by Demosthenes
[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] ἀκούετε τῆς γνώσεως, ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἣν ἔγνω Δεινίας, οὗ τὴν θυγατέρ᾽ οὗτος ἔχει, καὶ Νικίας ὁ τὴν ἀδελφὴν τῆς τούτου γυναικὸς ἔχων. ταῦτα τοίνυν λαβὼν καὶ ἀφεὶς ἁπάντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ὥσπερ ἢ πάντων τεθνεώτων τούτων ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ γενησομένης φανερᾶς, δίκην τοσούτων ταλάντων λαχὼν τολμᾷ δικάζεσθαι.
[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] τὰ μὲν οὖν πεπραγμένα καὶ γεγενημένα Φορμίωνι πρὸς Ἀπολλόδωρον ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἅπαντ᾽ ἀκηκόατ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. οἶμαι δ᾽ Ἀπολλόδωρον τουτονί, οὐδὲν ἔχοντα δίκαιον εἰπεῖν περὶ ὧν ἐγκαλεῖ, ἅπερ παρὰ τῷ διαιτητῇ λέγειν ἐτόλμα, ταῦτ᾽ ἐρεῖν, ὡς τὰ γράμμαθ᾽ ἡ μήτηρ ἠφάνικε πεισθεῖσ᾽ ὑπὸ τούτου, καὶ τούτων ἀπολωλότων οὐκ ἔχει τίνα χρὴ τρόπον ταῦτ᾽ ἐξελέγχειν ἀκριβῶς.
[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] περὶ δὴ τούτων καὶ ταύτης τῆς αἰτίας σκέψασθ᾽ ἡλίκ᾽ ἄν τις ἔχοι τεκμήρι᾽ εἰπεῖν ὅτι ψεύδεται. πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τίς ἂν ἐνείματο τὰ πατρῷα μὴ λαβὼν γράμματα, ἐξ ὧν ἔμελλεν εἴσεσθαι τὴν καταλειφθεῖσαν οὐσίαν; οὐδὲ εἷς δήπου. καίτοι δυοῖν δέοντ᾽ εἴκοσιν ἔτη ἐστὶν ἐξ ὅτου ἐνείμω, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔχοις ἐπιδεῖξαι, ὡς ἐνεκάλεσας πώποθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν γραμμάτων.
[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] δεύτερον δέ, τίς οὐκ ἄν, ἡνίχ᾽ ὁ Πασικλῆς ἀνὴρ γεγονὼς ἐκομίζετο τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς, εἰ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ τὰ γράμματ᾽ ὤκνει τὴν μητέρ᾽ αἰτιᾶσθαι διεφθαρκέναι, τούτῳ ταῦτ᾽ ἐδήλωσεν, ὅπως διὰ τούτου ταῦτ᾽ ἠλέγχθη; τρίτον δ᾽, ἐκ ποίων γραμμάτων τὰς δίκας ἐλάγχανες; οὗτος γὰρ πολλοῖς τῶν πολιτῶν δίκας λαγχάνων πολλὰ χρήματ᾽ εἰσπέπρακται, γράφων εἰς τὰ ἐγκλήματα ‘ἔβλαψέ με ὁ δεῖνα οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς ἐμοὶ τὸ ἀργύριον, ὃ κατέλιπεν ὁ πατὴρ ὀφείλοντα αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς γράμμασιν’.
[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 investigated? 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] καίτοι εἰ ἠφάνιστο τὰ γράμματα, ἐκ ποίων γραμμάτων τὰς δίκας ἐλάγχανεν; ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τὴν μὲν νομὴν ἀκηκόαθ᾽ ἣν ἐνείματο, καὶ μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν: τῶν δὲ λήξεων τούτων ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν τὰς μαρτυρίας. λαβὲ τὰς μαρτυρίας μοι.”Μαρτυρίαι”
οὐκοῦν ἐν ταύταις ταῖς λήξεσιν ὡμολόγηκεν ἀπειληφέναι τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς γράμματα: οὐ γὰρ δὴ συκοφαντεῖν γε, οὐδ᾽ ὧν οὐκ ὤφειλον οὗτοι δικάζεσθαι φήσειεν ἄν.
