Humanitext Reader

Livy · History of Rome §26.3.1-26.3.12

Capital Charge against Fulvius and His Exile to Tarquinii

Passage 798 of 1770 · Latin

Summary

The defendant Gnaeus Fulvius tries to defend himself by blaming the soldiers, but the testimony of numerous witnesses enrages the assembly, leading to a capital charge. Lacking his brother's support, he chooses to go into exile to Tarquinii, which the plebeians formally ratify.

§26.3.1reus ab se culpam in milites transferebat: eos ferociter pugnam poscentis productos in aciem, non eo quo voluerint, quia serum diei fuerit, sed postero die, et tempore et loco aequo instructos, seu famam seu vim hostium non sustinuisse,. §26.3.2cum effuse omnes fugerent se quoque turba ablatum, ut Varronem Cannensi pugna, ut multos alios imperatores. §26.3.3qui autem solum se restantem prodesse rei, publicae, nisi si mors sua remedio publicis cladibus futura esset, potuisse? §26.3.4non se inopia commeatus in loca iniqua incaute deductum, non agmine inexplorato euntem insidiis circumventum;
The defendant transferred the blame from himself to the soldiers: that when they, who had been fiercely demanding battle, were led out into the battle-line—not on the day they wished, because it was late in the day, but on the following day—and drawn up at a favorable time and place, they had not withstood either the reputation or the force of the enemy. When all were fleeing in disorder, he too had been carried away by the crowd, just like Varro in the battle of Cannae, and like many other generals. But how could he, remaining alone, have been of service to the state, unless his own death was to be a remedy for the public disasters? He had not been incautiously led into unfavorable places through lack of provisions, nor had he been surrounded by ambushes while marching with an unexplored column; he had been defeated by open force, by arms, and in a regular battle.
vi aperta, armis, acie victum. nec suorum animos nec hostium in potestate habuisse: suum cuique ingenium audaciam aut pavorem facere. §26.3.5bis est accusatus pecuniaque anquisitum; tertio testibus datis, cum, praeterquam quod omnibus probris onerabatur, iurati permulti dicerent fugae pavorisque initium a praetore ortum, ab eo desertos milites §26.3.6cum haud vanum timorem ducis crederent, terga dedisse, tanta ira accensa est, ut capite anquirendum contio succlamaret. §26.3.7de eo quoque novum certamen ortum; nam cum bis pecunia anquisisset, tertio capitis se anquirere diceret, §26.3.8tribuni plebis appellati conlegae negarunt se in mora esse, quo minus, quod ei more maiorum permissum esset, seu legibus seu moribus mallet, anquireret, quoad vel capitis vel pecuniae iudicasset privato. §26.3.9tum Sempronius perduellionis se iudicare Cn. Fulvio dixit diemque comitiis ab C. Calpurnio praetore urbano petit. §26.3.10inde alia spes ab reo temptata est, si adesse in iudicio Q. Fulvius frater posset, florens tum et fama rerum gestarum et propinqua spe Capuae potiundae. §26.3.11id cum per litteras miserabiliter pro fratris capite scriptas petisset Fulvius, negassentque patres e re publica esse abscedi a Capua, §26.3.12postquam dies conitiorum aderat, Cn.
He had held neither the minds of his own men nor those of the enemy in his power; each man's own character produces courage or fear. Twice he was accused and a monetary fine was proposed; on the third trial, when witnesses were produced, and besides the fact that he was loaded with all kinds of reproaches, very many sworn witnesses said that the beginning of the flight and terror had originated from the praetor, and that the soldiers had been deserted by him; that the soldiers had turned their backs because they believed the general's fear was not groundless—at this, so great an anger was kindled that the assembly shouted aloud that he must be tried on a capital charge. On this matter too, a new dispute arose; for although he had twice proposed a monetary fine, on the third time he said he was prosecuting on a capital charge. The colleague tribunes of the plebs, having been appealed to, declared that they would not stand in the way of his prosecuting in whatever manner he preferred—whether by laws or by customs, as had been permitted to him by the custom of the ancestors—until he had passed judgment on the private citizen either of a capital nature or of a monetary fine. Then Sempronius declared that he was prosecuting Gnaeus Fulvius for high treason, and requested a day for the assembly from Gaius Calpurnius, the urban praetor. Then another hope was tried by the defendant, if his brother Quintus Fulvius could be present at the trial, who was then flourishing both because of the fame of his achievements and because of the near hope of capturing Capua. When Fulvius had requested this in a letter written plaintively for his brother's life, and the senators had denied that it was to the advantage of the state to depart from Capua, after the day of the assembly drew near, Gnaeus Fulvius went into exile to Tarquinii.
Fulvius exulatum Tarquinios abiit. id ei iustum exilium esse scivit plebs.
The plebs decreed that this was a lawful exile for him.

Notes

  1. 26.3.1poscentis — Accusative plural (archaic spelling with `-is` instead of `-es`) of the present participle, modifying the preceding `eos` (referring to the soldiers). It acts as the accusative subject in the accusative with infinitive structure of indirect speech.
  2. 26.3.3qui autem solum se restantem prodesse rei publicae ... potuisse — A rhetorical question in indirect speech. What would be in the indicative (or subjunctive) imperfect in direct speech is here rendered as an accusative with infinitive construction (subject `se restantem`, infinitive `potuisse`). `qui` is the interrogative adverb of manner meaning 'how'.
  3. 26.3.8in mora esse, quo minus — An idiomatic expression meaning 'to stand in the way, to prevent'. `in mora esse` (to cause delay or hindrance) is followed by `quo minus` (or `quominus`) with the subjunctive (`anquireret`), which is typical of verbs and expressions of hindering and preventing.
  4. 26.3.12scivit — Perfect of the verb `sciscere` (to decree, approve). It is a technical legal term indicating that the `plebs` (the plebeian assembly) formally ratified or voted on the measure (i.e., passed a `plebiscitum`).

Cite this passage

Livy, History of Rome §26.3.1-26.3.12. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:26.3.1-26.3.12

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.