Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita, Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor), 33.40

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Section

← Previous Next →

[1] To this Antiochus replied that he was surprised that the Romans were making such diligent inquiry into what King Antiochus should do or how far he should advance by land or sea,

[2] and that they did not see that Asia was no concern of theirs, and¹ that they had no more right to ask what Antiochus was doing in Asia than Antiochus had to ask what the Roman people was doing in Italy.

[3] So far as Ptolemy was concerned, the loss of whose cities was a subject of complaint, he already had a treaty of friendship with Ptolemy and was taking steps which would soon lead to a tie of relationship as well.²

[4] He had not even taken advantage of Philip's ill fortune to seize and plunder, nor had he entered Europe to threaten the Romans; but all the country which had once been the kingdom of Lysimachus,³ and which, on his defeat, had passed with his other possessions into the hands of Seleucus by right of conquest, he considered his own.

[5] While his forefathers were busy with the disposition of other matters, possession of some of these towns had been seized, first by Ptolemy,⁴ then by Philip,⁵ usurping the property-rights of others.⁶

[6] Who could doubt that Lysimachus had been lord of the Chersonesus and the neighbouring parts of Thrace which are around Lysimachia? He himself had come only to recover his ancient possessions and to found anew Lysimachia, destroyed by the attack of the Thracians, that his son⁷ Seleucus might make it the capital of his kingdom.

Ab urbe condita. Titus Livius (Livy). Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor). Medford, MA. .

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

History of Rome (English) (Foster, Benjamin Oliver; Moore, Frank Gardener; Sage, Evan T.; Schlesinger, Alfred C., translators. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, Ltd., 1919-1959. (Loeb Classical Library))

Editions (3)

Ab urbe condita Perseus (Pars I-IV, Libri I-XL. Editio Stereotypica. Weissenborn, Wilhelm; Mueller, Moritz, editors. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-1911.) — 33.40 focus

[1] adversus ea Antiochus mirari se dixit Romanos tam diligenter inquirere, quid regi Antiocho faciundum aut quousque terra marique progrediundum fuerit,

[2] ipsos non cogitare Asiam nihil ad se pertinere, nec magis illis inquirendum esse, quid Antiochus in Asia, quam Antiocho, quid in Italia populus Romanus faciat.

[3] quod ad Ptolomaeum attineat, cui ademptas civitates querantur, sibi cum Ptolomaeo et amicitiam esse, et id agere, ut brevi etiam adfinitas iungatur.

[4] ne ex Philippi quidem adversa fortune fortuna spolia ulla se petisse aut adversus Romanos in 1Europam Europam traiecisse; sed qua Lysimachi quondam regnum fuerit, quo victo omnia, quae illius fuissent, iure belli Seleuci facta sint, existimare suae dicionis esse.

[5] occupatis maioribus suis rerum aliarum cura primo quaedam ex iis Ptolomaeum, inde et Philippum usurpanda aliena possessionis causa tenuisse.

[6] Chersonesus quidem et proxima Thraciae, quae circa Lysimachiam sint, quem dubitare, quin Lysimachi fuerint? ad ea recipienda in antiquum ius venisse et Lysimachiam deletam Thracum impetu de integro condere, ut Seleucus filius ear eam sedem regni habeat.

Ab urbe condita Perseus (Livy in Fourteen Volumes. Foster, Benjamin Oliver; Moore, Frank Gardener; Schlesinger, Alfred C., editors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1919-1959 (printing).) — 30.40 focus

[1]

legati ex Africa Romani simul Carthaginiensesque cum venissent Romam, senatus ad aedem Bellonae habitus est.

[2] ubi¹ cum L. Veturius Philo pugnatum cum Hannibale esse suprema Carthaginiensibus pugna finemque tandem lugubri bello inpositum ² ingenti laetitia patrum exposuisset,

[3] adiecit Verminam etiam Syphacis filium, quae parva bene gestae rei accessio erat, devictum. In contionem inde ³ prodire iussus gaudiumque id populo inpertire.

[4] tum patefacta ⁴ gratulationi ⁵ omnia in urbe templa supplicationesque in triduum decretae. legatis Carthaginiensium et Philippi regis nam hi ⁶ quoque venerant—petentibus ut senatus sibi daretur responsum iussu patrum ab dictatore est consules novos iis senatum daturos esse.

comitia inde habita.

