by Demosthenes
[11] Lampis himself, to whom Phormio declares he had paid the gold （pray note this carefully）, when I approached him as soon as he had returned to Athens after the shipwreck and asked him about these matters, said that Phormio did not put the goods on board the ship according to our agreement, nor had he himself received the gold from him at that time in Bosporus.
Read, please, the deposition of those who were present.” Deposition”
[12] ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐπεδήμησεν Φορμίων οὑτοσὶ σεσῳσμένος ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρας νεώς, προσῄειν αὐτῷ ἀπαιτῶν τὸ δάνειον. καὶ οὗτος κατὰ μὲν ἀρχὰς οὐδεπώποτ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, εἶπε τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ὃν νυνὶ λέγει, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ ὡμολόγει ἀποδώσειν: ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀνεκοινώσατο τοῖς νῦν παροῦσιν αὐτῷ καὶ συνδικοῦσιν, ἕτερος ἤδη ἦν καὶ οὐχ ὁ αὐτός.
[12] Now, men of Athens, when this man Phormio reached Athens, after completing his voyage in safety on another ship, I approached him and demanded payment of the loan. And at the first, men of Athens, he did not in any instance make the statement which he now makes, but always agreed that he would pay; but after he had entered into an agreement with those who are now at his side and are advocates with him, he was then and there different and not at all the same man.
[13] ὡς δ᾽ ᾐσθόμην αὐτὸν διακρουόμενόν με, προσέρχομαι τῷ Λάμπιδι, λέγων ὅτι οὐδὲν ποιεῖ τῶν δικαίων Φορμίων οὐδ᾽ ἀποδίδωσι τὸ δάνειον, καὶ ἅμα ἠρόμην αὐτὸν εἰ εἰδείη ὅπου ἐστίν, ἵνα προσκαλεσαίμην αὐτόν. ὁ δ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖν μ᾽ ἐκέλευεν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ καταλαμβάνομεν πρὸς τοῖς μυροπωλίοις τουτονί: κἀγὼ κλητῆρας ἔχων προσεκαλεσάμην αὐτόν.
[13] When I saw that he was trying to cheat me, I went to Lampis and told him that Phormio was not doing what was right nor paying back the loan; and at the same time I asked him if he knew where Phormio was, in order that I might summon him. He bade me follow him, and we found the fellow at the perfumery shops; and I, having witnesses with me, served the summons.
[14] καὶ ὁ Λάμπις, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, παρὼν προσκαλουμένῳ μοι οὐδαμοῦ ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν ὡς ἀπείληφε παρὰ τούτου τὸ χρυσίον, οὐδ᾽ ὃ εἰκὸς ἦν εἶπε ‘Χρύσιππε, μαίνει: τί τοῦτον προσκαλεῖ; ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἀποδέδωκε τὸ χρυσίον’. ἀλλὰ μὴ ὅτι Λάμπις ἐφθέγξατο, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς οὗτος οὐδὲν ἠξίωσεν εἰπεῖν, παρεστηκότος τοῦ Λάμπιδος, ᾧ νῦν φησὶν ἀποδεδωκέναι τὸ χρυσίον.
[14] Lampis, men of Athens, was close at hand when I did this, yet he never ventured to say that he had received the money from Phormio, nor did he say, as he naturally would have done supposing his story to be true, “Chrysippus, you are mad. Why do you summon this man? He has paid me the money.” And not only did Lampis not say a word, but neither did Phormio himself venture to say anything, although Lampis was standing by his side, to whom he now declares he had paid the money.
[15] καίτοι εἰκός γ᾽ ἦν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ‘τί με προσκαλεῖ, ἄνθρωπε; ἀποδέδωκα γὰρ τούτῳ τῷ παρεστηκότι τὸ χρυσίον’, καὶ ἅμα ὁμολογοῦντα παρέχειν τὸν Λάμπιν: νυνὶ δ᾽ οὐδέτερος αὐτῶν οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν εἶπεν ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν κλητήρων.”Μαρτυρία”
[15] Yet, men of Athens, it would surely have been natural for him to say, “Why do you summon me, fellow? I have paid the money to this man who is standing here “ — and at the same time to call upon Lampis to corroborate his words. As it was, however, neither of them uttered a syllable on an occasion so opportune.
