Humanitext Reader

Livy · History of Rome §22.34.1-22.34.11

Clash between Patricians and Plebeians over Varro

Passage 628 of 1770 · Latin

Summary

During the interregnum, a fierce struggle arises between patricians and plebeians over the election of the popular candidate Varro to the consulship. The tribune Baebius accuses the senate and the augurs of conspiracy and advocates for a truly plebeian consul.

§22.34.1consulibus prorogatum in annum imperium.
The military command of the consuls was prolonged for a year.
interreges proditi a patribus C. Claudius Appi filius Cento, inde P. Cornelius Asina.
The interreges appointed by the patricians were Gaius Claudius Cento, son of Appius, and then Publius Cornelius Asina.
in eius interregno comitia habita magno certamine patrum ac plebis.
During his interregnum, the elections were held amidst a great struggle between the patricians and the plebeians.
§22.34.2C. Terentio Varroni, quem sui generis hominem, plebi insectatione principum popularibusque artibus conciliatum, ab Q. Fabi opibus et dictatorio imperio concusso aliena invidia splendentem, volgus extrahere ad consulatum nitebatur, patres summa ope obstabant, ne se insectando sibi aequari adsuescerent homines.
The patricians opposed Gaius Terentius Varro with all their might, lest men should become accustomed to being equalled with them by attacking them; Varro was a man of the people's own kind, who had won over the plebeians by his attacks on the leading men and by popular arts, and who was now shining with the unpopularity of others after the power and dictatorial authority of Quintus Fabius had been shaken, and whom the rabble was striving to raise to the consulship.
§22.34.3Q. Baebius Herennius tribunus plebis, cognatus C. Terenti, criminando non senatum modo sed etiam augures, quod dictatorem prohibuissent comitia perficere, per invidiam eorum favorem candidate suo conciliabat: §22.34.4ab hominibus nobilibus per multos annos bellum quaerentibus Hannibalem in Italiam adductum; ab isdem, cum debellari possit, fraude bellum trahi.
Quintus Baebius Herennius, a tribune of the plebs and relative of Gaius Terentius, by accusing not only the senate but also the augurs for having prevented the dictator from completing the elections, was winning favor for his candidate through the unpopularity of those bodies: that Hannibal had been brought into Italy by noblemen who had been seeking war for many years; and that by the very same men, although the war could be finished, it was being dragged out by fraud.
§22.34.5cum quattuor legionibus universe pugnari posse apparuisset eo, §22.34.6quod M. Minucius absente Fabio prospere pugnasset duas legiones hosti ad caedem obiectas, deinde ex ipsa caede ereptas, ut pater patronusque appellaretur, qui prius vincere prohibuisset Romanos quam vinci.
Since it had appeared that a general engagement could be fought with four legions, from the fact that Marcus Minucius, in the absence of Fabius, had fought successfully, and that two legions, exposed to the enemy for slaughter and then snatched from that very slaughter, resulted in him being called "father" and "patron" who had previously prevented the Romans from conquering rather than from being conquered.
§22.34.7consules deinde Fabianis artibus, cum debellare possent, bellum traxisse.
Next, the consuls, using Fabian arts, had dragged out the war when they might have finished it.
id foedus inter omnes nobilis ictum, nec finem ante belli habituros, quam consulem vere plebeium, id est hominem novum, fecissent; §22.34.8nam plebeios nobiles iam eisdem initiatos esse sacris et contemnere plebem, ex quo contemni a patribus desierint, coepisse.
This was a treaty struck among all the nobles, and they would not have an end to the war before they made a truly plebeian consul, that is, a "new man"; for the plebeian nobles had already been initiated into the same rites and had begun to despise the plebs from the moment they ceased to be despised by the patricians.
§22.34.9cui non apparere id actum et quaesitum esse, ut interregnum iniretur, ut in patrum potestate comitia essent?
To whom was it not apparent that this had been done and sought after, namely that an interregnum should be entered, so that the elections might be in the power of the patricians?
§22.34.10id consules ambos ad exercitum morando quaesisse; id postea, quia invitis iis dictator esset dictus comitiorum causa, expugnatum esse, cum vitiosus dictator per augures fieret. habere igitur interregnum eos;
Both consuls had sought this by lingering with the army; and afterwards, because a dictator had been named for the purpose of the elections against their will, this had been forced through when the dictator was made out to be flawed by the augurs.
§22.34.11consulatum unum certe plebis Romanae esse, populum eum liberum habiturum ac daturum ei, qui mature vincere quam diu imperare malit.
Therefore they now had their interregnum; at least one consulship certainly belonged to the Roman plebs, and a free people would hold and give it to one who preferred to conquer quickly rather than to command for a long time.

Notes

  1. 22.34.2C. Terentio Varroni — Dative case. Placed at the beginning of the sentence, it is widely separated from the main verb obstabant (which governs the dative) near the end of the sentence, due to the long relative clause (quem... nitebatur) inserted in between. The core structure of the sentence is patres C. Terentio Varroni... obstabant.
  2. 22.34.2sui generis hominem — An accusative phrase in apposition to the relative pronoun quem. The genitive sui generis does not mean "unique" or "of its own kind" here, but rather "of their own kind/class" (i.e., of the same class as the plebeians themselves), emphasizing that the plebs saw Varro as one of their own.
  3. 22.34.6prius vincere prohibuisset Romanos quam vinci — An expression using prius... quam ("before"), but used here with ironical force. Literally, "he had prevented the Romans from conquering before they could be conquered," reflecting the plebeian accusation that Fabius's delaying tactics prevented any chance of Roman victory under the guise of preventing defeat.
  4. 22.34.9cui non apparere — A rhetorical question in indirect speech (oratio obliqua). In direct speech, it would be a direct indicative cui non apparet...? ("to whom is it not apparent?"). Under the rules of indirect speech, the main verb of this question is put into the infinitive apparere.

Cite this passage

Livy, History of Rome §22.34.1-22.34.11. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:22.34.1-22.34.11

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.