Humanitext Reader

Livy · History of Rome §39.25.1-39.25.17

The Council of Tempe and Accusations against Philip

Passage 1472 of 1770 · Latin

Summary

At the council of Tempe, Roman envoys act as arbitrators while the representatives of Thessaly, Perrhaebia, and Athamania accuse King Philip of harsh rule and demand the restoration of their territories and freedom.

§39.25.1ibi cum Romani legati disceptatorum loco, Thessali Perrhaebique et Athamanes haud dubii accusatores, Philippus ad audienda crimina tamquam reus consedissent, §39.25.2pro ingenio quisque eorum, qui principes legationum erant, et gratia cum Philippo aut odio acerbius leniusve egerunt.
There, when the Roman envoys had taken their seats in the position of arbitrators, the Thessalians, Perrhaebians, and Athamanes as undisputed accusers, and Philip as a defendant to hear the charges against him, each of those who were the leaders of the embassies acted more severely or more leniently, according to his own character and his friendship with or hatred of Philip.
§39.25.3in controversiam autem veniebant Philippopolis Tricca Phaloria et Eurymenae et cetera circa eas oppida, §39.25.4utrum, Thessalorum iuris cum essent, vi ademptae possessaeque ab Aetolis forent — nam Philippum Aetolis ademisse eas constabat —, an Aetolica antiquitus ea oppida fuissent: §39.25.5ita enim Acilium regi concessisse, si Aetolorum fuissent, et si voluntate, non si vi atque armis coacti cum Aetolis essent.
Now, the subject of dispute was Philippopolis, Tricca, Phaloria, Eurymenae, and the other towns around them: whether, since they belonged to the jurisdiction of the Thessalians, they had been taken by force and held by the Aetolians—for it was established that Philip had taken them from the Aetolians—or whether those towns had belonged to the Aetolians from ancient times; for it was argued that Acilius had granted them to the king on the condition that they had belonged to the Aetolians, and if they had been with the Aetolians voluntarily, not if they had been compelled by force and arms.
§39.25.6eiusdem formulae disceptatio de Perrhaeborum Magnetumque oppidis fuit: omnium enim iura possidendo per occasiones Aetoli miscuerant.
The dispute concerning the towns of the Perrhaebians and Magnetes was of the same formula; for the Aetolians, by occupying them as opportunity offered, had confused the rights of all.
§39.25.7ad haec, quae disceptationis erant, querellae Thessalorum adiectae, quod ea oppida, si iam redderentur sibi, spoliata ac deserta redditurus esset: §39.25.8nam praeter belli casibus amissos quingentos principes iuventutis in Macedoniam abduxisse, et opera eorum in servilibus abuti ministeriis; et quae reddiderit coactus Thessalis, inutilia ut redderet curasse.
To these subjects of dispute, the complaints of the Thessalians were added, that even if those towns were now to be restored to them, he was going to restore them despoiled and deserted; for, besides those lost in the casualties of war, he had carried off five hundred of the leading young men into Macedonia and was misusing their labour in servile employments; and whatever he had restored to the Thessalians under compulsion, he had taken care to restore in a useless condition.
§39.25.9Thebas Phthias unum maritimum emporium fuisse quondam Thessalis quaestuosum et frugiferum: ibi navibus onerariis comparatis regem, quae praeter Thebas Demetriadem cursum derigerent. negotiationem maritimam omnem eo avertisse.
They stated that Phthiotic Thebes was once the only maritime emporium that was profitable and productive for the Thessalians; there, by preparing merchant ships which directed their course past Thebes to Demetrias, the king had diverted all maritime trade thither.
§39.25.10iam ne a legatis quidem, qui iure gentium sancti sint. violandis abstinere: insidias positas euntibus ad T. Quinctium.
Moreover, they said he did not refrain from violating even envoys, who are sacred by the law of nations: that an ambush had been laid for those who were on their way to Titus Quinctius.
§39.25.11itaque ergo in tantum metum omnes Thessalos coniectos, ut non in civitatibus suis, non in communibus gentis conciliis quisquam hiscere audeat.
Therefore, all the Thessalians had been thrown into such great fear that no one dared to open his mouth either in his own state or in the common councils of the nation.
procul enim abesse libertatis auctores Romanos: lateri adhaerere gravem dominum, prohibentem uti beneficiis populi Romani.
For the Romans, the authors of their liberty, were far away; a harsh master clung to their side, preventing them from enjoying the benefits of the Roman people.
quid autem, si vox libera non sit. liberum esse?
But what, if voice is not free, is free?
§39.25.12nunc se fiducia et praesidio legatorum ingemiscere magis quam loqui.
Now they were groaning rather than speaking, relying on the trust and protection of the envoys.
nisi provideant aliquid Romani, quo et Graecis Macedoniam accolentibus metus et audacia Philippo minuatur, nequiquam et illum victum et se liberatos esse.
Unless the Romans provided some measure by which the fear of the Greeks living near Macedonia might be diminished and the boldness of Philip reduced, both his defeat and their liberation would have been in vain.
§39.25.13ut equum tenacem, non parentem frenis asperioribus castigandum esse. haec acerbe postremi,
Like a headstrong horse that is not obedient, he ought to be chastised with harsher bits.
§39.25.14cum priores leniter permulsissent iram eius petentes, §39.25.15ut ignosceret pro libertate loquentibus, et ut deposita domini acerbitate adsuesceret socium atque amicum sese praestare, et imitaretur populum Romanum, qui caritate quam metu adiungere sibi socios mallet.
These things the last speakers said bitterly, while the earlier speakers had gently assuaged his anger, entreating him to pardon those speaking for liberty, and that, putting aside the harshness of a master, he should accustom himself to show himself an ally and friend, and imitate the Roman people, who preferred to attach allies to themselves by affection rather than by fear.
§39.25.16Thessalis auditis Perrhaebi Gonnocondylum, quod Philippus Olympiadem appellaverat, Perrhaebiae fuisse, et ut sibi restitueretur, agebant; et de Malloea et Ericinio eadem postulatio erat.
After the Thessalians had been heard, the Perrhaebians argued that Gonnocondylum, which Philip had called Olympias, had belonged to Perrhaebia, and demanded that it be restored to them; and there was the same demand concerning Malloea and Ericinium.
§39.25.17Athamanes libertatem repetebant et castella Athenaeum et Poetneum.
The Athamanes reclaimed their liberty and the fortresses of Athenaeum and Poetneum.

Notes

  1. 39.25.1Romani legati disceptatorum loco, Thessali Perrhaebique et Athamanes haud dubii accusatores, Philippus ad audienda crimina tamquam reus consedissent — In the clause introduced by the conjunction `cum`, three subject groups (`Romani legati`, `Thessali Perrhaebique et Athamanes`, and `Philippus`) are placed in parallel with different predicative expressions (`disceptatorum loco`, `haud dubii accusatores`, `tamquam reus`), all sharing the plural verb `consedissent` at the end.
  2. 39.25.4utrum, Thessalorum iuris cum essent, vi ademptae possessaeque ab Aetolis forent — nam Philippum Aetolis ademisse eas constabat — , an Aetolica antiquitus ea oppida fuissent — This forms a double indirect question introduced by `utrum ... an ...`. `Thessalorum iuris` is a genitive of possession/characteristic. The subjunctive imperfect `forent` (for `essent`) and pluperfect `fuissent` follow the sequence of tenses after a historical main verb, representing a past continuous state and a prior completed event respectively.
  3. 39.25.5ita enim Acilium regi concessisse — An accusative with infinitive construction in indirect speech (oratio obliqua), presenting the argument of the accusers regarding the dispute. The main governing verb of saying (such as `dixerunt` or `arguebant`) is omitted and understood from the context. The verbs in the subordinate clauses (`fuissent` and `essent`) are accordingly in the subjunctive.
  4. 39.25.11quid autem, si vox libera non sit, liberum esse — The structure of a rhetorical question in indirect speech (oratio obliqua). In direct speech, this would be a direct question (`quid autem... liberum est?`), but in indirect speech, third-person rhetorical questions are expressed by the accusative with infinitive (`liberum esse`) rather than the subjunctive.

Cite this passage

Livy, History of Rome §39.25.1-39.25.17. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:39.25.1-39.25.17

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.