In proof that my words are true, take, please, the deposition of those who witnessed the summons.” Deposition”
[16] λαβὲ δή μοι καὶ τὸ ἔγκλημα ὃ ἔλαχον αὐτῷ πέρυσιν: ὅ ἐστιν οὐδενὸς ἔλαττον τεκμήριον, ὅτι οὐδέπω τότ᾽ ἔφησεν Φορμίων ἀποδεδωκέναι τὸ χρυσίον Λάμπιδι.”Ἔγκλημα”
τοῦτο τὸ ἔγκλημα ἔγραφον ἐγώ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, οὐδαμόθεν ἄλλοθεν σκοπῶν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐκ τῆς ἀπαγγελίας τῆς Λάμπιδος, ὃς οὐκ ἔφασκεν οὔτε τὰ χρήματα ἐντεθεῖσθαι τοῦτον οὔτε τὸ χρυσίον ἀπειληφέναι: μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθέ με οὕτως ἀπόπληκτον εἶναι καὶ παντελῶς μαινόμενον, ὥστε τοιοῦτο γράφειν ἔγκλημα ὁμολογοῦντος τοῦ Λάμπιδος ἀπειληφέναι τὸ χρυσίον, ὑφ᾽ οὗ ἔμελλον ἐξελεγχθήσεσθαι.
[16] Now take the complaint in the action which I commenced against him last year, for this is the strongest possible proof that up to that time Phormio had never stated that he had paid the money to Lampis.” Complaint”
This action I commenced, men of Athens, basing my complaint upon nothing else than the report of Lampis, who denied that Phormio had put the goods on board the ship or that he himself had received the money. Do not imagine that I am so senseless, so absolutely crazy, as to have drawn up a complaint like this, if Lampis （whose words would prove my contention false） admitted that he had received the money.
[17] ἔτι δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, κἀκεῖνο σκέψασθε: αὐτοὶ γὰρ οὗτοι παραγραφὴν διδόντες πέρυσιν, οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν ἐν τῇ παραγραφῇ γράψαι ὡς ἀποδεδώκασιν Λάμπιδι τὸ χρυσίον. καί μοι λαβὲ αὐτὴν τὴν παραγραφήν.”Παραγραφή”
ἀκούετε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ γέγραπται ἐν τῇ παραγραφῇ ὡς ἀποδέδωκεν τὸ χρυσίον Φορμίων Λάμπιδι, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐμοῦ διαρρήδην γράψαντος εἰς τὸ ἔγκλημα ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀρτίως, ὅτι οὔτε τὰ χρήματα ἔνθοιτο εἰς τὴν ναῦν οὔτ᾽ ἀπέδωκεν τὸ χρυσίον. τίνα οὖν ἄλλον χρὴ περιμένειν ὑμᾶς μάρτυρα, ὅταν τηλικαύτην μαρτυρίαν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τούτων ἔχητε;
[17] More than this, men of Athens, note another fact. These very men entered a special plea last year, but dared not assert in their plea that they had paid the money to Lampis.
Now, pray take the plea itself.” Special Plea”
You hear, men of Athens. Nowhere in the plea is it stated that Phormio had paid the money to Lampis, though I had expressly written in the complaint, which you heard a moment ago, that Phormio had not put the goods on board the ship nor paid the money. For what other witness, then, should you wait, when you have so significant a piece of evidence from these men themselves?
[18] μελλούσης δὲ τῆς δίκης εἰσιέναι εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον ἐδέοντο ἡμῶν ἐπιτρέψαι τινί: καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐπετρέψαμεν Θεοδότῳ ἰσοτελεῖ κατὰ συνθήκας. καὶ ὁ Λάμπις μετὰ ταῦτα νομίσας αὑτῷ ἀσφαλὲς ἤδη εἶναι πρὸς διαιτητῇ μαρτυρεῖν ὅ
τι βούλοιτο, μερισάμενος τὸ ἐμὸν χρυσίον μετὰ Φορμίωνος τουτουί, ἐμαρτύρει τἀναντία οἷς πρότερον εἰρήκει.
[18] When the suit was about to come into court, they begged us to refer it to an arbitrator; and we referred it by agreement to Theodotus, a privileged alien Lampis after that, thinking that it would now, before an arbitrator, be safe for him to testify just as he pleased, divided my money with this fellow Phormio, and then gave testimony the very opposite of what he had stated before.
