According to Livy's source, Valerius Antias, the two Petillii at Cato's instigation first accused Scipio Africanus of accepting bribes in his dealings with Antiochus but failed in this attempt when the defendant appealed to the memory of Zama; whereupon they shifted their attack to L. Scipio and through the Petillian rogation forced the Senate to appoint Terentius Culleo (see above) to investigate him and several members of his staff. As a result he and a number of his staff were convicted of peculation (Liv. 38.50.4-55.8, and 58.1; Val. Max. 8.1, damn. 1). Polybius mentions an attempt to accuse Scipio Africanus and the questions in the Senate, but without giving names and as unrelated anecdotes. For the incident in the Senate Gellius (4.18.7-12) supplies the names of the Petillii, but in another passage (6.19.1-2) attributes the trial of L. Scipio to another Tribune, C. Minucius Augurinus, while Livy quotes other sources (38.56.2 and 5-7; 39.52.3-4), including a supposed oration of Scipio himself (FOR 1.10-12, 147-150), which tend to show that the trial of Africanus took place in 184 and that the Tribune Naevius was the accuser. The Petillii almost certainly held the tribunate in 187, led the demand in the Senate for an accounting, and probably secured the passage of the Petillian rogation, but it is hazardous to attribute any more to them. Furthermore, since Antias is clearly mistaken in placing the date of Africanus' death in 187 instead of 184, and L. Scipio was not too poor or disgraced to celebrate splendid games in 186 (Liv. 39.22.8-10), and to be a candidate for the censorship in 184 (Liv. 39.40.2), a solution that avoids the evident telescoping of events in Antias' account is much to be preferred. See 184, on Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, C. Minucius Augurinus, and Q. Naevius. (Broughton MRR I)
Their rogation forced an investigation of charges of peculation against L. Scipio and his staff (Antias, fr. 45 Peter, in Liv. 38.50-55, 56, and 58.1; 39.56.3-4; Gell. 4.18.7-12; cf. Polyb. 23.14; FOR 1.10-12, and 147-150; Val. Max. 3.7.1; 5.3.2; Plut. Cat. M. 15.1-2; Apophth. Scip. 10; App. Syr. 40; Gell. 6.19.1-2; Dio fr. 63; Auct. Vir. Ill. 49.17; Zon. 9.21). (Broughton MRR I)
Election Liv. 40.18.2 Provinces and armies 40.18.3 and 5. (Broughton MRR I)
Ordered to levy emergency troops against the Ligurians, and then to dismiss them (Liv. 40.26.7, and 28.9). Examined and burned the supposed books of Numa (Liv. 40.29.9-14, cf. Val. Ant. fr. 9 Peter; Val. Max. 1.1.12; Plin. NH 13.84-87, with Cass. Hem. fr. 37, Piso fr. 11, Tudit. fr. 3, and Val. Ant. fr. 8 Peter; Plut. Num. 22.5; cf. Lact. Inst. Div. 1.22; Augustin. CD 7.34; Auct. Vir. Ill. 3.2; Fest. 178 L). (Broughton MRR I)
Liv. 41.14.4 and 7, and 15.1-4; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 48f., 122, 458f. (reading [Cn. Cor]nelius C[n.] f., etc.); Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; and on Petillius, Obseq. 9. Cornelius was assigned Pisa as his province, with charge of elections (Liv. 41.14.8-10, and 15.5), but died as a result of injuries suffered during the Latin Festival (Liv. 41.16.3-4; Fast. Cap.; Obseq. 9). Petillius held the election for a Consul Suffectus (Liv. 41.16.5 and 7, and 17.5-6; Fast. Cap.), then went to his province of Liguria, where he was slain in battle (Liv. 41.14.8-10, and 15.5, 17.6-18.16; cf. Val. Max. 1.5.9; 2.7.15; Frontin. Str. 4.1.46; Obseq. 9). (Broughton MRR I)