- 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-grc2:3.29.1-3.29.10
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-11
This chapter presents the Roman arguments concerning the responsibility for the Hannibalic War. The Romans argue that the agreement with Hasdrubal was valid on his own authority, and that the treaty concerning Sicily was meant to guarantee safety for both present and future allies of both parties.
τὰ μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ Καρχηδονίων τότε ῥηθέντα δεδηλώκαμεν, τὰ δʼ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων λεγόμενα νῦν ἐροῦμεν· οἷς1 τότε μὲν οὐκ ἐχρήσαντο διὰ τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ Ζακανθαίων ἀπωλείᾳ θυμόν· λέγεται δὲ πολλάκις καὶ ὑπὸ πολλῶν παρʼ αὐτοῖς.
Therefore, we have already set forth what was said on that occasion by the Carthaginians, and we shall now state what is alleged by the Romans. Although they did not make use of these arguments at the time because of their anger at the destruction of Saguntum, they are frequently repeated by many among them.
πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὰς πρὸς Ἀσδρούβαν γενομένας ὁμολογίας οὐκ ἀθετητέον,2 καθάπερ οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι λέγειν ἐθάρρουν· οὐ γὰρ προσέκειτο, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Λυτατίου, ‘κυρίας εἶναι ταύτας, ἐὰν καὶ τῷ δήμῳ δόξῃ τῶν ‘Ῥωμαίων·’ ἀλλʼ αὐτοτελῶς ἐποιήσατο τὰς ὁμολογίας Ἀσδρούβας, ἐν αἷς ἦν, ‘τὸν Ἴβηρα ποταμὸν μὴ δια" 1βαίνειν ἐπὶ πολέμῳ Καρχηδονίους.’ καὶ μὴν ἐν ταῖς περὶ Σικελίαν συνθήκαις ἦν ἔγγραπτον, καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοί φασιν, ‘ὑπάρχειν τοῖς ἀμφοτέρων συμ‘μάχοις τὴν παρʼ ἑκατέρων ἀσφάλειαν,’ οὐκ αὐτοῖς μόνον τοῖς τότε συμμαχοῦσι, καθάπερ ἐποιοῦντο τὴν ἐκδοχὴν οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι·
First, that the agreement made with Hasdrubal must not be set aside, as the Carthaginians ventured to assert; for there was no clause added, as in the case of Lutatius, to the effect that “this treaty shall be valid only if it be also approved by the Roman people”; but Hasdrubal made the agreement on his own absolute authority, in which it was written, “the Carthaginians shall not cro ss the river Iber in war.” Moreover, in the treaty concerning Sicily, as they themselves also say, it was written that “the allies of both parties shall be secure from attack by either side,” not referring only to those who were allies at that time, as the Carthaginians interpreted it.
προσέκειτο γὰρ ἂν3 ἤτοι τὸ μὴ προσλαμβάνειν ἑτέρους συμμάχους παρὰ τοὺς ὑπάρχοντας ἢ τὸ μὴ παραλαμβάνεσθαι τοὺς ὕστερον προσληφθέντας τούτων τῶν συνθηκῶν.
For in that case, there would have been added either a clause stating that they should not acquire other allies in addition to those already existing, or that those subsequently acquired should be excluded from the protection of this treaty.
ὅτε δὲ τούτων οὐδέτερον ἐγράφη, προφανὲς ἦν ὅτι πᾶσι τοῖς ἑκατέρων συμμάχοις, καὶ τοῖς οὖσι τότε καὶ τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα προσληφθησομένοις, τὴν παρʼ ἀμφοῖν ἀσφάλειαν ἀεὶ δέον ἦν ὑπάρχειν.
But since neither of these was written, it was manifest that safety from both parties must always be guaranteed to all the allies of each, both those existing at the time and those to be acquired subsequently.
ὃ δὴ καὶ πάντως ἂν εἰκὸς εἶναι δόξειεν. οὐ γὰρ δήπου τοιαύτας ἔμελλον ποιήσεσθαι συνθήκας διʼ ὧν ἀφελοῦνται τὴν ἐξουσίαν σφῶν αὐτῶν τοῦ προσλαμβάνειν κατὰ καιρούς, ἄν τινες ἐπιτήδειοι φανῶσιν αὐτοῖς φίλοι καὶ σύμμαχοι, οὐδὲ μὴν προσλαβόντες εἰς τὴν σφετέραν πίστιν περιόψεσθαι τούτους ὑπό τινων ἀδικουμένους·
And this indeed would seem to be entirely reasonable. For they were surely not going to make a treaty by which they would deprive themselves of the power of acquiring allies from time to time, should any suitable persons appear as friends and allies to them; nor, having received them under their protection, would they look on and allow them to be wronged by any.
ἀλλʼ ἦν ἀμφοτέρων τὸ συνέχον τῆς ἐννοίας4 τῆς ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις τῶν μὲν ὑπαρχόντων ἀμφοτέροις τότε συμμάχων ἀφέξεσθαι καὶ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον τοὺς ἑτέρους παρὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐπιδέξεσθαί τινας τούτων εἰς συμμαχίαν, περὶ δὲ τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα προσληφθησομένων αὐτὸ τοῦτο, μήτε ξενολογεῖν μήτʼ ἐπιτάττειν μηδετέρους μηδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἀλλήλων ἐπαρχίαις καὶ συμμαχίαις, ὑπάρχειν τε τὴν ἀσφάλειαν πᾶσι τὴν παρʼ ἀμφοῖν.
Rather, the essential point of the intention of both parties in the treaty was that they should abstain from interfering with those who were then allies of either, and that neither side should on any account receive any of these into alliance from the other; and regarding those to be acquired subsequently, this very rule: that neither party should enlist mercenaries or exercise authority in the other’s provinces and alliances, and that security from both should be guaranteed to all.
- 3.29.1οἷς
Dative neuter plural of the relative pronoun, referring back to τὰ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων λεγόμενα (what is alleged by the Romans) in the preceding clause, serving as the object of the verb ἐχρήσαντο (from χράομαι, "to use").
- 3.29.2οὐκ ἀθετητέον
An impersonal construction using the neuter of the verbal adjective ἀθετητέος (to be set aside). The accusative phrase τὰς πρὸς Ἀσδρούβαν γενομένας ὁμολογίας functions as its semantic subject (or object in the impersonal expression), conveying the indirect statement "that one must not set aside the agreement made with Hasdrubal."
- 3.29.5προσέκειτο γὰρ ἂν
An apodosis of a past contrary-to-fact condition, using the imperfect indicative with the particle ἄν. It expresses what "would have been added" if the Carthaginian interpretation (restricting the treaty only to allies at that time) had been correct.
- 3.29.9τὸ συνέχον τῆς ἐννοίας
τὸ συνέχον (the essential point, core) is the neuter singular present participle used substantively. τῆς ἐννοίας (of the intention) is the genitive depending on it. The phrase acts as the subject, with the following infinitives (ἀφέξεσθαι, ἐπιδέξεσθαι) explaining its concrete content.