[19] οὐ γὰρ ὅμοιόν ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰς τὰ ὑμέτερα πρόσωπα ἐμβλέποντα τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυρεῖν καὶ πρὸς διαιτητῇ: παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μὲν γὰρ ὀργὴ μεγάλη καὶ τιμωρία ὑπόκειται τοῖς τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυροῦσιν, πρὸς δὲ τῷ διαιτητῇ ἀκινδύνως καὶ ἀναισχύντως μαρτυροῦσιν ὅ τι ἂν βούλωνται. ἀγανακτοῦντος δέ μου καὶ σχετλιάζοντος, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐπὶ τῇ τόλμῃ τοῦ Λάμπιδος,
[19] For it is not the same thing, men of Athens, to give false testimony while face to face with you and to do so before an arbitrator. With you heavy indignation and severe penalty await those who bear false witness; but before an arbitrator they give what testimony they please without risk and without shame. When I expostulated and expressed strong indignation, men of Athens, at the effrontery of Lampis,
[20] καὶ παρεχομένου πρὸς τὸν διαιτητὴν τὴν αὐτὴν μαρτυρίαν ἥνπερ καὶ νῦν πρὸς ὑμᾶς παρέχομαι, τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς προσελθόντων αὐτῷ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ὅτε οὔτε τὸ χρυσίον ἔφη ἀπειληφέναι παρὰ τούτου οὔτε τὰ χρήματα αὐτὸν ἐνθέσθαι εἰς τὴν ναῦν, οὕτως ὁ Λάμπις κατὰ κράτος ἐξελεγχόμενος τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυρῶν καὶ πονηρὸς ὤν, ὡμολόγει μὲν εἰρηκέναι ταῦτα πρὸς τοῦτον, οὐ μέντοι γε ἐντὸς ὢν εἰπεῖν αὑτοῦ. καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν.”Μαρτυρία”
[20] and produced before the arbitrator the same testimony as I now produce before you — that, namely, of the persons who at the first went to him with me, when he stated that he had not received the money from Phormio, and that Phormio had not put the goods on board the ship — Lampis, being so plainly convicted of bearing false witness and of playing the rogue, admitted that he had made the statement to my partner here, but declared that he was out of his mind when he made it. Now read me this deposition.” Deposition”
[21] ἀκούσας τοίνυν ἡμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὁ Θεόδοτος πολλάκις, καὶ νομίσας τὸν Λάμπιν ψευδῆ μαρτυρεῖν, οὐκ ἀπέγνω τῆς δίκης, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφῆκεν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον: καταγνῶναι μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἐβουλήθη διὰ τὸ οἰκείως ἔχειν Φορμίωνι τουτῳί, ὡς ἡμεῖς ὕστερον ἐπυθόμεθα, ἀπογνῶναι δὲ τῆς δίκης ὤκνει, ἵν᾽ αὐτὸς μὴ ἐπιορκήσειεν.
[21] Theodotus, men of Athens, after hearing us several times, and being convinced that Lampis was giving false testimony, did not dismiss the suit, but referred us to the court. He was loth to give an adverse decision because he was a friend of this man Phormio, as we afterwards learned, yet he hesitated to dismiss the suit lest he should himself commit perjury.
[22] ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ πράγματος λογίσασθε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, παρ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, ὁπόθεν ἔμελλεν οὗτος ἀποδώσειν τὸ χρυσίον. ἐνθένδε μὲν γὰρ ἐξέπλει οὐκ ἐνθέμενος εἰς τὴν ναῦν τὰ χρήματα καὶ ὑποθήκην οὐκ ἔχων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς χρήμασιν ἐπιδανεισάμενος: ἐν Βοσπόρῳ δ᾽ ἀπρασίαν τῶν φορτίων κατέλαβεν, καὶ τοὺς τὰ ἑτερόπλοα δανείσαντας μόλις ἀπήλλαξεν.
[22] Now, in the light of the facts themselves, consider in your own minds, men of the jury, what means the man was likely to have for discharging the debt. He sailed from this port without having put the goods on board the ship, and having no adequate security; on the contrary, he had made additional loans on the credit of the money lent by me. In Bosporus he found no market for his wares, and had difficulty in getting rid of those who had lent money for the outward-voyage.
