by Demosthenes
First the clerk shall read to you the articles of agreement, in accordance with which Pasio leased to the defendant the bank and the shield-factory. Take, please, the articles of agreement, the challenge, and these depositions.” Articles of Agreement ““ Challenge ““ Depositions”
These, men of Athens, are the articles of agreement in accordance with which Pasio leased the bank and the shield-factory to the defendant, after the latter had now become his own master. But you must hear and understand how it was that Pasio came to owe the eleven talents to the bank. [5] He owed that amount, not because of poverty, but because of his thrift. For the real property of Pasio was about twenty talents, but in addition to this he had more than fifty talents in money of his own lent out at interest. Among these were eleven talents of the bank’s deposits, profitably invested. [6] When, therefore, my client leased the business of the bank and took over the deposits, realizing that, if he had not yet obtained the right of citizenship with you, he would be unable to recover the monies which Pasio had lent on the security of land and lodging-houses, he chose to have Pasio himself as debtor for these sums, rather than the others to whom he had lent them. It was for this reason that Pasio was set down as owing eleven talents, as has been stated to you in the depositions. [7]
In what manner the lease was made, you know from the deposition of the manager of the bank himself. After this, Pasio became ill; and observe how he disposed of his estate. Take the copy of the will, and this challenge, and these depositions made by those in whose custody the will is deposited.” Will ““ Challenge ““ Depositions “ [8]
When Pasio had died, after making this will, Phormio, the defendant, took his widow to wife in accordance with the terms of the will and undertook the guardianship of his son. Inasmuch, however, as the plaintiff was rapacious, and seemed to think it right that he should spend large sums out of the fund which was as yet undivided, the guardians, calculating in their own minds that, if it should be necessary under the terms of the will to deduct from the undivided fund, share for share, an equivalent of what the plaintiff spent, and then distribute the remainder, there would be nothing left to distribute, determined in the interest of the boy to divide the property. [9] And they did distribute all the estate except the property on which the defendant had taken a lease; and of the revenue accruing from this they duly paid one-half to the plaintiff. Up to that time, then, how is it possible for him to make complaint regarding the lease? For it is not now that he should show his indignation; he should at once have done so then. Moreover, he cannot say that he has not received the rents which became due subsequently. [10] For in that case, when Pasicles came of age and Phormio relinquished the lease, you would never have freed him from all claims, but would then instantly have demanded payment, if he had owed you anything.
To prove that I speak the truth in this and that the plaintiff did divide the property with his brother, who was still a minor, and that they released Phormio from his liability under the lease and from all other charges, take this deposition.” Deposition “ [11]
As soon, then, as they had released the defendant from the lease, men of Athens, they at once divided between them the bank and the shield-factory, and Apollodorus, having the choice, chose the shield-factory in preference to the bank. Yet, if the plaintiff had any private capital in the bank, why in the world should he have chosen the factory by preference? The income was not greater; nay, it was less （the factory produced a talent, and the bank, one hundred minae）; nor was the property more agreeable, assuming that he had private capital in the bank. But he had no such capital. So the plaintiff was wise in choosing the factory. For that is a property which involves no risk, while the bank is a business yielding a hazardous revenue from money which belongs to others. [12]
Many proofs might one advance and set forth to show that the plaintiff’s claim to a sum of banking capital is malicious and baseless. But the strongest proof of all that Phormio received no capital is, I think, this: that Pasio is set down in the lease as debtor to the bank, not as having given banking capital to the defendant. The second proof is that the plaintiff is shown to have made no demands at the time of the distribution of the property. The third is that when he subsequently leased the same business to others for the same sum, he will be shown not to have leased any private capital of his own along with it. [13] And yet, if he had been defrauded by the defendant of capital which his father left, he would himself on that assumption have had to provide it from some other source and given it to the new lessees.
