- 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-lat2:39.36.1-39.36.16
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
The Roman envoy Appius severely questions the Achaeans, and Lycortas delivers a speech in response, accusing the Romans of hypocrisy and unjust interference.
priusquam agerent quicquam, terror Achaeis iniectus erat et cogitatio, quam non ex aequo disceptatio futura esset, quod Areum et Alcibiadem capitis ab se concilio proximo damnatos cum legatis videbant;
Before they could take any action, terror had been struck into the Achaeans and the thought of how unequal the discussion would be, because they saw Areus and Alcibiades, whom they had condemned to death at their very last council, present with the envoys;
nec hiscere quisquam audebat. Appius ea, quae apud senatum questi erant Lacedaemonii, displicere senatui ostendit: caedem primum ad Compasium factam eorum, qui a Philopoemene ad causam dicendam evocati venissent;
nor did anyone dare to open their mouth. Appius showed that those things which the Lacedaemonians had complained of before the senate displeased the senate: first, the slaughter committed at Compasium of those who had come when summoned by Philopoemen to plead their cause;
deinde cum in homines ita saevitum esset,1 ne ulla parte crudelitas eorum cessaret, muros dirutos urbis nobilissimae esse, leges vetustissimas abrogatas, inclutamque per gentes disciplinam Lycurgi sublatam.
then, since such cruelty had been vented upon men, so that their ruthlessness might not fail in any part, that the walls of a most noble city had been demolished, its ancient laws abrogated, and the discipline of Lycurgus, famous among nations, abolished.
haec cum Appius dixisset, Lycortas, et quia praetor et quia Philopoemenis, auctoris omnium quae Lacedaemone acta fuerant, factionis erat, ita respondit.
When Appius had said these things, Lycortas, both because he was praetor and because he belonged to the faction of Philopoemen, the author of all that had been done at Lacedaemon, replied as follows.
“difficilior nobis, Ap. Claudi, apud vos oratio est quam Romae nuper apud senatum fuit.
”Our speech before you, Appius Claudius, is more difficult than it was recently before the senate at Rome.
tunc enim Lacedaemoniis accusantibus respondendum erat: nunc a vobis ipsis accusati sumus, apud quos causa est dicenda.
For then we had to reply to the accusations of the Lacedaemonians; now we are accused by you yourselves, before whom our cause must be pleaded.
quam iniquitatem condicionis subimus illa spe, iudicis animo te auditurum esse, posita contentione qua paulo ante egisti. ego certe, cum ea, quae et hic antea apud Q. Caecilium et postea Romae questi sunt Lacedaemonii, a te paulo ante relata sint, non tibi sed illis me apud te respondere credam.2 caedem obicitis eorum, qui a Philopoemene praetore evocati ad causam dicendam interfecti sunt. hoc ego crimen non modo a vobis, Romani, sed ne apud vos quidem nobis obiciendum fuisse arbitror. quid ita? quia in vestro foedere erat, ut maritimis urbibus abstinerent Lacedaemonii.
We submit to this unfairness of condition with the hope that you will hear us with the mind of a judge, laying aside the hostility with which you spoke a moment ago. For my part, since those complaints which the Lacedaemonians made here earlier before Quintus Caecilius and afterwards at Rome have just been repeated by you, I shall believe that I am replying not to you but to them before you. You object to the slaughter of those who, having been summoned by the praetor Philopoemen to plead their cause, were put to death. I believe that this charge ought not only not to have been brought against us by you, Romans, but not even before you. Why so? Because it was in your treaty that the Lacedaemonians should keep away from the maritime cities.
quo tempore armis captis urbes, a quibus abstinere iussi erant, nocturno impetu occupaverunt, si T. Quinctius, si exercitus Romanus, sicut antea, in Peloponneso fuisset, eo nimirum capti et oppressi confugissent.3
At which time, when they had taken up arms and occupied by a night attack the cities from which they had been ordered to keep away, if Titus Quinctius, if a Roman army had been in the Peloponnese, as before, those who were captured and oppressed would doubtless have fled to them.
cum vos procul essetis, quo alio nisi ad nos, socios vestros, quos antea Gytheo opem ferentes, quos Lacedaemonem vobiscum simili de causa oppugnantes viderant, confugerent?4
Since you were far away, where else could they have fled but to us, your allies, whom they had seen before bringing aid to Gytheum, and attacking Lacedaemon with you for a similar cause?
pro vobis igitur iustum piumque bellum suscepimus. quod cum alii laudent, reprehendere ne Lacedaemonii quidem possint, dii quoque ipsi comprobaverint, qui nobis victoriam dederunt, quonam modo ea, quae belli iure acta sunt, in disceptationem veniunt? quorum tamen maxima pars nihil pertinet ad nos.