[23] καὶ οὗτος μὲν ἐδάνεισεν αὐτῷ δισχιλίας δραχμὰς ἀμφοτερόπλουν, ὥστ᾽ ἀπολαβεῖν Ἀθήνησιν δισχιλίας ἑξακοσίας δραχμάς: Φορμίων δέ φησιν ἀποδοῦναι Λάμπιδι ἐν Βοσπόρῳ ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσι στατῆρας Κυζικηνούς （τούτῳ γὰρ προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν） δανεισάμενος ἐγγείων τόκων. ἦσαν δὲ ἔφεκτοι οἱ ἔγγειοι τόκοι, ὁ δὲ Κυζικηνὸς ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ εἴκοσι καὶ ὀκτὼ δραχμὰς Ἀττικάς.
[23] My partner here had lent him two thousand drachmae for the double voyage on terms that he should receive at Athens two thousand six hundred drachmae; but Phormio declares that he paid Lampis in Bosporus one hundred and twenty Cyzicene staters（note this carefully） which he borrowed at the interest paid on loans secured by real property. Now interest on real security was sixteen and two-thirds percent, and the Cyzicene stater was worth there twenty-eight Attic drachmae.
[24] δεῖ δὴ μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς ὅσα φησὶν χρήματα ἀποδεδωκέναι. τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι στατήρων γίγνονται τρισχίλιαι τριακόσιαι ἑξήκοντα, ὁ δὲ τόκος ὁ ἔγγειος ὁ ἔφεκτος τῶν τριάκοντα μνῶν καὶ τριῶν καὶ ἑξήκοντα πεντακόσιαι δραχμαὶ καὶ ἑξήκοντα: τὸ δὲ σύμπαν κεφάλαιον γίγνεται τόσον καὶ τόσον.
[24] It is necessary that you should understand how large a sum he claims to have paid. A hundred and twenty staters amount to three thousand three hundred and sixty drachmae, and the interest at the land rate of sixteen and two-thirds percent on thirty-three minae and sixty drachmae is five hundred and sixty drachmae, and the total amount comes to so much.
[25] ἔστιν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἢ γενήσεταί ποτε, ὃς ἀντὶ δισχιλίων ἑξακοσίων δραχμῶν τριάκοντα μνᾶς καὶ τριακοσίας καὶ ἑξήκοντα ἀποτίνειν προείλετ᾽ ἄν, καὶ τόκον πεντακοσίας δραχμὰς καὶ ἑξήκοντα δανεισάμενος, ἅς φησιν ἀποδεδωκέναι Φορμίων Λάμπιδι, τρισχιλίας ἐνακοσίας εἴκοσι; ἐξὸν δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἀμφοτερόπλουν Ἀθήνησιν ἀποδοῦναι τὸ ἀργύριον, ἐν Βοσπόρῳ ἀπέδωκε, τρισὶ καὶ δέκα μναῖς πλέον;
[25] Now, men of the jury, is there a man, or will the man ever be born, who, instead of twenty-six hundred drachmae would prefer to pay thirty minae and three hundred and sixty drachmae, and as interest five hundred and sixty drachmae by virtue of his loan, both which sums Phormio says he has paid Lampis, in all three thousand nine hundred and twenty drachmae? And when he might have paid the money in Athens, seeing that it had been lent for the double voyage, has he paid it in Bosporus, and too much by thirteen minae?
[26] καὶ τοῖς μὲν τὰ ἑτ
ερόπλοα δανείσασι μόλις τἀρχαῖον ἀποδέδωκας, οἳ συνέπλευσάν σοι καὶ προσήδρευον: τούτῳ δὲ τῷ μὴ παρόντι οὐ μόνον τἀρχαῖα καὶ τοὺς τόκους ἀπεδίδους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐπιτίμια τὰ ἐκ τῆς συγγραφῆς ἀπέτινες, οὐδεμιᾶς σοι ἀνάγκης οὔσης;
[26] And to the creditors who lent money for the outward voyage you had difficulty in paying the principal, though they sailed with you and kept pressing you for payment; yet to this man who was not present, you not only returned both principal and interest, but also paid the penalties arising from the agreement though you were under no necessity of doing so?