by Demosthenes
[3] πάντα δ᾽, ὅσων κύριος τῶν τούτου κατελείφθη, διαλύσας καὶ παραδοὺς δικαίως, καὶ πάντων ἀφεθεὶς μετὰ ταῦτα τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ὅμως, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, ἐπειδὴ φέρειν τοῦτον οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἐστίν, δίκην ταλάντων εἴκοσι λαχὼν αὐτῷ ταύτην συκοφαντεῖ. ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὖν ἅπαντα τὰ πραχθέντα τούτῳ πρὸς Πασίωνα καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρον ὡς ἂν δύνωμαι διὰ βραχυτάτων εἰπεῖν πειράσομαι, ἐξ ὧν εὖ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι ἥ τε τούτου συκοφαντία φανερὰ γενήσεται, καὶ ὡς οὐκ εἰσαγώγιμος ἡ δίκη γνώσεσθ᾽ ἅμα ταῦτ᾽ ἀκούσαντες.
[3] all this Phormio here has done; he has done many kindnesses to this man Apollodorus; he has duly paid and delivered up to the plaintiff everything belonging to him of which he had been left in control, and has since received a discharge from all further claims; nevertheless, as you see, because Phormio can no longer submit to his demands, Apollodorus has instituted this vexatious and baseless suit for twenty talents. From the beginning, therefore, I shall try to set forth for you as briefly as possible all the transactions Phormio has had with Pasio and Apollodorus. From these, I am sure, the malicious conduct of the plaintiff will become clear to you, and at the same time, having heard this recital, you will determine that the action is not maintainable.
[4] πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν ἀναγνώσεται τὰς συνθήκας, καθ᾽ ἃς ἐμίσθωσε Πασίων τὴν τράπεζαν τούτῳ καὶ τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον. καί μοι λαβὲ τὰς συνθήκας καὶ τὴν πρόκλησιν καὶ τὰς μαρτυρίας ταυτασί.”Συνθῆκαι”“Πρόκλησις”“Μαρτυρίαι”
αἱ μὲν οὖν συνθῆκαι, καθ᾽ ἃς ἐμίσθωσεν ὁ Πασίων τούτῳ τὴν τράπεζαν καὶ τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον ἤδη καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὄντι, αὗταί εἰσιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι: δεῖ δ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀκοῦσαι καὶ μαθεῖν ἐκ τίνος τρόπου προσώφειλεν τὰ ἕνδεκα τάλανθ᾽ ὁ Πασίων ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν.
[4] 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] οὐ γὰρ δι᾽ ἀπορίαν ταῦτ᾽ ὤφειλεν, ἀλλὰ διὰ φιλεργίαν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἔγγειος ἦν οὐσία Πασίωνι μάλιστα ταλάντων εἴκοσιν, ἀργύριον δὲ πρὸς ταύτῃ δεδανεισμένον ἴδιον πλέον ἢ πεντήκοντα τάλαντα. ἐν οὖν τοῖς πεντήκοντα ταλάντοις τούτοις ἀπὸ τῶν παρακαταθηκῶν τῶν τῆς τραπέζης ἕνδεκα τάλαντ᾽ ἐνεργὰ ἦν.
[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] μισθούμενος οὖν ὅδε τὴν ἐργασίαν αὐτὴν τῆς τραπέζης καὶ τὰς παρακαταθήκας λαμβάνων, ὁρῶν ὅτι, μήπω τῆς πολιτείας αὐτῷ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν οὔσης, οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἔσοι᾽ εἰσπράττειν ὅσα Πασίων ἐπὶ γῇ καὶ συνοικίαις δεδανεικὼς ἦν, εἵλετο μᾶλλον αὐτὸν τὸν Πασίωνα χρήστην ἔχειν τούτων τῶν χρημάτων ἢ τοὺς ἄλλους χρήστας, οἷς προειμένος ἦν. καὶ οὕτω διὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἐγράφη εἰς τὴν μίσθωσιν προσοφείλων ὁ Πασίων ἕνδεκα τάλαντα, ὥσπερ καὶ μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν.
