Hamilcar's Wrath as the First Cause of the War — Polybius, The Histories Book 3 (3.9.1–3.9.9), Greek & English

§3.9.1

τίνος δὴ χάριν ἐμνήσθην Φαβίου καὶ τῶν ὑπʼ ἐκείνου γεγραμμένων;

For what reason, then, did I mention Fabius and what was written by him?

§3.9.2

οὐχ ἕνεκα τῆς πιθανότητος τῶν εἰρημένων,¹ ἀγωνιῶν μὴ πιστευθῇ παρά τισιν — ἡ μὲν γὰρ [παρὰ] τούτων ἀλογία καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἐμῆς ἐξηγήσεως αὐτὴ διʼ αὑτῆς δύναται θεωρεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν —

Not because of the credibility of his statements, as if I were anxious lest they be believed by some—for the absurdity of these statements can be seen by the readers by itself, even without my explanation—

§3.9.3

ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν ἀναλαμβανόντων τὰς ἐκείνου βύβλους ὑπομνήσεως, ἵνα μὴ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰ πράγματα βλέπωσιν.

but for the purpose of reminding those who take up his books, so that they may look not at the title but at the facts.

§3.9.4

ἔνιοι γὰρ οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ λεγόμενα συνεπιστήσαντες ἀλλʼ ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὸν λέγοντα² καὶ λαβόντες ἐν νῷ διότι κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς ὁ γράφων γέγονε καὶ τοῦ συνεδρίου μετεῖχε τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πᾶν εὐθέως ἡγοῦνται τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τούτου πιστόν.

For some people, paying attention not to what is said but to the speaker himself, and keeping in mind that the writer lived at those times and was a member of the Roman senate, immediately think that everything said by him is trustworthy.

§3.9.5

ἐγὼ δὲ φημὶ μὲν δεῖν οὐκ ἐν μικρῷ προσλαμβάνεσθαι τὴν τοῦ συγγραφέως πίστιν, οὐκ αὐτοτελῆ δὲ κρίνειν,³ τὸ δὲ πλεῖον ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας τὰς δοκιμασίας.

But I say that while the credibility of the historian should not be held in low esteem, it should not be judged as self-sufficient, and that readers should make their tests for the most part from the facts themselves.

§3.9.6

οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ γε Ῥωμαίων καὶ Καρχηδονίων πολέμου — τὴν γὰρ παρέκβασιν ἐντεῦθεν ἐποιησάμεθα — νομιστέον πρῶτον μὲν αἴτιον γεγονέναι τὸν Ἀμίλκου θυμὸν τοῦ Βάρκα μὲν ἐπικαλουμένου, πατρὸς δὲ κατὰ φύσιν Ἀννίβου γεγονότος.

Be that as it may, concerning the war between the Romans and Carthaginians—for it was from this point that we made our digression—one must consider that the first cause was the anger of Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the natural father of Hannibal.

§3.9.7

ἐκεῖνος γὰρ οὐχ ἡττηθεὶς τῷ περὶ Σικελίας πολέμῳ τῇ ψυχῇ τῷ δοκεῖν αὐτὸς μὲν ἀκέραια διατετηρηκέναι⁴ τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἔρυκα στρατόπεδα ταῖς ὁρμαῖς ἐφʼ ὧν αὐτὸς ἦν, διὰ δὲ τὴν ἐν τῇ ναυμαχίᾳ τῶν Καρχηδονίων ἧτταν τοῖς καιροῖς εἴκων πεποιῆσθαι τὰς συνθήκας, ἔμενεν ἐπὶ τῆς ὀργῆς, τηρῶν ἀεὶ πρὸς ἐπίθεσιν.

For he, not defeated in spirit by the war over Sicily, because he considered that he himself had kept the forces around Eryx intact in the operations under his own command, but had made the treaty only by yielding to the circumstances because of the defeat of the Carthaginians in the naval battle, remained in his anger, always watching for an opportunity to attack.

§3.9.8

εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ τὸ περὶ τοὺς ξένους ἐγένετο κίνημα τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις, εὐθέως ἂν ἄλλην ἀρχὴν ἐποιεῖτο καὶ παρασκευὴν πραγμάτων, ὅσον ἐπʼ ἐκείνῳ.⁵

Therefore, if the uprising concerning the mercenaries had not occurred for the Carthaginians, he would immediately, as far as was in his power, have made another beginning and preparation for war.

§3.9.9

προκαταληφθεὶς δὲ ταῖς ἐμφυλίοις ταραχαῖς ἐν τούτοις

But being anticipated by the domestic disturbances, in these

Syntax notes5 items

3.9.2οὐχ ἕνεκα τῆς πιθανότητος τῶν εἰρημένων
This οὐχ ἕνεκα clause functions as a negative response to the question in §3.9.1. It is paired with the positive statement ἀλλὰ τῆς ... ὑπομνήσεως in §3.9.3 to clarify the author's purpose in mentioning Fabius.
3.9.4οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ λεγόμενα συνεπιστήσαντες ἀλλʼ ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὸν λέγοντα
The participle συνεπιστήσαντες (aorist active participle of συνεφίστημι, meaning 'to turn one's attention to') governs the preposition ἐπί with the accusative, contrasting the two targets of attention: 'what is said' versus 'the speaker himself'.
3.9.5οὐκ ἐν μικρῷ προσλαμβάνεσθαι τὴν τοῦ συγγραφέως πίστιν, οὐκ αὐτοτελῆ δὲ κρίνειν
Both infinitives, προσλαμβάνεσθαι and κρίνειν, depend on the impersonal verb δεῖν (embedded in the accusative-and-infinitive construction introduced by φημί). The idiom ἐν μικρῷ προσλαμβάνεσθαι means 'to take into account in no small degree' or 'not to value lightly.'
3.9.7τῷ δοκεῖν αὐτὸς μὲν ἀκέραια διατετηρηκέναι
The dative articular infinitive τῷ δοκεῖν indicates the cause of the preceding participle οὐχ ἡττηθείς. The subject/complement of the infinitive, αὐτός, is in the nominative because it refers back to the subject of the main clause (Hamilcar).
3.9.8ὅσον ἐπʼ ἐκείνῳ
An idiomatic restrictive expression meaning 'as far as lay in his power' or 'as far as he was concerned.'

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-25)urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:3.9.1-3.9.9