previous next
42. Then the business relating to the ambassadors of Philip and the Carthaginians was considered. [2] It was resolved that the Macedonians should be brought before the senate first. [p. 1336]Their address comprehended a variety of subjects, being employed partly in clearing themselves from the charges relative to the depredations committed against the allies, which the deputies sent to the king from Rome had brought against them; [3] and partly in preferring accusations themselves against the allies of the Roman people, but particularly against Marcus Aurelius, whom they inveighed against with much greater acrimony; for they said that, being one of the three ambassadors sent to them, he had staid behind, and levying soldiers, had assailed them with hostilities contrary to the league, and frequently fought pitched battles with their prefects; [4] and partly in preferring a request that the Macedonians and their general, Sopater, who had served in the army of Hannibal for hire, and having been made prisoners were kept in bondage, should be restored to them. [5] In opposition to these things, Marcus Furius, who had been sent from Macedonia for the express purpose by Aurelius, thus argued: he said, “that Aurelius, having been left behind, lest the allies of the Roman people, wearied by devastations and injuries, should revolt to the king, had not gone beyond the boundaries of the allies; but had taken measures to prevent plundering parties from crossing over into their lands with impunity. [6] That Sopater was one of those who wore purple, and was related to the king; that he had been lately sent into Africa with four thousand Macedonians and a sum of money to assist Hannibal and the Carthaginians.” [7] The Macedonians, on being interrogated on these points, proceeded to answer in a subtle and evasive manner; but without waiting for the conclusion of their reply they were told, “that the king was seeking occasion for war, and that if he persisted he would soon obtain his object. [8] That the treaty had been doubly violated by him, both by offering insults to the allies of the Roman people, by assaulting them with hostilities and arms, and also by aiding their enemies with auxiliaries and money. [9] That Publius Scipio was deemed to have acted properly and regularly in keeping in chains, as enemies, those who had been made prisoners while bearing arms against the Romans; and that Marcus Aurelius had consulted the interest of the state, and the senate were thankful to him for it, in protecting the allies [10??] of the Roman people by arms, since he could not do it by the obligation of the treaty.” The Macedonian ambassadors having been dismissed with this [p. 1337]unpleasant answer, the Carthaginian ambassadors were called. [11] On observing their ages and dignified appearance, for they were by far the first men of the state, all promptly declared their conviction, that now they were sincere in their desire to effect a peace. Hasdrubal, however, surnamed by his countrymen Haedus, who had invariably recommended peace, and was opposed to the Barcine faction, was regarded with greater interest than the rest. [12] On these accounts the greater weight was attached to him when transferring the blame of the war from the state at large to the cupidity of a few. [13] After a speech of varied character, in which he sometimes refuted the charges which had been brought, at other times admitted some, lest by impudently denying what was manifestly true their forgiveness might be the more difficult; [14] and then, even admonishing the conscript fathers to be guided by the rules of decorum and moderation in their prosperity, he said, that if the Carthaginians had listened to himself and Hanno, and had been disposed to make a proper use of circumstances, they would themselves have dictated terms of peace, instead of begging it as they now did. [15] That it rarely happened that good fortune and a sound judgment were bestowed upon men at the same time. [16] That the Roman people were therefore invincible, because when successful they forgot not the maxims of wisdom and prudence; and indeed it would have been matter of astonishment did they act otherwise. That those persons to whom success was a new and uncommon thing, proceeded to a pitch of madness in their ungoverned transports in consequence of their not being accustomed to it. [17] That to the Roman people the joy arising from victory was a matter of common occurrence, and was now almost become old-fashioned. That they had extended their empire more by sparing the vanquished than by conquering. The language employed by the others was of a nature more calculated to excite compassion; they represented from what a height of power the Carthaginian affairs had fallen. [18] That nothing, besides the walls of Carthage, remained to those who a little time ago held almost the whole world in subjection by their arms; that, shut up within these, they could see nothing any where on sea or land which owned their authority. [19] That they would retain possession of their city itself and their household gods only, in case the Roman people should refrain [p. 1338]from venting their indignation upon these, which is all that remains for them to do. [20] When it was manifest that the fathers were moved by compassion, it is said that one of the senators, violently incensed at the perfidy of the Carthaginians, immediately asked with a loud voice, by what gods they would swear in striking the league, since they had broken their faith with those by whom they swore in striking the former one? [21] By those same, replied Hasdrubal, who have shown such determined hostility to the violators of treaties.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

load focus Notes (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1884)
load focus Summary (English, Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University, 1949)
load focus Summary (Latin, W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1884)
load focus Summary (Latin, Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University, 1949)
load focus English (Rev. Canon Roberts, 1912)
load focus Latin (W. Weissenborn, H. J. Müller, 1884)
load focus Latin (Robert Seymour Conway, Stephen Keymer Johnson, 1935)
load focus English (Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University, 1949)
load focus Latin (Frank Gardener Moore, Professor Emeritus in Columbia University, 1949)
hide References (47 total)
  • Commentary references to this page (19):
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 31.1
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 31.11
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 31.3
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 31.31
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 31.35
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 31-32, commentary, 32.5
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 33-34, commentary, 33.34
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 33-34, commentary, 33.45
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 33-34, commentary, 33.45
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 35.14
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 35.19
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 36.2
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 37.20
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 37.45
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 35-38, commentary, 37.45
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 41-42, commentary, 42.36
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 41-42, commentary, 42.49
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, books 43-44, commentary, 44.45
    • Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn, book 45, commentary, 45.13
  • Cross-references to this page (17):
  • Cross-references in general dictionaries to this page (11):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: