Delphi Complete Works of Demosthenes

by Demosthenes

  [18] μὴ δοκεῖν μοι μήτε ὁμολογῆσαι τὸν πατέρα τούτῳ ἀποδώσειν τὸ ἀργύριον ὃ κατέλιπε Λύκων, μήτε συσταθῆναι αὐτὸν τῷ πατρὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Λύκωνος, καὶ Φορμίων, ἦ μὴν διαλογίσασθαί τε ἐναντίον Ἀρχεβιάδου τῷ Λύκωνι αὐτὸς καὶ προσταχθῆναι αὑτῷ Κηφισιάδῃ ἀποδοῦναι τὸ ἀργύριον, τὸν δὲ Κηφισιάδην δεῖξαι αὑτῷ τὸν Ἀρχεβιάδην,

  [18] that, namely, I believed that my father never agreed to pay the plaintiff the money which Lycon left, and that the plaintiff was not introduced to my father by Lycon; and Phormion was ready to swear that in very truth he had himself reckoned up the amount with Lycon in the presence of Archebiades, and that instructions were given him to pay the money to Cephisiades, and that Archebiades had identified Cephisiades for him;

  [19] καὶ ὅτε Κάλλιππος προσῆλθεν τὸ πρῶτον πρὸς τὴν τράπεζαν, λέγων ὅτι τετελευτηκὼς εἴη ὁ Λύκων καὶ αὐτὸς ἀξιοίη τὰ γράμματα ἰδεῖν, εἴ τι καταλελοιπὼς εἴη ὁ ξένος ἀργύριον, ἦ μὴν δείξαντος ἑαυτοῦ εὐθὺς αὐτῷ τὰ γράμματα, ἰδόντα αὐτὸν τῷ Κηφισιάδῃ γεγραμμένον ἀποδοῦναι, σιωπῇ οἴχεσθαι ἀπιόντα, οὐδὲν οὔτε ἀμφισβητήσαντα οὔτ᾽ ἀπειπόνθ᾽ αὑτῷ περὶ τοῦ ἀργυρίου, τούτων ὑμῖν τάς τε μαρτυρίας ἀμφοτέρας καὶ τὸν νόμον ἀναγνώσεται.”Μαρτυρίαι”“Νόμος”

  [19] also that when Callippus came for the first time to the bank, saying that Lycon was dead and that he, Callippus, claimed the right to inspect the books to see whether the Heracleote had left any money, he, Phormion, had at once shown him the books, and that Callippus, after seeing the entry that payment was to be made to Cephisiades, went away in silence, without filing any counterclaim or making any protest to him about the payment of the money — in proof of all these matters the clerk shall read you the depositions which establish both facts, and also the law.” Depositions ““ Law”

  [20] φέρε δὴ ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἐχρῆτο Λύκων τῷ Καλλίππῳ ἐπιδείξω: οἶμαι γάρ τί μοι καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι πρὸς τὴν ἀλαζονείαν τὴν τουτουὶ τοῦ φάσκοντος αὑτῷ δωρεὰν δοθῆναι τὸ ἀργύριον τοῦτο παρὰ τοῦ Λύκωνος. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ τετταράκοντα μνᾶς ἔκδοσιν ἐκδοὺς εἰς Ἄκην Μεγακλείδῃ τῷ Ἐλευσινίῳ καὶ Θρασύλλῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, μεταδόξαν αὐτῷ μὴ ἐκεῖσε πλεῖν μηδὲ κινδυνεύειν, ἐγκαλέσας τι τῷ Μεγακλείδῃ περὶ τῶν τόκων ὡς ἐξηπατημένος διεφέρετο καὶ ἐδικάζετο, βουλόμενος τὴν ἔκδοσιν κομίσασθαι.

  [20] Now, men of the jury, I shall show you that Lycon had no dealings with Callippus; for I think this will be something to confound the impudent assurance of this man, who asserts that this money was given to him by Lycon as a present. Lycon had lent to Megacleides of Eleusis and his brother Thrasyllus the sum of forty minae for a voyage to Acê but, when they changed their minds and decided not to risk the voyage to that point, Lycon, after making some complaints against Megacleides regarding the interest, and believing that he had been deceived, quarrelled with him and went to law for the purpose of recovering his loan.