[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] νομίζω τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μεγάλων καὶ πολλῶν ὄντων ἐξ ὧν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν οὐκ ἀδικοῦντα Φορμίωνα τουτονί, μέγιστον ἁπάντων εἶναι, ὅτι Πασικλῆς, ἀδελφὸς ὢν Ἀπολλοδώρου τουτουί, οὔτε δίκην εἴληχεν οὔτ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ὧν οὗτος ἐγκαλεῖ. καίτοι οὐ δήπου τὸν μὲν παῖδ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καταλειφθέντα, καὶ οὗ τῶν ὄντων κύριος ἦν, ἐπίτροπος καταλελειμμένος, οὐκ ἂν ἠδίκει, σὲ δέ, ὃς ἀνὴρ κατελείφθης τέτταρα καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη γεγονώς, καὶ ὑπὲρ σαυτοῦ ῥᾳδίως ἂν τὰ δίκαι᾽ ἐλάμβανες εὐθύς, εἴ τι ἠδικοῦ. οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα. ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω καὶ ὁ Πασικλῆς οὐδὲν ἐγκαλεῖ, λαβέ μοι τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν.”Μαρτυρία”
[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] ἃ τοίνυν ἤδη περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μὴ εἰσαγώγιμον εἶναι τὴν δίκην δεῖ σκοπεῖν ὑμᾶς, ταῦτ᾽ ἀναμνήσθητ᾽ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων. ἡμεῖς γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, γεγενημένου μὲν διαλογισμοῦ καὶ ἀφέσεως τῆς τραπέζης καὶ τοῦ ἀσπιδοπηγείου τῆς μισθώσεως, γεγενημένης δὲ διαίτης καὶ πάλιν πάντων ἀφέσεως, οὐκ ἐώντων τῶν νόμων δίκας ὧν ἂν ἀφῇ τις ἅπαξ λαγχάνειν,
[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] συκοφαντοῦντος τούτου καὶ παρὰ τοὺς νόμους δικαζομένου παρεγραψάμεθ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων μὴ εἶναι τὴν δίκην εἰσαγώγιμον. ἵν᾽ οὖν εἰδῆθ᾽ ὑπὲρ οὗ τὴν ψῆφον οἴσετε, τόν τε νόμον ὑμῖν τοῦτον ἀναγνώσεται καὶ τὰς μαρτυρίας ἐφεξῆς τῶν παρόντων, ὅτ᾽ ἀφίει τῆς μισθώσεως καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἐγκλημάτων Ἀπολλόδωρος. λαβέ μοι τὰς μαρτυρίας ταυτασὶ καὶ τὸν νόμον.”Μαρτυρίαι”“Νόμος”
[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] ἀκούετε τοῦ νόμου λέγοντος, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τά τ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ὧν μὴ εἶναι δίκας, καὶ ὅσα τις ἀφῆκεν ἢ ἀπήλλαξεν. εἰκότως: εἰ γάρ ἐστι δίκαιον, ὧν ἂν ἅπαξ γένηται δίκη, μηκέτ᾽ ἐξεῖναι δικάζεσθαι, πολὺ τῶν ἀφεθέντων δικαιότερον μὴ εἶναι δίκας. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐν ὑμῖν ἡττηθεὶς τάχ᾽ ἂν εἴποι τοῦθ᾽ ὡς ἐξηπατήθηθ᾽ ὑμεῖς: ὁ δ᾽ αὑτοῦ φανερῶς καταγνοὺς καὶ ἀφεὶς καὶ ἀπαλλάξας, τίν᾽ ἂν ἑαυτὸν αἰτίαν αἰτιασάμενος τῶν αὐτῶν πάλιν εἰκότως δικάζοιτο; οὐδεμίαν δήπου. διόπερ τοῦτο πρῶτον ἔγραψεν ὁ τὸν νόμον θεὶς ὧν μὴ εἶναι δίκας, ὅσα τις ἀφῆκεν ἢ ἀπήλλαξεν. ἃ τῷδε γέγονεν ἀμφότερα: καὶ γὰρ ἀφῆκεν καὶ ἀπήλλαξεν. ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι.
