- 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-lat2:35.16.1-35.16.13
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-08
With Sulpicius' recovery, negotiations begin at Ephesus, where the king's representative Minnio criticizes Rome's double standards. Sulpicius refutes this by highlighting the historical differences between the Greek cities in Italy/Sicily and those in Asia.
iam convaluerat Sulpicius; itaque ambo Ephesum venerunt rex a Minnione excusatus, et absente eo agi res coepta est.
Sulpicius had already recovered; and so both came to Ephesus, while the king was excused by Minnio, and in his absence the business began to be conducted.
ibi praeparata oratione Minnio “specioso titulo” inquit “uti vos, Romani, Graecarum civitatium liberandarum video, sed facta vestra orationi non conveniunt, et aliud Antiocho iuris statuitis, alio ipsi utimini.
There, with a prepared speech, Minnio said: “I see, Romans, that you employ the splendid pretext of liberating Greek cities; but your deeds do not agree with your speech, and you establish one standard of law for Antiochus, while you yourselves use another.
qui1 enim magis Zmyrnaei Lampsacenique Graeci sunt quam Neapolitani et Regini et Tarentini, a quibus stipendium, a quibus naves ex foedere exigitis? cur Syracusas atque in alias Siciliae Graecas urbes praetorem quotannis cum imperio et virgis et securibus mittitis? nihil aliud profecto dicatis2 quam armis superatis vos iis has leges imposuisse.
For how are the Smyrnaeans and Lampsacenes more Greek than the Neapolitans, Rhegians, and Tarentines, from whom you exact tribute, from whom you demand ships according to treaty? Why do you send a praetor every year with imperium and rods and axes to Syracuse and to the other Greek cities of Sicily? Indeed, you would say nothing else than that you imposed these laws on them after they had been conquered by force of arms.
eandem de Zmyrna, Lampsaco civitatibusque, quae Ioniae aut Aeolidis sunt, causam ab Antiocho accipite.
Accept the same justification from Antiochus concerning Smyrna, Lampsacus, and the cities which are of Ionia or Aeolis.
bello superatas a maioribus, stipendiarias ac vectigales factas in antiquum ius repetit; itaque ad haec ei responderi velim, si ex aequo disceptatur et non belli causa quaeritur.”
He is reclaiming into their ancient status those cities which, having been conquered in war by his ancestors, were made tributary and tax-paying; and so I should wish an answer to be made to him on these points, if the discussion is conducted on fair terms and a pretext for war is not being sought.”
ad ea Sulpicius “fecit verecunde” inquit “Antiochus, qui, si alia pro causa eius non erant, quae dicerentur, quemlibet ista quam se dicere maluit.
To this Sulpicius said: “Antiochus has acted with modesty; since there were no other arguments to be spoken in favor of his cause, he preferred anyone else to say those things rather than himself.
quid enim simile habet civitatium earum, quas comparasti, causa? ab Reginis et Neapolitanis et Tarentinis, ex quo in nostram venerunt potestatem, uno et perpetuo tenore iuris, semper usurpato, numquam intermisso, quae ex foedere debent, exigimus. potesne tandem dicere, ut ii populi non per se, non per alium quemquam foedus mutaverint, sic Asiae civitates, ut semel venere in maiorum Antiochi potestatem, in perpetua possessione regni vestri permansisse, et non alias earum in Philippi, alias in Ptolomaei fuisse potestate, alias per multos annos nullo ambigente libertatem usurpasse?
For what similarity is there in the case of those cities which you compared ? From the Rhegians, Neapolitans, and Tarentines, from the time they came under our power, by one uninterrupted and continuous course of law, always exercised, never suspended, we demand what they owe according to treaty. Can you really say that, just as those peoples have not changed the treaty either of themselves or through anyone else, so the cities of Asia, once they came into the power of Antiochus’ ancestors, have remained in the continuous possession of your kingdom, and that some of them were not in the power of Philip, others of Ptolemy, and others for many years exercised their liberty with no one calling it into question?
nam si, quod aliquando servierunt, temporum iniquitate pressi, ius post tot saecula adserendi eos in servitutem faciet, quid abest, quin3 actum nihil nobis sit, quod a Philippo liberavimus Graeciam, et repetant posteri eius Corinthum Chalcidem Demetriadem et Thessalorum totam gentem?
For if the fact that they were once enslaved, oppressed by the injustice of the times, creates a right after so many centuries to reduce them to slavery again, what is lacking to make it appear that nothing has been accomplished by us in freeing Greece from Philip, and that his descendants might reclaim Corinth, Chalcis, Demetrias, and the entire nation of the Thessalians?
sed quid ego causam civitatium ago, quam ipsis agentibus et nos et regem ipsum cognoscere aequius est?”
But why do I plead the cause of the cities, which it is more just that both we and the king himself should learn from their own pleading?”
- 35.16.3qui
This is not the relative pronoun but an archaic interrogative adverb meaning "how" or "in what way" (equivalent to quomodo).
- 35.16.4dicatis
The second person plural present subjunctive is used here as a potential subjunctive ("you would say" or "one might say") with an indefinite subject.
- 35.16.11quid abest, quin
A construction where the impersonal verb abest is followed by a quin clause with the subjunctive, literally meaning "what is lacking to prevent..." or rhetorically "does it not follow that...?".