[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] ὃν μὲν τοίνυν τρόπον ἡ μίσθωσις ἐγένετο, μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαθημένου: ἐπιγενομένης δ᾽ ἀρρωστίας τῷ Πασίωνι μετὰ ταῦτα, σκέψασθ᾽ ἃ διέθετο. λαβὲ τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἀντίγραφον καὶ τὴν πρόκλησιν ταυτηνὶ καὶ τὰς μαρτυρίας ταυτασί, παρ᾽ οἷς αἱ διαθῆκαι κεῖνται.”Διαθήκη”“Πρόκλησις”“Μαρτυρίαι”
[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] ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ὁ Πασίων ἐτετελευτήκει ταῦτα διαθέμενος, Φορμίων οὑτοσὶ τὴν μὲν γυναῖκα λαμβάνει κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, τὸν δὲ παῖδ᾽ ἐπετρόπευεν. ἁρπάζοντος δὲ τούτου καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἀπὸ κοινῶν ὄντων τῶν χρημάτων ἀναλίσκειν οἰομένου δεῖν, λογιζόμενοι πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἐπίτροποι, ὅτι, εἰ δεήσει κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας, ὅσ᾽ ἂν οὗτος ἐκ κοινῶν τῶν χρημάτων ἀναλώσῃ, τούτοις ἐξελόντας ἀντιμοιρεὶ τὰ λοιπὰ νέμειν, οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἔσται περιόν, νείμασθαι τὰ ὄνθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδὸς ἔγνωσαν.
[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] καὶ νέμονται τὴν ἄλλην οὐσίαν πλὴν ὧν ἐμεμίσθωθ᾽ οὑτοσί: τούτων δὲ τῆς προσόδου τὴν ἡμίσειαν τούτῳ ἀπεδίδοσαν. ἄχρι μὲν οὖν τούτου τοῦ χρόνου πῶς ἔνεστ᾽ ἐγκαλεῖν αὐτῷ μισθώσεως; οὐ γὰρ νῦν, ἀλλὰ τότ᾽ εὐθὺς ἔδει χαλεπαίνοντα φαίνεσθαι. καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ τὰς ἐπιγιγνομένας μισθώσεις ὡς οὐκ ἀπείληφεν ἔστ᾽ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ.
[9] And they did distribute all the estate except the property on which the defendant had taken a lease; and of the revenue accruin
g 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] οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτ᾽, ἐπειδὴ δοκιμασθέντος Πασικλέους ἀπηλλάττετο τῆς μισθώσεως ὅδε, ἀφήκατ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ἀλλὰ τότ᾽ ἂν παραχρῆμ᾽ ἀπῃτεῖτ᾽, εἴ τι προσώφειλεν ὑμῖν. ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ ἐνείμαθ᾽ οὗτος πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν παῖδ᾽ ὄντα, καὶ ἀφῆκαν τῆς μισθώσεως καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἐγκλημάτων, λαβὲ ταυτηνὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν.”Μαρτυρία”
[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] εὐθὺς τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὡς ἀφεῖσαν τουτονὶ τῆς μισθώσεως, νέμονται τὴν τράπεζαν καὶ τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον, καὶ λαβὼν αἵρεσιν Ἀπολλόδωρος αἱρεῖται τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον ἀντὶ τῆς τραπέζης. καίτοι εἰ ἦν ἰδία τις ἀφορμὴ τούτῳ πρὸς τῇ τραπέζῃ, τί δή ποτ᾽ ἂν εἵλετο τοῦτο μᾶλλον ἢ ‘κείνην; οὔτε γὰρ ἡ πρόσοδος ἦν πλείων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλάττων （τὸ μὲν γὰρ τάλαντον, ἡ δ᾽ ἑκατὸν μνᾶς ἔφερεν）, οὔτε τὸ κτῆμ᾽ ἥδιον, εἰ προσῆν χρήματα τῇ τραπέζῃ ἴδια. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προσῆν. διόπερ σωφρονῶν εἵλετο τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον οὗτος: τὸ μὲν γὰρ κτῆμ᾽ ἀκίνδυνόν ἐστιν, ἡ δ᾽ ἐργασία προσόδους ἔχουσ᾽ ἐπικινδύνους ἀπὸ χρημάτων ἀλλοτρίων.
