21st Century Classical Greek -- how not to argue your case

Book I section 40.

‘ὡς μὲν οὖν αὐτοί τε μετὰ προσηκόντων ἐγκλημάτων ἐρχόμεθα καὶ οἵδε βίαιοι καὶ πλεονέκται εἰσὶ δεδήλωται: ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἂν δικαίως αὐτοὺς δέχοισθε μαθεῖν χρή.

[2] εἰ γὰρ εἴρηται ἐν ταῖς σπονδαῖς ἐξεῖναι παρ᾽ ὁποτέρους τις βούλεται τῶν ἀγράφων πόλεων ἐλθεῖν, οὐ τοῖς ἐπὶ βλάβῃ ἑτέρων ἰοῦσιν ἡ ξυνθήκη ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις μὴ ἄλλου ἑαυτὸν ἀποστερῶν ἀσφαλείας δεῖται καὶ ὅστις μὴ τοῖς δεξαμένοις, εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, πόλεμον ἀντ᾽ εἰρήνης ποιήσει: ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς μὴ πειθόμενοι ἡμῖν πάθοιτε ἄν.

[3] οὐ γὰρ τοῖσδε μόνον ἐπίκουροι ἂν γένοισθε, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡμῖν ἀντὶ ἐνσπόνδων πολέμιοι: ἀνάγκη γάρ, εἰ ἴτε μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἀμύνεσθαι μὴ ἄνευ ὑμῶν τούτους.

[4] καίτοι δίκαιοί γ᾽ ἐστὲ μάλιστα μὲν ἐκποδὼν στῆναι ἀμφοτέροις, εἰ δὲ μή, τοὐναντίον ἐπὶ τούτους μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἰέναι (Κορινθίοις μέν γε ἔνσπονδοί ἐστε, Κερκυραίοις δὲ οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνοκωχῆς πώποτ᾽ ἐγένεσθε), καὶ τὸν νόμον μὴ καθιστάναι ὥστε τοὺς ἑτέρων ἀφισταμένους δέχεσθαι.

[5] οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡμεῖς Σαμίων ἀποστάντων ψῆφον προσεθέμεθα ἐναντίαν ὑμῖν, τῶν ἄλλων Πελοποννησίων δίχα ἐψηφισμένων εἰ χρὴ αὐτοῖς ἀμύνειν, φανερῶς δὲ ἀντείπομεν τοὺς προσήκοντας ξυμμάχους αὐτόν τινα κολάζειν.

[6] εἰ γὰρ τοὺς κακόν τι δρῶντας δεχόμενοι τιμωρήσετε, φανεῖται καὶ ἃ τῶν ὑμετέρων οὐκ ἐλάσσω ἡμῖν πρόσεισι, καὶ τὸν νόμον ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν θήσετε..

In subsection 2 the Korinthians make a mistake no legally savvy person would make. No court of law will go behind the text of an agreement to get at the intent of the parties without hard evidence of that intent. Or as Samuel Goldwyn famously said, a verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The Kerkyraeans allowed as how the Athinaians knew what the treaty said; if true, then it’s obvious that the Korinthians are lying.

 

Jowett mistranslates this. The beginning goes, “if it says,” using perfective conceptual aspect. This is the same aspect Thucydides uses about poets of prior times. So, “if it says in the treaty about going out to whomever they want, those cities not subscribed can go (using an impersonal gerundive), then it is not licit for those planning to harm others [that] the agreement is [about].

The next part is a little weird again and suggests somebody is making fun of how Korinthians are in the habit of speaking.

καὶ ὅστις μὴ τοῖς δεξαμένοις, and those will not accept as allies,

εἰ σωφρονοῦσι, if they are wise

πόλεμον ἀντ᾽ εἰρήνης ποιήσει: those who make war instead of peace:

ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς μὴ πειθόμενοι ἡμῖν πάθοιτε ἄν. Which now you, not persuaded, we, you may decide on.

The last part apparently means that the Athinaians, not having been persuaded by the Kerkyraeans, may decide to agree with the Korinthians. But himin is nominative and that an at the end of the subsection is just weird.

In subsection 5 the Korinthians make another grave error of logic. Kerkyraea refused to help rebellious underlings against their expelled leaders. Korinth tacitly approves that and shoots themselves in the foot about supporting those rebellious underlings. It is not possible for Athins to agree with Korinth about the Kerkyraeans based on the Korinthian argument.