← Isocrates

Trapeziticus

§24-32

Contradictions in Pasion's Claim and Agyrrhius' Testimony

The speaker argues the logical contradictions in Pasion's defense, stating that if Pasion had already been released, they would not have instructed to hand the document to Satyrus upon failing to reconcile. To prove that Pasion originally sought to cancel the agreement before tampering with it, the speaker calls Agyrrhius as a witness.

View ▾
View
Translation
Typeface
AI ↗
← PrevNext →
§24

τὰ μὲν οὖν γεγενημένα, ὡς ἀκριβέστατα οἶός τʼ ἦν, ἅπανθʼ ὑμῖν εἴρηκα. ἡγοῦμαι δὲ Πασίωνʼ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐκ τοῦ διεφθαρμένου γραμματείου τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιήσεσθαι καὶ τούτοις ἰσχυριεῖσθαι μάλιστα. ὑμεῖς οὖν μοι τὸν νοῦν προσέχετε· οἶμαι γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν τούτων φανερὰν ὑμῖν ποιήσειν τὴν τούτου πονηρίαν.

​So then, I have told you everything that happened, as accurately as I was able. And I believe, gentlemen of the jury, that Pasion will make his defense based on the tampered document, and will rely on this most of all. Therefore, pay attention to me; for I think that from these very facts I shall make his wickedness clear to you.

§25

πρῶτον δʼ ἐκ τούτου σκοπεῖσθε. ὅτε γὰρ ἐδίδομεν τῷ ξένῳ τὴν συνθήκην, καθʼ ἣν οὗτος μὲν ἀφεῖσθαί φησι τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ἐγὼ δʼ ὡς ἔδει με παρὰ τούτου κομίσασθαι τὸ χρυσίον, ἐκελεύομεν τὸν ξένον, ἐὰν μὲν διαλλαγῶμεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, κατακαῦσαι τὸ γραμματεῖον, εἰ δὲ μή, Σατύρῳ ἀποδοῦναι· καὶ ταῦτα ῥηθῆναι ὑπʼ ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν ὁμολογεῖται.

​First, consider from this. For when we gave the agreement to the host—according to which he says he has been released from the charges, while I say I was to recover the gold from him—we instructed the host to burn the document if we reconciled with each other, but if not, to hand it over to Satyrus; and it is agreed by both of us that these things were said.

§26

καίτοι τί μαθόντες,1 ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, προσετάττομεν ἀποδοῦναι Σατύρω τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἂν μὴ διαλλαγῶμεν, εἴπερ ἀπηλλαγμένος ἤδη Πασίων ἦν ἐγκλημάτων καὶ τέλος εἶχεν ἡμῖν τὸ πρᾶγμα; ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι ταύτας τὰς συνθήκας ἐποιησάμεθʼ ὡς ὑπολοίπων ὄντων ἡμῖν ἔτι πραγμάτων, περί ὦν ἔδει τοῦτον πρὸς ἐμὲ κατὰ τὸ γραμματεῖον διαλύσασθαι.

​And yet, what was our idea, gentlemen of the jury, in instructing him to hand the document over to Satyrus if we did not reconcile, if indeed Pasion was already released from the charges and our business had come to an end? But it is clear that we made this agreement on the understanding that we still had unresolved matters, concerning which he had to settle with me in accordance with the document.

§27

ἔπειτʼ ἐγὼ μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί ἔχω τὰς αἰτίας εἰπεῖν διʼ ἃς οὗτος ὡμολόγησεν ἀποδώσειν τὸ χρυσίον· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς τε τῶν πρὸς Σάτυρον διαβολῶν ἀπηλλάγημεν καὶ τὸν Κιττον οὐχ οἶός τʼ ἐγένετʼ ἀφανίσαι, τὸν συνειδότα περὶ τῆς παρακαταθήκης, ἡγησάμενος,2 εἰ μὲν ἐκδοίη τὸν παῖδα βασανίσαι, φανερός γενήσεσθαι πανουργῶν, εἰ δὲ μὴ ποιήσειε ταῦτʼ, ὀφλήσειν τὴν δίκην, ἐβουλήθη πρὸς ἐμὲ ἀπαλλαγὴν ποιήσασθαι. τοῦτον δὲ κελεύσατʼ ἀποδεῖξαι, τι κερδαίνων ἤ τίνα κίνδυνον φοβηθεὶς ἀφῆκʼ αὐτὸν τῶν ἐγκλημάτων; ἐάν δὲ μηδὲν ἔχῃ τούτων ὑμῖν ἀποφαίνειν, πῶς οὐκ ἄν δικαίως ἐμοὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τούτῳ περὶ τοῦ γραμματείου πιστεύοιτε;

​Next, I for my part, gentlemen of the jury, can state the reasons why he agreed to return the gold; for when we were cleared of the slanders before Satyrus, and he was unable to make Kittus—who was aware of the deposit—disappear, thinking that if he should hand over the slave to be tortured, ​he would be exposed as acting wickedly, but if he should not do this, he would lose the lawsuit, and so he wished to make a settlement with me. But demand that he show what gain I stood to make, or what danger I feared, that I should have released him from the charges. And if he has nothing of this sort to show you, how would you not justly believe me rather than him concerning the document?

