§12.10.1πρῶτον δὴ διαπορήσαι τις ἂν πρὸς τίνας τῶν Λοκρῶν παραγενόμενος ἐπυνθάνετο περὶ τούτων.
First of all, one might indeed wonder to which of the Locrians he went to make inquiries about these matters.
εἰ μὲν γὰρ συνέβαινε, §12.10.2καθάπερ τοὺς ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκρούς, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα μίαν πόλιν ἔχειν, τάχʼ ἂν οὐκ ἔδει διαπορεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἦν ἂν εὐθεώρητον· §12.10.3ἐπεὶ δὲ δύʼ ἔθνη Λοκρῶν ἐστι, πρὸς ποτέρους ἦλθε καὶ πρὸς ποίας πόλεις τῶν ἑτέρων, καὶ παρὰ τίσιν εὗρε τὰς συνθήκας ἀναγεγραμμένας;
For if it were the case that, just like the Locrians in Italy, those in Greece also had only one city, perhaps there would have been no need to raise the question, but it would have been easy to perceive; but since there are two nations of Locrians, to which of the two did he go, and to which cities of the other, and among whom did he find the covenants inscribed?
οὐδὲν γὰρ ἡμῖν διασαφεῖται τούτων.
For none of these things is made clear to us.
§12.10.4καίτοι διότι τοῦτʼ ἴδιόν ἐστι Τιμαίου καὶ ταύτῃ παρημίλληται τοὺς ἄλλους συγγραφέας καὶ καθόλου τῇδέ πῃ τῆς ἀποδοχῆς — λέγω δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις καὶ ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἐπίφασιν τῆς ἀκριβείας καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἐπιμέλειαν — δοκῶ, πάντες γινώσκομεν.
And yet, that this is peculiar to Timaeus, and that in this he has rivalled the other historians, and in general on this account has won approval — I mean in respect of his appearance of accuracy in chronology and public records, and his diligence in this department — we all, I think, know.
§12.10.5διὸ καὶ θαυμάζειν ἐστὶν ἄξιον πῶς οὔτε τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὄνομα, παρʼ οἷς εὗρεν, οὔτε τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾧ συμβαίνει τὴν συνθήκην ἀναγεγράφθαι, διεσάφησεν ἡμῖν, οὔτε τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς δείξαντας αὐτῷ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν καὶ πρὸς οὓς ἐποιεῖτο τὸν λόγον, ἵνα μηδενὶ διαπορεῖν ἐξῇ μηδέν, ἀλλʼ ὡρισμένου τοῦ τόπου καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἐνῇ τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν εὑρεῖν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν.
Therefore, it is also worthy of wonder how he clarified for us neither the name of the city among whom he found it, nor the place in which the treaty happens to have been inscribed, nor the magistrates who showed him the record and with whom he held conversation, so that it might be possible for no one to doubt anything, but, the place and the city being defined, it might be possible for those who dispute his statements to find out the exact truth.
§12.10.6ὁ δὲ πάντα ταῦτα παραλελοιπὼς δῆλός ἐστι συνειδὼς αὑτῷ κατὰ πρόθεσιν ἐψευσμένῳ.
But he, having omitted all these things, is clearly conscious of having lied deliberately.
διότι γὰρ τῶν τοιούτων ἐπιλαβόμενος οὐδὲν ἂν παρέλειπε Τίμαιος, ἀλλʼ ἀπρίξ, τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, ἀμφοῖν τοῖν χεροῖν ἐπέφυ, προφανὲς ἐκ τούτων.
For that Timaeus, if he had laid hold of such evidence, would have omitted nothing, but would have clung to it tooth and nail, as the saying goes, with both his hands, is manifest from what follows.
§12.10.7ὁ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν Ἐχεκράτους πίστιν ἀπερεισάμενος ἐπʼ ὀνόματος, πρὸς ὅν φησι περὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκρῶν ποιήσασθαι τοὺς λόγους καὶ παρʼ οὗ πυθέσθαι περὶ τούτων, §12.10.8καὶ προσεξειργασμένος, ἵνα μὴ φανῇ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀκηκοὼς ὅτι συνέβαινε τὸν τούτου πατέρα πρεσβείας κατηξιῶσθαι πρότερον ὑπὸ Διονυσίου, §12.10.9ἦ πού γʼ ἂν οὗτος δημοσίας ἀναγραφῆς ἐπιλαβόμενος ἢ παραδοσίμου στήλης
For he who relied by name on the credibility of Echecrates, with whom he says he held conversations about the Locrians in Italy and from whom he made inquiries about these matters, and who went on to elaborate, so that he might not seem to have heard from some random person, that this man's father happened to have been deemed worthy of an embassy previously by Dionysius, surely such a man, if he had laid hold of a public record or a traditional stele...