λαβὲ δή μοι καὶ τὸν τῆς προθεσμίας νόμον.”Νόμος”
[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] ὁ μὲν τοίνυν νόμος, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, σαφῶς οὑτωσὶ τὸν χρόνον ὥρισεν: Ἀπολλόδωρος δ᾽ οὑτοσὶ παρεληλυθότων ἐτῶν πλέον ἢ εἴκοσιν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ συκοφαντίαν ἀξιοῖ περὶ πλείονος ὑμᾶς ποιήσασθαι τῶν νόμων, καθ᾽ οὓς ὀμωμοκότες δικάζετε. καίτοι πᾶσι μὲν τοῖς νόμοις προσέχειν εἰκός ἐσθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ τούτῳ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι.
[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] δοκεῖ γάρ μοι καὶ ὁ Σόλων οὐδενὸς ἄλλου ἕνεκα θεῖναι αὐτὸν ἢ τοῦ μὴ συκοφαντεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἀδικουμένοις τὰ πέντ᾽ ἔτη ἱκανὸν ἡγήσατ᾽ εἶναι εἰσπράξασθαι: κατὰ δὲ τῶν ψευδομένων τὸν χρόνον ἐνόμισεν σαφέστατον ἔλεγχον ἔσεσθαι. καὶ ἅμ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἀδύνατον ἔγνω ὂν τούς τε συμβάλλοντας καὶ τοὺς μάρτυρας ἀεὶ ζῆν, τὸν νόμον ἀντὶ τούτων ἔθηκεν, ὅπως μάρτυς εἴη τοῦ δικαίου τοῖς ἐρήμοις.
[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] θαυμάζω τοίνυν ἔγωγ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἃ πρὸς ταῦτ᾽ ἐπιχειρήσει λέγειν Ἀπολλόδωρος οὑτοσί. οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖνό γ᾽ ὑπείληφεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς, μηδὲν ὁρῶντες εἰς χρήματα τοῦτον ἠδικημένον, ὀργιεῖσθ᾽ ὅτι τὴν μητέρ᾽ ἔγημεν αὐτοῦ Φορμίων. οὐ γὰρ ἀγνοεῖ τοῦτο, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν λέληθεν, οὐδ᾽ ὑμῶν πολλούς, ὅτι Σωκράτης ὁ τραπεζίτης ἐκεῖνος, παρὰ τῶν κυρίων ἀπαλλαγεὶς ὥσπερ ὁ τούτου πατήρ, ἔδωκε Σατύρῳ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, ἑαυτοῦ ποτὲ γενομένῳ.
[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] ἕτερος Σωκλῆς τραπεζιτεύσας ἔδωκε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα Τιμοδήμῳ τῷ νῦν ἔτ᾽ ὄντι καὶ ζῶντι, γενομένῳ ποθ᾽ αὑτοῦ. καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐνθάδε ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν οἱ περὶ τὰς ἐργασίας ὄντες ταύτας, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ἔδωκεν Στρυμόδωρος Ἑρμαίῳ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ οἰκέτῃ τὴν γυναῖκα, καὶ τελευτησάσης ἐκείνης ἔδωκε πάλιν τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ πολλοὺς ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν τοιούτους.
[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] εἰκότως: ὑμῖν μὲν γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῖς γένει πολίταις, οὐδὲ ἓν πλῆθος χρημάτων ἀντὶ τοῦ γένους καλόν ἐστιν ἑλέσθαι: τοῖς δὲ τοῦτο μὲν δωρεὰν ἢ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἢ παρ᾽ ἄλλων τινῶν λαβοῦσιν, τῇ τύχῃ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ χρηματίσασθαι καὶ ἑτέρων πλείω κτήσασθαι καὶ αὐτῶν τούτων ἀξιωθεῖσιν, ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν φυλακτέα. διόπερ Πασίων ὁ πατὴρ ὁ σὸς οὐ πρῶτος οὐδὲ μόνος, οὐδ᾽ αὑτὸν ὑβρίζων οὐδ᾽ ὑμᾶς τοὺς υἱεῖς, ἀλλὰ μόνην ὁρῶν σωτηρίαν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ πράγμασιν, εἰ τοῦτον ἀνάγκῃ ποιήσειεν οἰκεῖον ὑμῖν, ἔδωκε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, μητέρα δ᾽ ὑμετέραν τούτῳ.