To prove that I speak the truth in this, and that Apollodorus subsequently leased the bank to Xeno and Euphraeus, and Euphro, and Callistratus, and that he delivered no private capital to them either, but that they leased only the deposits and the right to the profits accruing from them, take, please, the deposition which proves these matters, and proves also that he chose the shield-factory.” Deposition “ [14]
Evidence has been submitted to you, men of Athens, that they granted a lease to these men also, and gave over to them no private banking-capital; and that they gave them their freedom, as if having received great benefits from them; and at that time they went to law neither with them nor with Phormio. Indeed, as long as his mother was living, who had an accurate knowledge of all these matters, Apollodorus never made any complaint against Phormio, the defendant; but after her death he brought a malicious and baseless suit claiming three thousand drachmae in money, in addition to two thousand drachmae which she had given to Phormio’s children, and a bit of underwear and a serving-girl. [15] Yet even here he will be shown to have said nothing of the claims which he now makes. He referred the matter for arbitration to the father of his own wife, and the husband of his wife’s sister, and to Lysinus and Andromenes, and they induced Phormio to make him a present of the three thousand drachmae and the additional items, and thus to have him as a friend rather than as an enemy because of this. So the plaintiff received in all five thousand drachmae, and going to the temple of Athena, gave Phormio for the second time a release from all demands. [16] Yet, as you see, he is suing him again, having trumped up all sorts of accusations, and gathered from all past time charges （and this is the most outrageous thing of all） which he had never made before. To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, take, please, the award that was made in the Acropolis, and the deposition of those who were present, when Apollodorus, on receiving this money, gave a release from all claims.” Award ““ Deposition “ [17]
You hear the award, men of the jury, which was rendered by Deinias, whose daughter the plaintiff has married, and Nicias, who is husband to her sister. However, even though he has received this money, and has given a release from all claims, he has the audacity to bring suit for so many talents, just as if all these people were dead, or as if the truth would not be brought to light. [18]
All the dealings, then, and transactions which Phormio has had with Apollodorus you have heard, men of Athens, from the beginning. But I fancy that Apollodorus, the plaintiff, being unable to advance any just grounds in support of his claim, will repeat what he had the audacity to say before the arbitrator, that his mother made away with the papers at Phormio’s instigation, and that, owing to the loss of these, he has no way of proving his claim strictly. [19] But in regard to these statements and this accusation, observe what convincing proofs one could advance to show that he is lying. In the first place, men of Athens, what man would have accepted a distribution of his inheritance, if he had not papers from which he could determine the amount of estate left him? No man, assuredly. Yet it is eighteen years, Apollodorus, since you accepted the distribution, and you cannot show that you at any time made any complaint about the papers. [20] In the second place, when Pasicles had come of age, and was receiving the report of his guardians’ administration, what man, even though he shrank from accusing his mother with his own lips of having destroyed the papers, would have failed to reveal the fact to his brother, so that through him it might have been thoroughly in
vestigated? In the third place, what were the papers upon which you based the action which you brought? For the plaintiff has brought suits against many citizens, and has recovered large sums of money, charging in his complaints, “So and so has injured me by not paying back to me the money which my father’s papers show he owed the latter at his death.” [21] But, if the papers had been made away with, on the basis of what papers did he commence his suits?
In proof that I am speaking the truth in this, you have heard the distribution which he accepted, and the evidence in proof of it has been presented to you. The clerk will now read you the depositions having to do with these actions. Please take the depositions.” Depositions”
In these complaints, then, he has admitted that he had received his father’s papers; for he surely would not say that he was bringing baseless charges, or that he was suing these men for what they did not owe. [22]
There are many strong proofs from which one can see that the defendant Phormio is not in the wrong; but the strongest of all, in my opinion, is this: that Pasicles, though he is the brother of Apollodorus, the plaintiff, has neither entered suit nor made any of the charges which the plaintiff makes. But surely the defendant would not have abstained from wronging one who had been left a minor by his father, and over whose property he had control, since he had been left as his guardian, yet would have wronged you, who at your father’s death were left a man of four and twenty, and who on your own behalf would easily and immediately have obtained justice, if any wrong had been done you. That is impossible.
To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, and that Pasicles makes no complaint, take, please, the deposition regarding the matter.” Deposition “ [23]
The points which you should now consider in regard to my plea that the action is not admissible, I beg you to recall from what has already been said. We, men of Athens, inasmuch as an accounting had been made and a discharge given from the lease of the bank and of the shield-factory; inasmuch as there had been an arbitrator’s award and again a discharge from all claims; [24] inasmuch also as the laws do not allow suits to be brought in cases where a discharge has once been given; and inasmuch as the plaintiff makes a baseless and malicious claim, and brings suit contrary to the laws; we have put in a special plea as allowed by the laws that his suit is not admissible. In order, then, that you may understand the matter regarding which you are going to vote, he shall read you this law and the depositions in sequence of those who were present when Apollodorus discharged Phormio from the lease and from all other claims.
