^{page 16 note 11} Livy places the Roman offensive too early. In ix, 21 (on 316), he says that the two consuls remained inactive at Rome, while the dictator L. Aemilius carried on the fighting against the Samnites.; in the next year, 315, exactly the same thing takes place (Livy ix, 22): the consuls remain inactive at Rome and a dictator, significantly enough Q. Fabius Rullianus, is in the field. By reckoning Lautulae something like a Roman victory, Livy had to antedate the Roman offensive. Cf, Nissen, in Rb. Mus. xxv, p. 29Google Scholar.

^{page 17 note 1} Livy ix, 26, 1 and cf. p. 13, n. 3.

^{page 17 note 2} Livy ix, 28, 7.

^{page 17 note 3} Livy ix, 22, I (= fall of Saticula). For its colonisation Vell, i, 14; Festus p. 507 L.

^{page 17 note 4} Livy ix, 28, 8—naturally after the recovery of Fregellae and Sora. Cf. further, Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. v, p. 260Google Scholar.

^{page 17 note 5} Livy ix, 28, 5.

^{page 17 note 6} Livy ix, 28, 6.

^{page 17 note 7} Kampf zw. Rom u. Samn., p. 67.

^{page 17 note 8} Livy.ix, 24, 14.

^{page 17 note 9} Livy ix, 28, 3: the fact that no Fregellans were executed shows that Fregellae had not proved traitorous to Rome. Whatever Fregellae's later history, the town, down to and including the period of the Punic Wars, was loyal. Plut. Marcellus, 29; Sil. Ital. v, 542; xii, 528. In 209, for instance, it apparently was the leader of the 18 Latin colonies which remained staunch–Livy xxvii, 10, 3 (according to Niese, Grundr. etc. ⁵, p. 129, the last notice is to be rejected along with the story of the 12 colonies who refused to supply Rome with aid).

^{page 17 note 10} Diod. xix, 101, 3. By his reckoning, this is the year 311, which corresponds to the Varronian year 313. Diodorus's text is corrupt, but that Fregellae is referred to is certain. Cf. A. B. Drachmann: Diodors röm. Annalen (1911), p. 60. See further note 13 below.

^{page 17 note 11} E.g. Burger, op. cit. p. 40.

^{page 17 note 12} Topographical considerations suggest that Fregellae was the first to fall—cf. Adcock, op. cit. p. 602: but that the fall of Sora did not occur until a year later, as Adcock suggests, seems to the present writer improbable. It appears more likely that only a very short interval separated the two events.

^{page 17 note 13} The MSS. read: τήν τε Φρετομανῶν (or Φρετεμαῶν) πόλιν εἷλε . . . . . . . . . . . τούτους δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὄντας πλείους τῶν διακοσίων ἀπήγαγεν εἰς 'Ρώμην καὶ . . . . . ἐπελέκισε. Scaliger suggested Φρεγελλανῶν for Φρετομανῶν and Drachmann accepts this. That there is some confusion here with the fate which Livy says overtook the revolting Sorans has been felt by scholars, whence various emendations have been proposed, e.g. Φρέγελλαν ἀνεκτήσατο καὶ τὴν Σωρανῶν (Burger, Mnem. 84); Φρεγελλανῶν ἀκρόπολιν καὶ τὴν Σωρανῶν (Nissen, Ital. Landesk. ii, 673). But to the present writer this seems too gross an interference with Diodorus's text, especially as the corruption apparently goes back beyond him.

^{page 18 note 1} Livy ix, 31, 13.