[5] creati consules Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, P. Aelius Paetus; praetores M. Iunius Pennus, cui sors urbana evenit, M. Valerius Falto Bruttios, M. Fabius Buteo Sardiniam, P. Aelius Tubero Siciliam est sortitus.

[6] De provinciis consulum nihil ante placebat agi quam legati Philippi regis et Carthaginiensium auditi essent; belli finem alterius, alterius principium prospiciebant animis.

[7] Cn . Lentulus consul cupiditate flagrabat provinciae Africae, seu bellum foret, facilem ⁷ victoriam, ⁸ seu iam finiretur, finiti tanti belli se ⁹ consule gloriam petens.

[8] negare itaque prius quicquam agi passurum quam sibi provincia ¹⁰ Africa decreta esset, concedente conlega, moderato viro et prudenti, qui gloriae eius ¹¹ certamen cum Scipione, praeterquam quod iniquum esset, etiam inpar futurum cernebat.

[9] Q. Minucius Thermus et M'. Acilius Glabrio tribuni plebis rem priore anno ¹² nequiquam temptatam ab Ti. Claudio consule Cn. Cornelium temptare aiebant;

[10] ex auctoritate patrum latum ad populum esse cuius vellent imperium in Africa esse; omnes quinque et triginta tribus P. Scipioni id imperium decrevisse. ¹³

[11] multis contentionibus et in senatu et ad populum acta res postremo eo deducta est ut senatui permitterent.

[12] patres igitur iurati—ita enim convenerat—censuerunt uti consules provincias inter se conpararent sortirenturve uter Italiam, uter classem navium quinquaginta haberet; cui classis obvenisset in Siciliam navigaret;

[13] si pax cum Carthaginiensibus componi nequisset, in Africam traiceret; consul mari, Scipio eodem quo adhuc iure imperii terra rem gereret;

[14] si condiciones convenirent pacis, tribuni plebis populum rogarent utrum consulem an P. Scipionem iuberent pacem dare, et quem, si deportandus exercitus victor ex Africa esset, deportare;

[15] si pacem per P. Scipionem dari atque ab eodem exercitum deportari iussissent, ne consul ex Sicilia in Africam traiceret.

[16] alter consul, cui Italia evenisset, duas legiones a M. Sextio ¹⁴ praetore acciperet.

Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn Perseus (Weissenborn, W.; Müller, H. J., editors. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1873-1883.) — 33.40 focus

[1]

adversus ea Antiochus mirari se dixit Romanos tam diligenter inquirere, quid regi Antiocho faciundum aut quousque terra marique progrediundum fuerit,

[2] ipsos non cogitare Asiam nihil ad se pertinere, nec magis illis inquirendum esse, quid Antiochus in Asia, quam Antiocho, quid in Italia populus Romanus faciat.

[3] quod ad Ptolomaeum attineat, cui ademptas civitates querantur, sibi cum Ptolomaeo et amicitiam esse, et id agere, ut brevi etiam adfinitas iungatur.

[4] ne ex Philippi quidem adversa fortuna spolia ulla se petisse aut adversus Romanos in Europam traiecisse; sed qua Lysimachi quondam regnum fuerit, quo victo omnia, quae illius fuissent, iure belli Seleuci facta sint, existimare suae dicionis esse.

[5] occupatis maioribus suis rerum aliarum cura primo quaedam ex iis Ptolomaeum, inde et Philippum usurpanda aliena possessionis causa tenuisse.

[6] Chersonesus quidem et proxima Thraciae, quae ¹ circa Lysimachiam sint, quem dubitare, quin Lysimachi fuerint? ad ea recipienda in antiquum ius venisse et Lysimachiam deletam Thracum impetu de integro condere, ut Seleucus filius eam sedem regni habeat.

Translations (2)

History of Rome Perseus (Spillan, D.; Edmonds, Cyrus; McDevitte, William A., translators. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849-1868. (Bohn's Classical Library)) — 33.40 focus

[1]

To this the king replied, that

he wondered how it was, that the Romans were in the habit of diligently inquiring what ought to be done by king Antiochus; but never considered how far they themselves ought to advance on land or sea.