On your behalf, therefore, we undertook a just and pious war. Since others praise this, and not even the Lacedaemonians can censure it, and the gods themselves, who gave us victory, have approved it, how on earth do those things which were done by the law of war come into dispute? Of which, however, the greatest part has nothing to do with us.
nostrum est, quod evocavimus ad causam dicendam eos, qui ad arma multitudinem exciverant, qui expugnaverant maritima oppida, qui diripuerant, qui caedem principum fecerant. quod vero illi venientes in castra interfecti sunt, vestrum est, Areu et Alcibiade, qui nunc nos, si diis placet, accusatis, non nostrum.
It is our concern that we summoned to plead their cause those who had stirred up the multitude to arms, who had stormed the maritime towns, who had plundered them, and who had slaughtered the leading men. But that they were killed while coming to the camp is your doing, Areus and Alcibiades, who now, if it pleases the gods, accuse us, not ours.
exsules Lacedaemoniorum, quo ex numero hi quoque duo fuerunt, et tunc nobiscum erant, et quod domicilio sibi delegerant maritima oppida, se petitos credentes, in eos, quorum opera patria extorres ne in tuto quidem exsilio posse consenescere se indignabantur,5 impetum fecerunt. Lacedaemonii igitur Lacedaemonios, non Achaei interfecerunt; nec iure an iniuria caesi sint, argumentari refert.6
The exiles of the Lacedaemonians, among whose number these two also were, were with us at that time; and because they had chosen the maritime towns for their home, believing themselves to be targeted, they made an attack on those by whose agency they, driven from their homeland, were indignant that they could not grow old even in a safe exile. Therefore, Lacedaemonians, not Achaeans, killed Lacedaemonians; and whether they were slain justly or unjustly, it is of no relevance to argue.
- 39.36.4cum in homines ita saevitum esset
An impersonal passive construction of the intransitive verb saevio. Literally, 'when it had been so raged against men', representing the cruel measures of the Achaeans in an objective yet accusatory manner.
- 39.36.8non tibi sed illis me apud te respondere credam
The verb credam ('I shall believe') governs the accusative and infinitive construction me... respondere. The phrase non tibi sed illis consists of datives depending on respondere ('to reply not to you but to them').
- 39.36.10si T. Quinctius, si exercitus Romanus, sicut antea, in Peloponneso fuisset, eo nimirum capti et oppressi confugissent
A conditional sentence expressing a past contrary-to-fact situation. Both the protasis (fuisset) and the apodosis (confugissent) use the pluperfect subjunctive. The subject capti et oppressi refers to the oppressed Lacedaemonians (a substantival participle).
- 39.36.11confugerent
Imperfect subjunctive. It expresses a past deliberative (rhetorical) question, meaning 'where else could they have fled?' (implying they could have fled nowhere else).
- 39.36.15quorum opera patria extorres ne in tuto quidem exsilio posse consenescere se indignabantur
The verb indignabantur ('they were indignant') governs an accusative and infinitive construction with the subject accusative se and the infinitive posse. Quorum opera is an ablative of cause/means ('by whose agency'). Patria extorres is an adjective phrase qualifying exsules, meaning 'driven from their homeland'.
- 39.36.16nec iure an iniuria caesi sint, argumentari refert
The subject of the impersonal verb refert ('it matters/is of relevance') is the infinitive argumentari ('to argue'). This infinitive in turn takes the indirect double question iure an iniuria caesi sint ('whether they were slain justly or unjustly') as its object. The entire clause is negated by nec.
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-25) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-21)
- 2026-09-21 AI review — source 1