Take these depositions, please, and the law.” Depositions ““ Law “ [25]
You hear the law, men of Athens, stating other cases in which suit may not be brought, and in particular those in which anyone has given a release or discharge. And with good reason. For if it is just that suit may not be brought again for cases which have once been tried, it is far more just that suit be not allowed for claims in which a discharge has been given. For a man who has lost his suit in your court might perhaps say that you had been deceived; but when a man has plainly decided against himself, by giving a release and discharge, what complaint can he bring against himself that will give him the right to bring suit again regarding the same matters? None whatever, of course. Therefore the man who framed this law placed first among cases in which suit may not be brought all those in which a man has given a release or discharge. Both of these have been given by the plaintiff; for he has released and discharged the defendant. That I am speaking the truth, men of Athens, has been proved to you by the evidence presented. [26]
Take now, please, the statute of limitations.” Law”
The law, men of Athens, has thus clearly defined the time. But this man Apollodorus, when more than twenty years have gone by, demands that you pay more heed to his malicious charges than to the laws in accordance with which you have sworn to give judgement. You should have regard to all the laws, but to this one, men of Athens, above all others. [27] For, in my judgement, Solon framed it for no other purpose than to prevent your having to be subjected to malicious and baseless actions. For in the case of those who were wronged, he thought that a period of five years was enough to enable them to recover what was their due; while the lapse of time would best serve to convict those who advanced false claims. At the same time, since he realized that neither the contracting parties nor the witnesses would live forever, he put the law in their place, that it might be a witness of truth for those who had no other defence. [28]
I, for my part, am wondering, men of the jury, what in the world the plaintiff, Apollodorus, will try to say in reply to these arguments. For he can hardly have made this assumption that you, although seeing that he has suffered no wrong financially, will be indignant because Phormio has married his mother. For he is not unaware of this — it is no secret to him or to many of you — that Socrates, the well-known banker, having been set free by his masters just as the plaintiff’s father had been, gave his wife in marriage to Satyrus who had been his slave. [29] Another, Socles, who had been in the banking business, gave his wife in marriage to Timodemus, who is still in being and alive, who had been his slave. And it is not here only, men of Athens, that those engaged in this line of business so act; but in Aegina Strymodorus gave his wife in marriage to Hermaeus, his own slave, and again, after her death, gave him his own daughter. [30] And one could mention many other such cases; and no wonder. For although to you, men of Athens, who are citizens by birth, it would be a disgrace to esteem any conceivable amount of wealth above your honorable descent, yet those who obtain citizenship as a gift either from you or from others, and who in the first instance, thanks to this good fortune, were counted worthy of the same privileges, because of their success in money-making, and their possession of more wealth than others, must hold fast to these advantages. So your father Pasio — and he was neither the first nor the last to do this — without bringing disgrace upon himself or upon you, his sons, but seeing that the only protection for his business was that he should bind the defendant to you by a family tie, for this reason gave to him in marriage his own wife, your mother. [31] If, then, you examine his conduct in the light of practical utility you will find that he determined wisely; but if from family pride you scorn Phormio as stepfather, see if it be not absurd for you to speak thus. For, if one were to ask you what sort of a man you deem your father to have been, I am sure that you would say, “an honorable man.” Now, then, which of you two do you think more resembles Pasio in character and in manner of life, yourself or Phormio? I know well that you think Phormio does. Then do you scorn this man who is more like your father than you are yourself, just because he has married your mother? [32] But that this arrangement was made by your father’s grant and solemn injunction may not only be seen from the will, men of Athens, but you yourself, Apollodorus, are a witness to the fact. For when you claimed the right to distribute your mother’s estate share by share — and she had left children by the defendant, Phormio — you then acknowledged that your father had given her with full right, and that she had been married in accordance with the laws. For if Phormio had taken her to wife wrongfully, and no one had given her — then the children were not heirs, and if they were not heirs they had no right of sharing in the property.
To prove that I am speaking the truth in this evidence has been submitted showing that he received a fourth share and gave a release from all claims. [33]
Having, then, on no single point, men of Athens, any just claim to advance, he had the audacity to make before the arbitrator the most shameless assertions which it is best that you should hear in advance: first that no will was made at all, but that this is a fiction and forgery from beginning to end; and, secondly, that the reason why he had made all these concessions up to now, and had abstained from going to law, was because Phormio was willing to pay him a large rent, and promised that he would do so. But since he does not do this, now, he says, I go to law. [34] But that both of these statements, if he makes them, will be fa
lse and inconsistent with his own conduct, pray observe from the following considerations. When he denies the will, ask him this, how it came that he received the lodging-house under the will as being the elder. He surely will not claim that all the clauses which his father wrote in the will in his favor are valid, and the others invalid. [35] And when he says that he was misled by the defendant’s promises, remember that we have brought before you as witnesses those who for a long time, after Phormio had given it up, became lessees under the two brothers of the bank and the shield-factory. And yet it was when he granted the lease to these men, that he should at once have made his charges against the defendant if there were any truth in the claims, for which he then gave a release, but for which he now brings suit against him.
To prove that I am speaking the truth that he took the lodging-house under the terms of the will as being the elder, and that he not only thought it right to make no claims against the defendant, but on the contrary praised his conduct, take the deposition.” Deposition “ [36]
That you may know, men of Athens, what large sums he has received from the rents and from the debts — he, who will presently wail as though he were destitute and had lost everything — hear a brief account from me. This man has collected twenty talents in all owing to debts he has recovered from the papers which his father left, and of these sums more than half he keeps in his possession; for in many instances he is defrauding his brother of his share. [37] From the lessee, for the eight years during which Phormio had the bank, he received eighty minae a year, half of the whole rent. These items make ten talents and forty minae. For ten years after that, during which they subsequently leased the bank to Xeno and Euphraeus and Euphro and Callistratus, he received a talent every year. [38] Besides this he has had for about twenty years the income of the property originally divided, of which he himself had charge, more than thirty minae. If you add all these sums together, — what he got from the distribution, what he recovered from the debts, and what he has collected as rent, it will be plain that he has received more than forty talents, to say nothing of the present Phormio made him, and his inheritance from his mother, and what he has had from the bank and does not pay back — two and one-half talents and six hundred drachmae. [39] Ah, but, you will tell us, the state has received these sums, and you have been outrageously treated, having used up your fortune in public services! No; what you expended in public service out of the undivided funds, you and your brother expended jointly; and what you gave after that does not amount to the interest, I will not say on two talents, but even on twenty minae. Do not, then, accuse the state, nor say that the state has received that portion of your patrimony which you have shamefully and wickedly squandered. [40]