- Source
- Polybius. Vols. 1-4. Büttner-Wobst, Theodor, editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:3.21.1-3.21.10
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
The Carthaginians justify their attack on Saguntum by citing past treaties, while the Romans refuse to debate and demand the surrender of the culprits. The author emphasizes the necessity of examining the historical treaty rights between the two powers.
δικαιολογεῖσθαι.1 τὰς μὲν οὖν πρὸς Ἀσδρούβαν ὁμολογίας παρεσιώπων, ὡς οὔτε γεγενημένας,2 εἴ τε γεγόνασιν, οὐδὲν οὔσας πρὸς αὑτοὺς διὰ τὸ χωρὶς τῆς σφετέρας πεπρᾶχθαι γνώμης.
to plead their cause. They accordingly passed over in silence the agreement with Hasdrubal, as if it had never been made, or, if it had been made, was nothing to them because it had been concluded without their consent.
ἐχρῶντο δʼ ἐξ αὐτῶν Ῥωμαίων εἰς τοῦτο παραδείγματι. τὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ Λυτατίου γενομένας συνθήκας ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷ περὶ Σικελίας, ταύτας ἔφασαν ἤδη συνωμολογημένας ὑπὸ Λυτατίου μετὰ ταῦτα τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀκύρους ποιῆσαι3 διὰ τὸ χωρὶς τῆς αὑτοῦ γενέσθαι γνώμης.
And they used an example from the Romans themselves for this. For they asserted that as for the treaty made under Lutatius in the war for Sicily, although it had already been agreed to by Lutatius, the Roman people afterwards made it void because it had been concluded without their consent.
ἐπίεζον δὲ καὶ προσαπηρείδοντο παρʼ ὅλην τὴν δικαιολογίαν ἐπὶ τὰς τελευταίας συνθήκας τὰς γενομένας ἐν τῷ περὶ Σικελίας πολέμῳ.
And throughout the whole of their defense, they laid stress on and relied upon the last treaty made in the war for Sicily.
ἐν αἷς περὶ μὲν Ἰβηρίας οὐκ ἔφασαν ὑπάρχειν ἔγγραφον οὐδέν, περὶ δὲ τοῦ τοῖς ἑκατέρων συμμάχοις τὴν παρʼ ἀμφοῖν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι ῥητῶς κατατετάχθαι.
In which they asserted there was no written mention concerning Iberia, but that it was expressly set down that safety should be guaranteed by both to the allies of each.
Ζακανθαίους δὲ παρεδείκνυον οὐκ ὄντας τότε Ῥωμαίων συμμάχους καὶ παρανεγίνωσκον πρὸς τοῦτο πλεονάκις τὰς συνθήκας.
And they pointed out that the Saguntines were not at that time allies of the Romans, and to prove this they repeatedly read out the treaty.
Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ τοῦ μὲν δικαιολογεῖσθαι καθάπαξ ἀπεγίνωσκον, φάσκοντες ἀκεραίου μὲν ἔτι διαμενούσης τῆς τῶν Ζακανθαίων πόλεως ἐπιδέχεσθαι τὰ πράγματα δικαιολογίαν καὶ δυνατὸν εἶναι λόγῳ περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων διεξάγειν·
But the Romans refused to enter into any defense at all, asserting that while the city of Saguntum remained still untouched, the matter admitted of a defense and it was possible to settle the disputed points by discussion;
ταύτης δὲ παρεσπονδημένης ἢ τοὺς αἰτίους ἐκδοτέον εἶναι σφίσι, διʼ οὗ φανερὸν ἔσται πᾶσιν ὡς οὐ μετεσχήκασι τῆς ἀδικίας, ἀλλʼ ἄνευ τῆς αὑτῶν γνώμης πεπρᾶχθαι τοῦτο τοὔργον, ἢ μὴ βουλομένους τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ὁμολογοῦντας δὲ κοινωνεῖν τῆς ἀδικίας καὶ συναναδέχεσθαι τὸν πόλεμον. οἱ μὲν οὖν καθολικώτερόν πως ἐχρήσαντο τοῖς λόγοις.
but since it had been treacherously destroyed, either the authors of the wrong must be surrendered to them, whereby it would be manifest to all that they had no share in the injustice, but that this deed had been done without their consent, or if they were unwilling to do this, they must confess that they shared in the injustice and must accept the war. These, then, were the arguments they used of a more general nature.
ἡμῖν δʼ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ μὴ παραλιπεῖν ἄσκεπτον τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, ἵνα μήθʼ οἷς καθήκει καὶ διαφέρει τὸ σαφῶς εἰδέναι τὴν ἐν τούτοις ἀκρίβειαν, παραπαίωσι τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαιοτάτοις διαβουλίοις, μήθʼ οἱ φιλομαθοῦντες περὶ τούτων ἀστοχῶσι, συμπλανώμενοι ταῖς ἀγνοίαις καὶ φιλοτιμίαις τῶν συγγραφέων, ἀλλʼ ᾖ τις ὁμολογουμένη θεωρία τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὑπαρξάντων δικαίων Ῥωμαίοις καὶ Καρχηδονίοις πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἕως εἰς τοὺς καθʼ ἡμᾶς καιρούς.
But to me it seems necessary not to leave this part unexamined, so that neither those whose duty it is and whom it concerns to know the exact truth of these matters may err from the truth in their most critical deliberations, nor those who are eager for knowledge on these subjects may go astray, being misled by the ignorance and partisan spirit of historians, but that there may be an agreed-upon view of the rights existing between the Romans and Carthaginians from the beginning down to our own times.
- 3.21.1δικαιολογεῖσθαι
A complementary infinitive depending on the main verb ἤρξαντο ("began") at the end of the previous chunk (§3.20.10). It is placed at the beginning of this chunk to maintain contextual continuity.
- 3.21.1ὡς οὔτε γεγενημένας
A participle clause with the particle ὡς, expressing the subjective reason or allegation of the Carthaginians for the main verb παρεσιώπων ("passed over in silence"). It contrasts οὔτε γεγενημένας ("as not having occurred") with εἴ τε γεγόνασιν, οὐδὲν οὔσας ("or if they had, as being of no account").
- 3.21.2τὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ Λυτατίου... ποιῆσαι
A long accusative with infinitive structure depending on the verb ἔφασαν ("they said"). The subject accusative is τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ῥωμαίων ("the Roman people"), and the infinitive is ποιῆσαι ("made [void]"). The opening phrase τὰς ἐπὶ Λυτατίου γενομένας συνθήκας is resumed and anticipated by the demonstrative pronoun ταύτας, acting as the direct object of ποιῆσαι.