§29

καὶ μὲν δή, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, καὶ τόδε ῥᾴδιον πᾶσι γνῶναι, ὅτι ἐμοὶ μέν, ὃς ἐνεκάλουν, εἰ τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἐφοβούμην, ἐξῆν3 καὶ μηδεμίαν συνθήκην ποιησάμενον χαίρειν ἐᾶν τὸ πρᾶγμα· τούτῳ δὲ διά τε τὴν βάσανον καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας τοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν οὐχ οἶόν τʼ ἦν ὁπότε βούλοιτʼ ἀπηλλάχθαι τῶν κινδύνων, εἰ μὴ πείσειεν ἐμὲ τὸν ἐγκαλοῦντα. ὥστʼ οὐκ ἐμὲ περὶ τῆς ἀφέσεως ἀλλὰ τοῦτον περὶ τῆς ἀποδόσεως τῶν χρημάτων ἔδει τὰς συνθήκας ποιεῖσθαι. ἔτι δὲ κἀκεῖνʼ ὑπερφυές, εἰ πρὶν μὲν συγγράψασθαι τὸ γραμματεῖον οὕτω σφόδρʼ ἠπίστησα4 τοῖς πράγμασιν ὥστε μὴ μόνον ἀφεῖναι Πασίωνα τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἀλλὰ καὶ συνθήκας περὶ αὐτῶν ποιήσασθαι ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἔλεγχον κατʼ ἐμαυτοῦ συνεγραψάμην, τηνικαῦτʼ ἐπεθύμησʼ εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν. καίτοι τίς ἄν οὕτω περί τῶν αὑτοῦ πραγμάτων βουλεύσαιτο;

​Moreover, gentlemen of the jury, this too is easy for everyone to understand, namely, that for me, who was bringing the charge, if I was afraid of the tests, it was possible to let the matter drop without making any agreement; whereas for him, on account of both the torture and the trials before you, it was not possible to escape the dangers whenever he wished, unless he persuaded me, the accuser. So it was not I who needed to make the agreement for the release, but he who needed to make it for the return of the money. Furthermore, that too is extraordinary, ​if, before the document was drawn up, I had so little confidence in my case that I not only released Pasion from the charges but also made an agreement about them, but after I had drawn up such a proof against myself, at that very moment I desired to come before you. And yet, who would plan so about his own affairs?

§31

ὃ δὲ πάντων μέγιστον τεκμήριον ὡς οὐκ ἀφειμένος ἦν Πασίων ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις ἀλλʼ ὡμολογηκὼς ἀποδώσειν τὸ χρυσίον· ὅτε γὰρ Μενέξενος ἔλαχεν αὑτῷ τὴν δίκην, οὔπω διεφθαρμένου τοῦ γραμματείου, προσπέμπων Ἀγύρριον, ὄντʼ ἀμφοτέροις ἡμῖν ἐπιτήδειον, ἠξίου μʼ ἤ Μενέξενον ἀπαλλάττειν ἢ τὰς συνθήκας τὰς γεγενημένας πρὸς αὑτὸν ἀναιρεῖν.

​And this is the greatest proof of all that Pasion had not been released in the agreement, but had agreed to return the gold: for when Menexenus brought the suit against him, the document not yet having been tampered with, he sent Agyrrhius, who was a friend to both of us, and demanded that I either reconcile Menexenus or cancel the agreement made with him.

§32

καίτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, οἴεσθʼ ἂν αὐτὸν ἐπιθυμεῖν ἀναιρεθῆναι ταύτας τὰς συνθήκας, ἐξ ὧν ψευδομένους ἡμᾶς ἔμελλεν ἐξελέγξειν; οὔκουν ἐπειδή γε μετεγράφησαν, τούτους ἔλεγε τοὺς λόγους, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἁπάντων εἰς ἐκείνας κατέφευγε καὶ ἀνοίγειν ἐκέλευε τὸ γραμματεῖον. ὡς οὖν τὸ πρῶτον ἀναιρεῖν ἐζήτει τὰς συνθήκας, αὐτὸν Ἀγύρριον μαρτυροῦντα παρέξομαι. καί μοι ἀνάβηθι. ""

​And yet, gentlemen of the jury, do you think he would desire this agreement to be cancelled, from which he was going to expose us as liars? Certainly, after they were rewritten, he no longer made these statements, but in everything fled for refuge to them and demanded that the document be opened. To prove, therefore, that he at first sought to cancel the agreement, I shall present Agyrrhius himself as a witness. Please step up.

Syntax notes4 items
  1. 26τί μαθόντες

    An idiomatic expression combining the interrogative pronoun with the aorist active participle of μανθάνω, meaning "what possessed us to..." or "what was our idea in...", carrying a tone of surprise or censure.

  2. 27ἡγησάμενος

    This participle governs the indirect discourse for the following two conditional sentences. The optative protases (εἰ μὲν ἐκδοίη and εἰ δὲ μὴ ποιήσειε) have their corresponding apodoses in the infinitive (γενήσεσθαι and ὀφλήσειν). Additionally, φανερὸς γενήσεσθαι takes the supplementary participle πανουργῶν ("being exposed as acting wickedly").

  3. 29ἐξῆν

    The apodosis of a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence (with the protasis εἰ ... ἐφοβούμην). When impersonal verbs expressing obligation, possibility, or necessity (here ἐξῆν "it was possible") form the apodosis of a contrary-to-fact condition, they typically stand in the past indicative without the particle ἄν. The phrase χαίρειν ἐᾶν in the infinitive clause is an idiom meaning "to let a matter drop" or "dismiss."

  4. 30ἠπίστησα

    The aorist of ἀπιστέω ("to distrust, lack confidence"). Here it means "had no confidence in" or "distrusted" his own case. Introduced by εἰ expressing surprise or incongruity, it highlights the contradiction between his past lack of confidence and his present eagerness to go to trial.

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-22) · Revision history (3, latest 2026-09-21)
  • 2026-09-21 AI review — source 3
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0010.tlg005.humanitext-grc2:24-32