§3.9.1τίνος δὴ χάριν ἐμνήσθην Φαβίου καὶ τῶν ὑπʼ ἐκείνου γεγραμμένων;
For what reason, then, did I mention Fabius and what was written by him?
§3.9.2οὐχ ἕνεκα τῆς πιθανότητος τῶν εἰρημένων, ἀγωνιῶν μὴ πιστευθῇ παρά τισιν — ἡ μὲν γὰρ [παρὰ] τούτων ἀλογία καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἐμῆς ἐξηγήσεως αὐτὴ διʼ αὑτῆς δύναται θεωρεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν — §3.9.3ἀλλὰ τῆς τῶν ἀναλαμβανόντων τὰς ἐκείνου βύβλους ὑπομνήσεως, ἵνα μὴ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰ πράγματα βλέπωσιν.
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— 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.
§3.9.4ἔνιοι γὰρ οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ λεγόμενα συνεπιστήσαντες ἀλλʼ ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὸν λέγοντα 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.
§3.9.5ἐγὼ δὲ φημὶ μὲν δεῖν οὐκ ἐν μικρῷ προσλαμβάνεσθαι τὴν τοῦ συγγραφέως πίστιν, οὐκ αὐτοτελῆ δὲ κρίνειν, 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.
§3.9.6οὐ 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.
§3.9.7ἐκεῖνος γὰρ οὐχ ἡττηθεὶς τῷ περὶ Σικελίας πολέμῳ τῇ ψυχῇ τῷ δοκεῖν αὐτὸς μὲν ἀκέραια διατετηρηκέναι 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.
§3.9.8εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ τὸ περὶ τοὺς ξένους ἐγένετο κίνημα τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις, εὐθέως ἂν ἄλλην ἀρχὴν ἐποιεῖτο καὶ παρασκευὴν πραγμάτων, ὅσον ἐπʼ ἐκείνῳ.
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.
§3.9.9προκαταληφθεὶς δὲ ταῖς ἐμφυλίοις ταραχαῖς ἐν τούτοις
But being anticipated by the domestic disturbances, in these