Trapeziticus

Isocrates

Isocrates. Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes, by Larue Van Hook, Ph.D., LL.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1945-1968.

It seems to me, men of the jury, that you would best decide upon the questions at issue if you should call to mind that period and the situation in which our affairs stood when I sent Menexenus and Philomelus to claim the deposit and Pasion for the first time had the hardihood to deny its existence. You find, in fact, that my father had been arrested and deprived of all his property, and that I was unable, because of the embarrassment in which I found myself, either to remain here or to sail to the Pontus.

And yet, which is the more reasonable supposition—that I, involved in misfortunes so great brought unjust charges against Pasion or that he, because of the magnitude of our misfortunes and the large sum of money involved, was tempted to defraud us? But what man ever went so far in chicanery as, with his own life in jeopardy, to plot against the possessions of others?[*](For the same argument cf. Isoc. 21.14.) With what hope or with what intent would I have unjustly proceeded against Pasion? Was it my thought that, in fear of my influence, he would forthwith give me money? But neither the one nor the other of us was in such a situation.

Or was I of opinion that by bringing the matter to issue in court I should have greater influence with you than Pasion, even contrary to justice—I, who was not even preparing to remain in Athens, since I feared that Satyrus would demand of you my extradition? Or was I going to act so that, without accomplishing anything, I should make a personal enemy of the man with whom, as it happened, of all the inhabitants of Athens, I was on terms of greatest intimacy? Who of you, I ask, would think it right to condemn me as being guilty of such folly and stupidity?

It is also right, men of the jury, that you should note the absurdity and the incredibility of the arguments which Pasion on each occasion undertook to present. For when my situation was such that, even if he acknowledged that he was defrauding me of my money, I could not have exacted the penalty from him, it is then that he accuses me of trying to make unjust claims; but when I had been declared innocent of the slanderous charges lodged with Satyrus and all thought that he would lose his suit, it is then that he says I renounced all claims against him. And yet how could anything be more illogical than this?