[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] πολλὰ δ᾽ ἄν τις ἔχοι λέγειν καὶ ἐπιδεικνύναι σημεῖα τοῦ τοῦτον συκοφαντεῖν ἐγκαλοῦντ᾽ ἀφορμήν. ἀλλ᾽ οἶμαι μέγιστον μέν ἐστιν ἁπάντων τεκμήριον τοῦ μηδεμίαν λαβεῖν ἀφορμὴν εἰς ταῦτα τουτονὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ μισθώσει γεγράφθαι προσοφείλοντα τὸν Πασίων᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν, οὐ δεδωκότ᾽ ἀφορμὴν τούτῳ, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ τοῦτον ἐν τῇ νομῇ μηδὲν ἐγκαλοῦντα φαίνεσθαι, τρίτον δ᾽, ὅτι μισθῶν ἑτέροις ὕστερον ταὐτὰ ταῦτα τοῦ ἴσου ἀργυρίου οὐ φανήσεται προσμεμισθωκὼς ἰδίαν ἀφορμήν.
[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] καίτοι εἰ, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ παρέσχεν, ὑπὸ τοῦδ᾽ ἀπεστερεῖτο, αὐτὸν νῦν προσῆκεν ἐκείνοις ἄλλοθεν πορίσαντα δεδωκέναι. ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ ἐμίσθωσεν ὕστερον Ξένωνι καὶ Εὐφραίῳ καὶ Εὔφρονι καὶ Καλλιστράτῳ, καὶ οὐδὲ τούτοις παρέδωκεν ἰδίαν ἀφορμήν, ἀλλὰ τὰς παρακαταθήκας καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τούτων ἐργασίαν αὐτὴν ἐμισθώσαντο, λαβέ μοι τὴν τούτων μαρτυρίαν, καὶ ὡς τὸ ἀσπιδοπηγεῖον εἵλετο.”Μαρτυρία”
[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] μεμαρτύρηται μὲν τοίνυν ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτι καὶ τούτοις ἐμίσθωσαν καὶ οὐ παρέδωκαν ἰδίαν ἀφορμὴν οὐδεμίαν, καὶ ἐλευθέρους ἀφεῖσαν ὡς μεγάλ᾽ εὖ πεπονθότες, καὶ οὐκ ἐδικάζοντ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐκείνοις τότ᾽ οὔτε τούτῳ. ὃν μὲν τοίνυν χρόνον ἡ μήτηρ ἔζη, ἡ πάντ᾽ ἀκριβῶς ταῦτ᾽ εἰδυῖα, οὐδὲν ἔγκλημα πώποτ᾽ ἐποιήσατο πρὸς τουτονὶ Φορμίων᾽ Ἀπολλόδωρος: ὡς δ᾽ ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκείνη, τρισχιλίας ἐγκαλέσας ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς πρὸς αἷς ἔδωκεν ἐκείνη δισχιλίαις τοῖς τούτου παιδίοις, καὶ χιτωνίσκον τινὰ καὶ θεράπαιναν, ἐσυκοφάντει.
[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] καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐνταῦθα τούτων οὐδὲν ὧν νῦν ἐγκαλεῖ λέγων φανήσεται. ἐπιτρέψας δὲ τῷ τε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικὸς πατρὶ καὶ τῷ συγκηδεστῇ τῷ αὑτοῦ καὶ Λυσίνῳ καὶ Ἀνδρομένει, πεισάντων τούτων Φορμίωνα τουτονὶ δοῦναι δωρεὰν τὰς τρισχιλίας καὶ τὸ προσόν, καὶ φίλον μᾶλλον ἔχειν τοῦτον ἢ διὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἐχθρὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι, λαβὼν τὸ σ
ύμπαν πεντακισχιλίας, καὶ πάντων ἀφεὶς τῶν ἐγκλημάτων τὸ δεύτερον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἐλθών,
[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] πάλιν, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, δικάζεται, πάσας αἰτίας συμπλάσας καὶ ἐγκλήματ᾽ ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου τοῦ πρὸ τούτου （τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν μέγιστον ἁπάντων）, ἃ οὐδεπώποτ᾽ ᾐτιάσατο. ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὴν γνῶσιν τὴν γενομένην ἐν ἀκροπόλει, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν παραγενομένων, ὅτ᾽ ἀφίει τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἁπάντων Ἀπολλόδωρος, λαμβάνων τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον.”Γνῶσις”“Μαρτυρία”