- 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-lat2:21.19.1-21.19.11
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-24
Livy defends the legitimacy of the Roman declaration of war based on treaty terms and recounts how the Roman envoys traveled to Spain to win over local tribes, only to be rejected due to Rome's perceived betrayal of Saguntum.
haec derecta percunctatio ac denuntiatio belli magis ex dignitate populi Romani visa est quam de foederum iure verbis disceptare, cum ante, tum maxime Sagunto excisa.1
This direct questioning and declaration of war seemed more in keeping with the dignity of the Roman people than to dispute in words about the law of treaties, both before, and especially now that Saguntum had been destroyed.
nam si verborum disceptationis res esset, quid foedus Hasdrubalis cum Lutatii priore foedere, quod mutatum est, conparandum erat,2 cum in Lutatii foedere diserte additum esset, ita id ratum fore, si populus censuisset,3 in Hasdrubalis foedere nec exceptum tale quicquam fuerit, et tot annorum silentio ita vivo eo conprobatum sit foedus, ut ne mortuo quidem auctore quicquam mutaretur?
For if it were a matter of verbal dispute, why was Hasdrubal’s treaty to be compared with the earlier treaty of Lutatius, which was altered, since in the treaty of Lutatius it had been expressly added that it would be valid only if the people should approve it, whereas in Hasdrubal’s treaty no such thing was excepted, and the treaty was so approved by the silence of so many years while he was alive, that not even after the death of its author was anything changed?
quamquam, et si priore foedere staretur, satis cautum erat Saguntinis sociis utrorumque exceptis. nam neque additum erat “iis qui tunc essent” nec “ne qui postea adsumerentur;” et cum adsumere novos liceret socios, quis aequum censeret aut ob nulla quemquam merita in amicitiam recipi aut receptos in fidem non defendi? tantum ne4 Carthaginiensium socii aut sollicitarentur ad defectionem aut sua sponte desciscentes reciperentur.
And yet, even if they stood by the earlier treaty, sufficient provision had been made for the Saguntines, the allies of both sides being excepted. For neither had “those who were then [allies]” been added, nor ”lest any should be admitted afterwards”; and since it was permitted to admit new allies, who would think it fair either that anyone should be received into friendship for no merits, or that those received should not be defended in good faith? Only that the allies of the Carthaginians should neither be solicited to defect, nor received if they revolted of their own accord.
legati Romani ab Carthagine sicut iis Romae imperatum erat, in Hispaniam, ut adirent civitates et in societatem perlicerent aut averterent a Poenis, traiecerunt.
The Roman envoys crossed over from Carthage to Spain, just as they had been commanded at Rome, in order to visit the states and entice them into alliance or turn them away from the Carthaginians.
ad Bargusios primum venerunt, a quibus benigne excepti, quia taedebat imperii Punici, multos trans Hiberum populos ad cupidinem novae fortunae erexerunt.
They came first to the Bargusii, by whom they were kindly received, because they were weary of Carthaginian rule, and they roused many peoples across the Ebro to a desire for a new fortune.
ad Volcianos inde est ventum, quorum celebre per Hispaniam responsum ceteros populos ab societate Romana avertit.
Then they came to the Volciani, whose reply, celebrated throughout Spain, turned the other peoples away from the Roman alliance.
ita enim maximus natu ex iis in concilio respondit: “quae verecundia est, Romani, postulare vos, uti vestram Carthaginiensium amicitiae praeponamus,5 cum, qui id fecerunt, crudelius, quam Poenus hostis perdidit, vos socii prodideritis?
For the eldest of them answered in their council: “What shame is this, Romans, for you to demand that we prefer your friendship to that of the Carthaginians, when you, their allies, have betrayed those who did so more cruelly than the Carthaginian enemy destroyed them?
ibi quaeratis socios censeo ubi Saguntina clades ignota est; Hispanis populis sicut lugubre ita insigne documentum Sagunti ruinae erunt, ne quis fidei Romanae aut societati confidat.”
I think you should look for allies where the disaster of Saguntum is unknown ; to the Spanish peoples, the ruins of Saguntum will be a lesson as famous as it is mournful, so that no one may trust in Roman faith or alliance.”
inde extemplo abire finibus Volcianorum iussi ab nullo deinde concilio Hispaniae benigniora verba tulere. ita nequiquam peragrata Hispania in Galliam transeunt.
Ordered to depart immediately from the territory of the Volciani, they thereafter obtained no kinder words from any council in Spain. Thus having traversed Spain in vain, they crossed over into Gaul.
- 21.19.1Sagunto excisa
An ablative absolute construction consisting of the noun Saguntus and the perfect participle excisa. It functions here as an adverbial phrase of time, forming the latter part of the correlative structure cum ante, tum maxime (both before, and especially when...).
- 21.19.2quid foedus Hasdrubalis... conparandum erat
The apodosis corresponding to the conditional clause si... esset (subjunctive imperfect, contrary to present fact). Because it is a periphrastic conjugation with the gerundive (conparandum erat), the indicative imperfect is used instead of the subjunctive to express a rhetorical question: "why was it to be compared?" (implying "it should not have been").
- 21.19.3ita id ratum fore, si populus censuisset
An accusative with infinitive clause in indirect speech explaining the content of additum esset (had been added) in the preceding clause. The original direct speech "(it will be valid if the people approve) ratum erit, si populus censuerit" is shifted, following the past main verb, into the future infinitive ratum fore (ratum futurum esse) and the subjunctive pluperfect censuisset (shifted from future perfect).
- 21.19.5tantum ne
An adverbial usage expressing restriction or exception. It means "only that... not" or "provided only that... not," indicating that while acquiring new allies was permitted, the sole restriction tacitly understood was not to solicit or receive the allies of the Carthaginians.
- 21.19.9postulare vos, uti vestram Carthaginiensium amicitiae praeponamus
An infinitive clause acting as the subject of the expression quae verecundia est (what shame/modesty is there?, meaning "how shameless it is"), which has the noun verecundia as its complement. postulare vos is the main infinitive phrase, and the content of this demand is expressed by uti... praeponamus (subjunctive).
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-25) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-22)
- 2026-09-22 AI review — source 1