- Source
- Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri editionem priman, Pars I-IV, Libri I-XL. Editio Stereotypica. Weissenborn, Wilhelm; Mueller, Moritz, editors. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-1911.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:21.18.1-21.18.14
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-23
The Roman envoys present the conditions of war in Carthage, and a Carthaginian representative counters by pointing out flaws in the treaties. Ultimately, the Roman envoy offers a choice between war and peace, which the Carthaginians accept as war, with both sides declaring their resolve to fight.
his ita conparatis, ut omnia iusta ante bellum fierent, legatos maiores natu Q. Fabium M. Livium L. Aemilium C. Licinium Q. Baebium in Africam mittunt ad percunctandos Carthaginienses, publicone consilio1 Hannibal Saguntum oppugnasset, et, si, id quod facturi videbantur, faterentur ac defenderent publico consilio factum, ut indicerent2 populo Carthaginiensi bellum.
These things having been thus prepared, so that all proper rites might be performed before the war, they sent to Africa elderly envoys—Quintus Fabius, Marcus Livius, Lucius Aemilius, Gaius Licinius, and Quintus Baebius— to ask the Carthaginienses whether Hannibal had attacked Saguntum by public decision, and, if they should confess and defend it as done by public decision—which they seemed likely to do—to declare war on the Carthaginian people.
Romani postquam Carthaginem venerunt cum senatus datus esset et Q. Fabius nihil ultra quam unum, quod mandatum erat, percunctatus esset, tum ex Carthaginiensibus unus:3
After the Romans came to Carthage, when an audience with the senate was granted and Quintus Fabius asked nothing beyond the one thing that had been commanded, then one of the Carthaginians said:
“praeceps vestra, Romani, et prior legatio fuit, cum Hannibalem tamquam suo consilio Saguntum oppugnantem deposcebatis;4 ceterum haec legatio verbis adhuc lenior est, re asperior. tunc enim Hannibal et insimulabatur et deposcebatur;
”Your former embassy, Romans, was headlong, when you demanded Hannibal as though he were attacking Saguntum by his own decision; but this embassy is so far milder in words, but harsher in reality. For then Hannibal was both accused and demanded;
nunc ab nobis et confessio culpae exprimitur et ut a confessis res extemplo repetuntur.
now a confession of guilt is being wrung from us, and, as though from those who have confessed, restitution is immediately demanded.
ego autem non privato publicone consilio Saguntum oppugnatum sit quaerendum censeam,5 sed utrum iure an iniuria.
But I should think that the question to be asked is not whether Saguntum was attacked by private or public decision, but whether justly or unjustly.
nostra enim haec quaestio atque animadversio in civem nostrum est, quid nostro aut suo fecerit arbitrio; vobiscum una disceptatio est, licueritne per foedus fieri.
For this inquiry and punishment of our own citizen, as to what he did by our authority or his own, is our business; with you there is only one dispute: whether it was permitted to be done under the treaty.
itaque quoniam discerni placet, quid publico consilio, quid sua sponte imperatores faciant, nobis vobiscum foedus est a C. Lutatio consule ictum, in quo cum caveretur utrorumque sociis, nihil de Saguntinis — necdum enim erant socii — cautum est.
Therefore, since you please to distinguish what commanders do by public decision and what of their own accord, we have with you a treaty struck by the consul Gaius Lutatius, in which, while provision was made for the allies of both sides, no provision was made for the Saguntines—for they were not yet allies.
at enim6 eo foedere, quod cum Hasdrubale ictum est, Saguntini excipiuntur. adversus quod ego nihil dicturus sum, nisi quod a vobis didici.
But, you will say, in that treaty which was struck with Hasdrubal, the Saguntines are excepted. Against this I am going to say nothing, except what I have learned from you.
vos enim quod C. Lutatius consul primo nobiscum foedus icit,7 quia neque ex auctoritate patrum nec populi iussu ictum erat, negastis vos eo teneri; itaque aliud de integro foedus publico consilio ictum est.
For as to the treaty which the consul Gaius Lutatius first struck with us, because it had been struck neither by the authority of the fathers nor by the order of the people, you denied that you were bound by it; and so another treaty was struck anew by public decision.
si vos non tenent foedera vestra nisi ex auctoritate aut iussu vestro icta, ne nos quidem Hasdrubalis foedus, quod nobis insciis icit, obligare potuit.
If your treaties do not bind you unless struck by your authority or order, neither could Hasdrubal’s treaty, which he struck without our knowledge, obligate us.
proinde omittite Sagunti atque Hiberi mentionem facere, et, quod diu parturit animus vester, aliquando pariat.”
Therefore, cease to make mention of Saguntum and the Ebro, and let your mind at last bring forth what it has long been travailing with.”
tum Romanus sinu ex toga facto “Hic” inquit “vobis bellum et pacem portamus: utrum placet, sumite.” sub hanc vocem haud minus ferociter, daret utrum vellet,8 succlamatum est.
Then the Roman, having made a fold in his toga, said, “Here we bring you war and peace: take whichever pleases you.” Upon this utterance it was shouted back with no less ferocity that he might give whichever he wished.
et cum is iterum sinu effuso bellum dare dixisset accipere se omnes responderunt et, quibus acciperent animis, isdem se gesturos.9
And when he, having again unfolded it, said that he gave war, they all replied that they accepted it, and that they would wage it with the same spirit with which they accepted it.
- 21.18.1publicone consilio
The particle -ne attached to publico consilio introduces an indirect question. Formally, this would be a double indirect question (e.g., publicone... an privato...), but here the alternative is left implicit.
- 21.18.2et, si ... faterentur ... ut indicerent ...
The clause ut indicerent is a purpose clause depending on mittunt (21.18.1), representing the second purpose of sending the envoys. It is connected by et and coordinated with the gerundive phrase ad percunctandos.
- 21.18.3tum ex Carthaginiensibus unus
An elliptical construction where the main verb (such as inquit or locutus est) is omitted to heighten the dramatic effect of the narrative.
- 21.18.4cum ... deposcebatis
The conjunction cum takes the indicative imperfect (deposcebatis) to define a specific point in time in the past when the action occurred (temporal cum).
- 21.18.6censeam
The present subjunctive is used to express a mild assertion or opinion, "I should think" (potential subjunctive).
- 21.18.9at enim
A rhetorical idiom commonly used to introduce a hypothetical objection from the opposing side ("but indeed, you will say").
- 21.18.10quod C. Lutatius consul primo nobiscum foedus icit
The antecedent foedus of the relative pronoun quod has been attracted into the relative clause itself, and is referred back to in the main clause by the pronoun eo (negastis vos eo teneri).
- 21.18.13daret utrum vellet
An indirect command (or an independent jussive clause in indirect speech), where a direct command (da utrum vis) has become an imperfect subjunctive due to the historical main verb (succlamatum est).
- 21.18.14quibus acciperent animis, isdem se gesturos
In the phrase quibus acciperent animis, isdem se gesturos, the noun animis has been attracted into the relative clause, agreeing with isdem in the main clause. gesturos (with omitted esse) is the future active infinitive of gerere (from bellum gerere), where bellum is understood as the object.