§3.26.1τούτων δὴ τοιούτων ὑπαρχόντων, καὶ τηρουμένων τῶν συνθηκῶν ἔτι νῦν ἐν χαλκώμασι παρὰ τὸν Δία τὸν Καπετώλιον ἐν τῷ τῶν ἀγορανόμων ταμιείῳ, §3.26.2τίς οὐκ ἂν εἰκότως θαυμάσειεν Φιλίνου τοῦ συγγραφέως, οὐ διότι ταῦτʼ ἠγνόει — τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ οὐ θαυμαστόν, ἐπεὶ καθʼ ἡμᾶς ἔτι καὶ Ῥωμαίων καὶ Καρχηδονίων οἱ πρεσβύτατοι καὶ μάλιστα δοκοῦντες περὶ τὰ κοινὰ σπουδάζειν ἠγνόουν — §3.26.3ἀλλὰ πόθεν ἢ πῶς ἐθάρρησε γράψαι τἀναντία τούτοις, διότι Ῥωμαίοις καὶ Καρχηδονίοις ὑπάρχοιεν συνθῆκαι, καθʼ ἃς ἔδει Ῥωμαίους μὲν ἀπέχεσθαι Σικελίας ἁπάσης, §3.26.4Καρχηδονίους δʼ Ἰταλίας, καὶ διότι ὑπερέβαινον Ῥωμαῖοι τὰς συνθήκας καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους, ἐπεὶ ἐποιήσαντο τὴν πρώτην εἰς Σικελίαν διάβασιν, μήτε γεγονότος μήθʼ ὑπάρχοντος παράπαν ἐγγράφου τοιούτου μηδενός.
Such being the case, and the treaties being preserved even to this day on bronze tablets in the treasury of the aediles next to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, who would not reasonably wonder at the historian Philinus, not because he was ignorant of these facts—for this indeed is not surprising, since even in our own time the oldest of both the Romans and Carthaginians, and those who seem to take the greatest interest in public affairs, were ignorant of them— but for what reason or how he had the audacity to write the very opposite to these, namely, that there existed treaties between the Romans and Carthaginians, according to which it was necessary for the Romans to keep away from the whole of Sicily, and the Carthaginians from Italy, and that the Romans violated the treaties and their oaths when they made their first crossing into Sicily, although no such written document ever existed or was in force at all.
§3.26.5ταῦτα γὰρ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ λέγει βύβλῳ διαρρήδην.
For he states these things explicitly in his second book.
περὶ ὧν ἡμεῖς ἐν τῇ παρασκευῇ τῆς ἰδίας πραγματείας μνησθέντες εἰς τοῦτον ὑπερεθέμεθα τὸν καιρὸν κατὰ μέρος περὶ αὐτῶν ἐξεργάσασθαι διὰ τὸ καὶ πλείους διεψεῦσθαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τούτοις, πιστεύσαντας τῇ Φιλίνου γραφῇ.
Having mentioned these matters in the preparation of our own work, we postponed to this occasion the detailed treatment of them, because many people have been deceived about the truth in these matters through trusting in the writing of Philinus.
§3.26.6οὐ μὴν ἀλλʼ εἰ κατὰ τοῦτό τις ἐπιλαμβάνεται Ῥωμαίων περὶ τῆς εἰς Σικελίαν διαβάσεως, ὅτι καθόλου Μαμερτίνους προσέλαβον εἰς τὴν φιλίαν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα δεομένοις ἐβοήθησαν, οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὴν Μεσσηνίων πόλιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Ῥηγίνων παρεσπόνδησαν, εἰκότως ἂν δόξειεν δυσαρεστεῖν.
Nevertheless, if anyone censures the Romans concerning their crossing into Sicily on this ground, that they admitted the Mamertines into their friendship at all and afterwards aided them when they requested it—who had betrayed not only the city of Messene but also that of Rhegium—he might reasonably seem to be justified in his disapproval.
§3.26.7εἰ δὲ παρὰ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τὰς συνθήκας ὑπολαμβάνει τις αὐτοὺς πεποιῆσθαι τὴν διάβασιν, ἀγνοεῖ προφανῶς.
But if anyone supposes that they made the crossing in violation of their oaths and treaties, he is manifestly ignorant.