Dispute Between Carthaginian Envoys and Gulussa — Livy, History of Rome Book 42 (42.23.1–42.23.10), Latin & English

§42.23.1

legati Carthaginienses eo tempore Romae erant et Gulussa, filius Masinissae. inter eos magnae contentiones in senatu fuere.

At that time, Carthaginian ambassadors and Gulussa, the son of Masinissa, were in Rome. There were great contentions between them in the senate.

§42.23.2

Carthaginienses querebantur, praeter agrum, de quo ante legati ab Roma, qui in re praesenti cognoscerent, missi essent, amplius septuaginta oppida castellaque agri Carthaginiensis biennio proxumo Masinissam vi atque armis possedisse:

The Carthaginians complained that, in addition to the land concerning which commissioners had previously been sent from Rome to investigate on the spot, Masinissa had within the last two years seized by force of arms more than seventy towns and forts of the Carthaginian territory:

§42.23.3

id illi, cui nihil pensi sit, facile esse. Carthaginienses foedere inligatos silere;

this was easy for that man, to whom nothing was of any consequence. The Carthaginians, bound by the treaty, remained silent;

§42.23.4

prohiberi enim extra fines efferre arma; quamquam sciant in suis finibus, si inde Numidas pellerent, se gesturos bellum, illo haud ambiguo capite foederis deterreri,¹ quo diserte vetentur cum sociis populi Romani bellum gerere.

for they were forbidden to carry arms outside their boundaries; although they knew that in their own territory, if they should drive the Numidians from there, they would be waging war, they were deterred by that unambiguous clause of the treaty, by which they were expressly forbidden to wage war with the allies of the Roman people.

§42.23.5

sed iam ultra superbiam crudelitatemque et avaritiam eius pati non posse Carthaginienses. missos esse se, qui orarent senatum, ut trium harum rerum unam ab se² impetrari sinerent:

But now the Carthaginians could no longer endure his insolence, cruelty, and avarice. They had been sent to entreat the senate that they would allow one of these three things to be obtained by them:

§42.23.6

ut vel ex aequo inter regem socium populumque Carthaginiensem, quid cuiusque esset, disceptarent; vel permitterent Carthaginiensibus, ut adversus iniusta arma pio iustoque se tutarentur bello; vel ad extremum, si gratia plus quam veritas apud eos valeret, semel statuerent, quid donatum ex alieno Masinissae vellent.

either that they should decide on equal terms between the allied king and the Carthaginian people what belonged to each; or that they should permit the Carthaginians to defend themselves against unjust arms by a pious and just war; or finally, if influence was of more weight with them than truth, that they should once and for all determine what they wished to be given to Masinissa out of another’s property.

§42.23.7

modestius certe daturos eos, et se scituros, quid dedissent; ipsum nullum praeterquam suae libidinis arbitrio finem facturum.

They would certainly give more moderately, and the Carthaginians would know what they had given up; whereas he himself would set no limit except by the decision of his own desire.

§42.23.8

horum si nihil impetrarent, et aliquod suum post datam a P. Scipione pacem delictum esset, ipsi potius animadverterent³ in se.

If they should obtain none of these things, and if there had been any transgression on their part since the peace granted by Publius Scipio, they begged that the Romans themselves should rather punish them.

§42.23.9

tutam servitutem se sub dominis Romanis quam libertatem expositam ad iniurias Masinissae malle;

they preferred safe servitude under Roman masters to a liberty exposed to the injuries of Masinissa;

§42.23.10

perire denique semel ipsis satius esse, quam sub acerbissimi carnificis arbitrio spiritum ducere. sub haec dicta lacrimantes procubuerunt stratique humi non sibi magis misericordiam quam regi invidiam conciliarunt.

in short, it was better for them to perish once and for all, than to draw breath under the will of a most cruel executioner. Having spoken these words, they prostrated themselves weeping, and, stretched upon the ground, they excited not so much pity for themselves as hatred against the king.

Syntax notes3 items

42.23.4prohiberi enim extra fines efferre arma; quamquam sciant in suis finibus, si inde Numidas pellerent, se gesturos bellum, illo haud ambiguo capite foederis deterreri
Part of the indirect discourse (Oratio Obliqua) reporting the speech of the Carthaginians. The main verbs of this sentence are the passive infinitives prohiberi (that they were forbidden to carry arms) and deterreri (that they were deterred), both having Carthaginienses as their implied subject. The clause introduced by quamquam takes the subjunctive sciant because it is a subordinate clause within indirect discourse, and it governs the accusative and infinitive construction se gesturos [esse] bellum. The condition si ... pellerent (if they should drive) is in the imperfect subjunctive due to the sequence of tenses dependent on the historical main verb querebantur in the previous sentence.
42.23.5ab se
Expresses the agent of the passive infinitive impetrari (to be obtained). The indirect reflexive pronoun se refers back to the main subjects of the indirect discourse (the Carthaginians). Although the active idiom impetrare ab aliquo means 'to obtain something from someone,' here with the passive infinitive impetrari, ab se functions as the agent, meaning 'to be obtained by them.' If it referred to the senate, we would expect a non-reflexive pronoun or a different construction; thus, it is best understood as referring to the Carthaginians themselves.
42.23.8animadverterent
A subjunctive representing a command or entreaty in an independent clause within indirect discourse. The imperative animadvertite (punish!) or a hortatory subjunctive in direct speech has been converted into the imperfect subjunctive animadverterent due to the sequence of tenses after the historical main verb.

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-25) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-22)

2026-09-22 AI review — source 1

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:42.23.1-42.23.10