- 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-lat2:40.14.1-40.14.11
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
Demetrius defends his drinking and youthful joy at last night's banquet, logically demonstrating how Perseus's accusations are absurd and full of contradictions.
non est res, qua erubescam,1 pater, si die festo inter aequales largiore vino sum usus. tu quoque velim inquiras, qua laetitia, quo lusu apud me celebratum hesternum convivium sit, illo etiam — pravo forsitan — gaudio provehente,2 quod in iuvenali armorum certamine pars nostra non inferior fuerat. miseria haec et metus crapulam facile excusserunt;
It is not a matter for which I should blush, father, if on a holiday among my equals I indulged rather freely in wine. I would wish that you too would inquire with what joy, with what play yesterday’s banquet was celebrated at my house, driven on also by that — perhaps improper — joy, that in the youthful contest of arms our side had not been inferior. This misery and fear easily shook off the hangover;
quae si non intervenissent, insidiatores nos3 sopiti iaceremus.
and if these had not intervened, we, the “plotters,” would be lying fast asleep.
si domum tuam expugnaturus, capta domo dominum interfecturus eram,4 non temperassem vino in unum diem, non milites meos abstinuissem?
If I had been going to storm your house, and, after capturing the house, to kill the master, would I not have refrained from wine for a single day, would I not have restrained my soldiers?
et ne ego me solus nimia simplicitate tuear, ipse quoque minime malus ac suspicax frater “nihil aliud scio,” inquit “nihil arguo, nisi quod cum ferro comisatum venerunt.”
And lest I alone should defend myself with too much simplicity, even my brother himself, who is by no means malicious or suspicious, says: “I know nothing else, I charge nothing, except that they came to the revel with steel.”
si quaeram, unde id ipsum scias, necesse erit te fateri aut speculatorum tuorum plenam domum fuisse meam, aut illos ita aperte sumpsisse ferrum, ut omnes viderent.
If I were to ask where you know that very thing from, it would be necessary for you to confess either that my house was full of your spies, or that they took up the steel so openly that everyone saw.
et ne quid ipse aut prius inquisisse aut nunc criminose argumentari videretur, te quaerere ex iis, quos nominasset, iubebat, an ferrum habuissent, ut tamquam in re dubia, cum id quaesisses, quod ipsi fatentur, pro convictis haberentur.5
And lest he himself should seem either to have investigated previously or to be arguing maliciously now, he was bidding you to inquire of those whom he had named, whether they had steel, so that, as if in a doubtful matter, when you inquired into what they themselves confess, they might be held as convicted.
quin tu illud quaeri iubes, num tui occidendi causa ferrum sumpserint, num me auctore et sciente? hoc enim videri vis, non illud quod fatentur et palam est. ei sui se tuendi causa sumpsisse dicunt.
Why do you not bid that to be inquired, whether they took up steel for the purpose of killing you, whether by my authorization and with my knowledge? For this is what you want to appear, not that which they confess and is public. They say that they took it up for the sake of defending themselves.
recte an perperam fecerint, ipsi sui facti rationem reddent: meam causam, quae nihil eo facto contingitur, ne miscueris. aut explica, utrum aperte an clam te aggressuri fuerimus. si aperte, cur non omnes ferrum habuimus?
Whether they did rightly or wrongly, they themselves will render an account of their deed; do not mix in my case, which is not touched at all by that deed. Or explain, whether we were going to attack you openly or secretly. If openly, why did we not all have steel?
cur nemo praeter eos, qui tuum speculatorem pulsaverunt? si clam, quis ordo consilii fuit?
Why did no one besides those who struck your spy? If secretly, what was the order of the plan?
convivio soluto cum comisator ego discessissem, quattuor substitissent, ut sopitum te adgrederentur? quomodo fefellissent et alieni et mei et maxime suspecti, quia paulo ante in rixa fuerant? quomodo autem trucidato te ipsi evasuri fuerunt? quattuor gladiis domus tua capi et expugnari potuit?
When, after the banquet was dissolved, I had departed as a reveler, were four to have remained, so that they might attack you while you were asleep? How would they, both strangers and my men, and highly suspected because they had been in a quarrel a little before, have escaped notice? And how, after you were slain, were they themselves going to escape? Could your house be captured and stormed by four swords?
- 40.14.1qua erubescam
The subjunctive "erubescam" in the relative clause introduced by "qua" expresses characteristic or fitness ("a matter for which I should blush").
- 40.14.2illo etiam — pravo forsitan — gaudio provehente
An ablative absolute construction where "illo ... gaudio" serves as the subject and the present participle "provehente" acts as the predicate. The inserted phrase "pravo forsitan" modifies "gaudio."
- 40.14.3insidiatores nos
The noun "insidiatores" stands in apposition to the pronoun "nos" (the subject of "iaceremus"), used by Demetrius with an ironic or sarcastic tone to refer to himself and his companions.
- 40.14.4si domum tuam expugnaturus, capta domo dominum interfecturus eram
A conditional clause employing the active periphrastic imperfect indicative ("-turus eram"), which expresses past intention or imminent action ("if I had been going to..."). The apodosis uses the regular pluperfect subjunctive ("temperassem", "abtinuissem") for a contrary-to-fact past condition.
- 40.14.7ut tamquam in re dubia, cum id quaesisses, quod ipsi fatentur, pro convictis haberentur
A complex nested structure where the concessive/comparative phrase "tamquam in re dubia" and the temporal clause "cum id quaesisses" are embedded within the final/purpose clause "ut ... haberentur."