[2]

Asia was no concernment of the Romans, in any shape; nor had they any more right to inquire what Antiochus did in Asia, than Antiochus had to inquire what the Roman people did in Italy.

[3]

With respect to Ptolemy, from whom they complained that cities had been taken, there was a friendly connexion subsisting between him and Ptolemy, and he was taking measures to effect speedily a connexion of affinity also;

[4]

neither had he sought to acquire any spoils from the misfortunes of Philip, nor had he come into Europe against the Romans, but to recover the cities and lands of the Chersonese, which, having been the property of Lysimachus, ¹ he considered as part of his own dominion; because, when Lysimachus was subdued, all things belonging to him became, by the right of conquest, the property of Seleucus.

[5]

That, at times, when his predecessors were occupied by cares of different kinds, Ptolemy first, and afterwards Philip, usurping the rights of others, possessed themselves of several of these places, but who could doubt that the Chersonese and the nearest parts of Thrace belonged to Lysimachus?

[6]

To restore these to their ancient state, was the intent of his coming, and to build Lysimachia anew, (it having been destroyed by an inroad of the Thracians,) in order that his son, Seleucus, might have it for the seat of his empire.

History of Rome Perseus (Volumes 1-2. Roberts, Canon, Rev, translator. London, New York: J. M. Dent and Sons; E. P. Dutton and Co., 1912.) — 33.40 focus

[1]

In his reply Antiochus expressed his surprise that the Romans should go so carefully into the question as to what Antiochus ought to do, whilst they never stopped to consider what limits were to be set to their own advance by land and sea.

[2] Asia was no concern of the senate, and they had no more right to ask what Antiochus was doing in Asia than he had to ask what the Roman people were doing in Italy.

[3] As for Ptolemy and their complaint that he had appropriated his cities, he and Ptolemy were on perfectly friendly terms and arrangements were being made for them to be connected by marriage shortly.

[4] He had not sought to take advantage of Philip's misfortunes nor had he come into Europe with any hostile intent against the Romans. After the defeat of Lysimachus all that belonged to him passed by the right of war to Seleucus, and therefore he counted it part of his dominion.

[5] Ptolemy, and after him Philip, alienated some of these places at a time when his (Antiochus') ancestors were devoting their care and attention to other matters. Could there be a shadow of doubt that the Chersonese and that part of Thrace which lies round Lysimachia once belonged to Lysimachus?

[6] To recover the ancient right over these was the object of his coming and also to rebuild from its foundations the city of Lysimachia, which had been destroyed by the Thracians, in order that his son Seleucus might have it as the seat of empire.

Notes on the current edition

Ab Urbe Condita With An English Translation, books 1-10, 21-45, with periochae 11-20

1. B.C. 196

2. In 193 B.C. (XXXV. xiii. 4) Ptolemy married the daughter of Antiochus: preliminary arrangements for this may have been under way at this time. It may be noted that just as Antiochus silenced the Rhodian ambassadors by quoting to them the complimentary speeches of Rome (see xx. 8 above), so he now silences the Romans by quoting to them a treaty of which they, apparently, knew nothing before and which weakened their case a good deal. Open covenants would have saved the free-speaking Romans a good deal of embarrassment in the east.

3. One of Alexander's generals, who had carved out a kingdom for himself in this region. He was defeated by Seleucus, founder of the Seleucid dynasty, to which Antiochus belonged, in 281 B.C. (XXXIV. lviii. 5; Justin XVII. 1).

4. See xxxviii. 1 above.

5. See XXXI. xvi. 4. Antiochus had apparently suffered along with Ptolemy from the depredations committed by Philip under the authority of the treaty which he had made with Antiochus to plunder the young Ptolemy (see the Introductory Note).

6. In XXXV. xvi. the argument turns on the Roman legal doctrine of possessio (the unchallenged occupancy of a piece of property for a specified period), which under certain conditions could confer a valid title. Antiochus means that Ptolemy and Philip had violently interrupted his own possessio and had thus robbed him of property which he was trying to recover. The propriety of attributing to Antiochus this much acquaintance with Roman law might be questioned.

7. B.C. 196

Titus Livius (Livy) Ab urbe condita 33.40

Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers