Humanitext Reader

Livy · History of Rome §4.20.1-4.20.11

Cossus Dedicates the Spolia Opima and the Question of His Rank

Passage 218 of 1770 · Latin

Summary

The passage describes the dictator's triumph and Cossus's dedication of the spolia opima, and addresses the historical debate over whether Cossus was a military tribune or a consul at the time, referencing eyewitness evidence from Augustus Caesar.

§4.20.1omnibus locis re bene gesta dictator senatus — consulto iussuque populi triumphans in urbem rediit.
With everything having been successfully accomplished in all places, the dictator, by decree of the senate and order of the people, returned to the city in triumph.
§4.20.2longe maximum triumphi spectaculum fuit Cossus spolia opima regis interfecti gerens.
By far the greatest spectacle of the triumph was Cossus, carrying the spolia opima of the slain king.
in eum milites carmina incondita aequantes eum Romulo canere.
In his honor, the soldiers sang unpolished verses, equating him to Romulus.
spolia in aede Iovis Feretrii prope Romuli spolia, §4.20.3quae prima opima appellata sola ea tempestate erant, cum sollemni dedicatione dono fixit;
He dedicated the spoils in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, near the spoils of Romulus, which were the first to be called "opima" and were the only ones at that time; he fixed them as a gift with a solemn dedication.
averteratque in se a curru dictatoris civium ora et celebritatis eius diei fructum prope solus tulerat.
And he had averted the eyes of the citizens from the chariot of the dictator to himself, and had gathered the fruit of that day's celebration almost alone.
§4.20.4dictator coronam auream libram pondo ex publica pecunia populi iussu in Capitolio Iovi donum posuit.
The dictator, by order of the people, placed a golden crown weighing a pound, purchased from the public treasury, as a gift to Jupiter on the Capitol.
§4.20.5omnes ante me auctores secutus A. Cornelium Cossum tribunum militum secunda spolia opima Iovis Feretrii templo intulisse exposui;
Following all the authors before me, I have set forth that A.
§4.20.6ceterum, praeterquam quod ea rite opima spolia habentur, quae dux duci detraxit, nec ducem novimus, nisi cuius auspicio bellum geritur, titulus ipse spoliis inscriptus illos meque arguit consulem ea Cossum cepisse.
Cornelius Cossus, as a military tribune, brought the second spolia opima into the temple of Jupiter Feretrius; but, besides the fact that those are formally held to be spolia opima which a leader has stripped from a leader, and we know no "leader" except the one under whose auspices the war is waged, the inscription itself written on the spoils refutes both them and me, showing that Cossus captured them as consul.
§4.20.7hoc ego cum Augustum Caesarem, templorum omnium conditorem aut restitutorem, ingressum aedem Feretrii Iovis, quam vetustate dilapsam refecit, se ipsum in thorace linteo scriptum legisse audissem, prope sacrilegium ratus sum Cosso spoliorum suorum Caesarem, ipsius templi auctorem, subtrahere testem.
When I heard that Augustus Caesar, the founder or restorer of all temples, having entered the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, which he rebuilt after it had fallen into decay from age, had read this written himself on the linen breastplate, I thought it almost a sacrilege to deprive Cossus of Caesar as a witness of his spoils, who was the very restorer of that temple.
§4.20.8quis ea in re sit error, quod tam veteres annales quodque magistratuum libri, quos linteos in aede repositos Monetae Macer Licinius citat identidem auctores, decimo post demum anno cum T. Quinctio Poeno A. Cornelium Cossum consulem habeant, existimatio communis omnibus est.
What error there may be in that matter—given that annals so ancient and the books of the magistrates (the linen ones stored in the temple of Moneta, which Licinius Macer repeatedly cites as authorities) only list A. Cornelius Cossus as consul ten years later, along with T. Quinctio Poenus—is for everyone to judge.
§4.20.9nam etiam illud accedit, ne tam clara pugna in eum annum transferri possit, quod inbelle triennium ferme pestilentia inopiaque frugum circa A. Cornelium consulem fuit, adeo ut quidam annales velut funesti nihil praeter nomina consulum suggerant.
For this also is added, making it impossible for so glorious a battle to be transferred to that year: the fact that a period of nearly three years around the consulship of A. Cornelius was completely without war due to pestilence and scarcity of grain, so much so that certain annals, as if mournful, supply nothing except the names of the consuls.
§4.20.10tertius ab consulatu Cossi annus tribunum eum militum consulari potestate habet, eodem anno magistrum equitum; quo in imperio alteram insignem edidit pugnam equestrem.
The third year after the consulship of Cossus lists him as a military tribune with consular power, and in the same year as master of the horse; during which command he fought another famous cavalry battle.
ea libera coniectura est, sed, ut ego arbitror, vana; aversari enim omnes opiniones licet, §4.20.11cum auctor pugnae recentibus spoliis in sacra sede positis Iovem prope ipsum, cui vota erant, Romulumque intuens, haud spernendos falsi tituli testes, se A. Cornelium Cossum consulem scripserit.
This is free conjecture, but, in my opinion, groundless; for one may reject all these opinions, since the very author of the battle, when placing the fresh spoils in the sacred temple, looking at Jupiter himself, to whom they had been vowed, and Romulus—witnesses by no means to be slighted if the inscription were false—wrote himself down as "A. Cornelius Cossus, consul."

Notes

  1. 4.20.2canere — canere is a historical infinitive, equivalent to the imperfect indicative (canebant). Its subject is the nominative milites.
  2. 4.20.7se ipsum in thorace linteo scriptum legisse — se ipsum is the subject accusative of the infinitive legisse in the accusative-and-infinitive construction introduced by audissem. The reflexive pronoun se refers to Augustum Caesarem, the subject of the reported action, meaning 'Augustus himself had read.' scriptum is a neuter singular participle functioning as a noun ('what was written' or 'the inscription') serving as the direct object of legisse.
  3. 4.20.8quis ea in re sit error — The main clause of the sentence is existimatio communis omnibus est ('the judgment is common to all,' i.e., everyone must judge for themselves). The opening clause quis ea in re sit error ('what error there may be in that matter') is an indirect question with the subjunctive sit, defining the subject of existimatio. The two quod clauses ('the fact that...') introduce the factual contradictions in the sources that give rise to the question, explaining the background.

Cite this passage

Livy, History of Rome §4.20.1-4.20.11. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.humanitext-lat2:4.20.1-4.20.11

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.