Humanitext Reader

Livy · History of Rome §35.8.1-35.8.9

Cornelius' Demand for a Triumph and Senate Opposition

Passage 1237 of 1770 · Latin

Summary

Consul Lucius Cornelius returned to Rome to demand a triumph, but Quintus Metellus opposed any decree in the absence of the lieutenant Marcellus, whose contradictory letter had been received. When the consul persisted, the tribunes threatened to intercede.

§35.8.1cum haec in Hispania gerebantur, comitiorum iam appetebat dies.
While these things were being done in Spain, the day of the elections was already approaching.
itaque L. Cornelius consul relicto ad exercitum M. Claudio Romam venit.
Therefore, the consul Lucius Cornelius, having left Marcus Claudius in charge of the army, came to Rome.
§35.8.2is in senatu cum de rebus ab se gestis disseruisset, §35.8.3quoque statu provincia esset, questus est cum patribus conscriptis, quod tanto bello una secunda pugna tam feliciter perfecto non esset habitus diis immortalibus honos.
When he had spoken in the senate about his achievements, and in what state the province was, he complained to the conscript fathers that, although so great a war had been so successfully finished by a single favorable battle, no honor had been paid to the immortal gods.
§35.8.4postulavit deinde, supplicationem simul triumphumque decernerent.
He then demanded that they should decree a thanksgiving and at the same time a triumph.
prius tamen quam relatio fieret, Q. Metellus, qui consul dictatorque fuerat, litteras eodem tempore dixit et consulis L. Corneli ad senatum et M. Marcelli ad magnam partem senatorum adlatas esse inter se pugnantis, §35.8.5eoque dilatam esse consultationem, ut praesentibus auctoribus earum litterarum disceptaretur.
However, before the motion could be made, Quintus Metellus, who had been consul and dictator, said that letters had been brought at the same time, both from the consul Lucius Cornelius to the senate and from Marcus Marcellus to a large part of the senators, which were contradictory to each other, and that the consultation had been deferred for this reason, so that the matter might be discussed in the presence of the authors of those letters.
itaque expectasse sese, ut consul, qui sciret ab legato suo adversus se scriptum aliquid, cum ipsi veniendum esset, deduceret eum secum Romam, §35.8.6cum etiam verius esset Ti. Sempronio imperium habenti tradi exercitum quam legato: §35.8.7nunc videri esse amotum de industria, qui, si ea, quae scripsisset, praesens diceret, et arguere coram, et, si quid vani adferret, argui posset, donec ad liquidum veritas explorata esset.
Therefore, he had expected that the consul, who knew that something had been written against him by his lieutenant, when he himself had to come, would bring him with him to Rome, since indeed it was even more proper that the army should be handed over to Tiberius Sempronius, who held imperium, than to a lieutenant; now he seemed to have been left behind on purpose, so that he, who, if present, might speak what he had written, could both accuse him face to face and, if he should bring forward anything false, be refuted, until the truth was clearly investigated.
§35.8.8itaque nihil eorum, quae postularet consul, decernendum in praesentia censere.
Therefore, he was of the opinion that none of those things which the consul demanded should be decreed for the present.
§35.8.9cum pergeret nihilo segnius referre, ut supplicationes decernerentur triumphantique sibi urbem invehi liceret, M. et C. Titinii tribuni plebis se intercessuros, si de ea re fieret senatus consultum, dixerunt.
When he nevertheless proceeded with no less urgency to bring forward the motion that thanksgivings should be decreed and that he should be allowed to enter the city in triumph, Marcus and Gaius Titinius, tribunes of the plebs, said that they would intercede if a decree of the senate should be made concerning that matter.

Notes

  1. §35.8.3quoque statu provincia esset — The word quoque consists of the conjunction -que and the ablative quo of the interrogative adjective qui. It introduces an indirect question depending on disseruisset in §35.8.2, modifying statu.
  2. §35.8.3quod... non esset habitus diis immortalibus honos — The quod clause indicates the reason for the complaint (questus est). The subjunctive esset habitus is used to show that the reason is presented as the subjective claim of the consul.
  3. §35.8.4decernerent — A subjunctive in a noun clause following the verb of demanding postulavit, with the conjunction ut omitted. The imperfect subjunctive is due to the sequence of tenses after the perfect main verb.
  4. §35.8.4litteras... inter se pugnantis — The word pugnantis is the accusative plural feminine of the present participle (representing -es), modifying litteras. Letters 'fighting among themselves' means that their contents are contradictory to one another.
  5. §35.8.7qui, si ea, quae scripsisset, praesens diceret, et arguere coram, et, si quid vani adferret, argui posset — The pronoun qui is a connecting relative (pseudo-relative). The sentence forms a past contrary-to-fact conditional with the protasis si... diceret and the apodosis posset. The active infinitive arguere (to accuse) and the passive infinitive argui (to be refuted) are contrasted.
  6. §35.8.8censere — An infinitive in indirect speech continuing from dixit in §35.8.4. The subject accusative (se referring to Metellus) is understood from the context.

Cite this passage

Livy, History of Rome §35.8.1-35.8.9. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:35.8.1-35.8.9

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.