  [21] συχνῆς δὲ πάνυ πραγματείας περὶ τοσαῦτα χρήματα γενομένης, τὸν μὲν Κάλλιππον ὁ Λύκων οὐδαμοῖ πώποτε παρεκάλεσεν, τὸν δὲ Ἀρχεβιάδην καὶ τοὺς τοῦ Ἀρχεβιάδου φίλους: καὶ ὁ διαλλάξας αὐτοὺς Ἀρχεβιάδης ἦν. ὡς δὲ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τούτων ὑμῖν αὐτὸν τὸν Μεγακλείδην μάρτυρα παρέξομαι.”Μαρτυρία”

  [21] The proceedings were prolonged, as so large a sum was at stake, yet Lycon never at any time called in Callippus for consultation; he sought the aid of Archebiades and the friends of Archebiades, and it was Archebiades who brought about a settlement between them.

  To prove that I am speaking the truth, I shall bring before you Megacleides himself as a witness to these facts.” Deposition”

  [22] οὑτωσὶ μὲν οἰκείως φαίνεται χρώμενος, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὁ Λύκων τῷ Καλλίππῳ, ὥστε μήτε παρακαλεῖν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ αὑτοῦ πράγματα μήτε κατάγεσθαι ὡς τοῦτον μηδεπώποτε: καὶ αὐτό γε τοῦτο μόνον οὐ τετολμήκασιν οἱ οἰκεῖοι οἱ τούτου μαρτυρῆσαι, ὡς κατήγετο παρὰ τούτῳ ἐκεῖνος, εὖ εἰδότες ὅτι διὰ βασάνου ἐκ τῶν οἰκετῶν ὁ ἔλεγχος ἤδη ἔσοιτο, εἴ τι τοιοῦτο ψεύσοιντο.

  [22] You see, men of the jury, how intimate Lycon was with Callippus. He neither called him in for consultation about his affairs, nor did he ever put up at the home of Callippus as a guest; and this very fact is the one thing to which the plaintiff’s friends have not ventured to depose, that, namely, he ever did put up at his house; for they knew well that, if they told any such lie as this, they would at once be convicted by the slaves when these were put to the torture.

  [23] βούλομαι δ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ τεκμήριόν τι εἰπεῖν τηλικοῦτον, ᾧ δῆλον ὑμῖν ἔσται, ὡς ἐγὼ οἴομαι, ὅτι πάντα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔψευσται. τῷ γὰρ Λύκωνι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, εἴπερ ἠσπάζετο μὲν τουτονὶ καὶ οἰκείως εἶχεν, ὥσπερ οὗτός φησιν, ἐβούλετο δὲ δωρεὰν δοῦναι αὐτῷ,

  [23] But I wish to mention to you a piece of circumstantial evidence so striking, that it will, I think, convince you that Callippus has uttered nothing but a pack of lies. If Lycon, men of the jury, had been as fond of the plaintiff and as intimate with him as the plaintiff claims, and had wished to give him this money as a present in the event of anything happening to himself,

  [24] εἴ τι πάθοι, τὸ ἀργύριον, πότερον κάλλιον ἦν ἄντικρυς παρὰ τῷ Καλλίππῳ καταλιπεῖν τὸ ἀργύριον, ὃ ἔμελλε σωθεὶς μὲν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἀπολήψεσθαι παρὰ φίλου γε ὄντος αὐτῷ καὶ προξένου, εἰ δέ τι πάθοι, ἄντικρυς ἔσεσθαι δεδωκώς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐβούλετο, ἢ ἐπὶ τῇ τραπέζῃ καταλιπεῖν; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οἶμαι ἐκεῖνο καὶ δικαιότερον καὶ μεγαλοπρεπέστερον εἶναι. οὐ τοίνυν φαίνεται τούτων οὐδὲν ποιήσας, ὥστε καὶ ταῦτα ὑμῖν τεκμήρια ἔστω, ἀλλὰ τῷ Κηφισιάδῃ καὶ γράψας καὶ προστάξας ἀποδοῦναι.

  [24] would it not have been better to have left the money outright in the custody of Callippus, in which case, if he returned safe, he would have recovered it duly and justly from one who was his friend and his proxenos, and, if anything had happened to him, he would have given the money outright as he purposed? Would this, I ask, not have been better than leaving it in the bank? For my part, I think the former course would have been fairer and more highminded. However, he is seen to have done nothing of the kind, so you must regard this as presumptive evidence; no; he gave written and oral instructions that it was to Cephisiades that the money
was to be paid.

  [25] ἔτι τοίνυν καὶ τοδὶ σκέψασθε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτι Κάλλιππος μὲν ἦν πολίτης ὑμέτερος καὶ οὐκ ἀδύνατος οὐδέτερα ποιῆσαι, οὔτε κακῶς οὔτε εὖ, ὁ δὲ Κηφισιάδης καὶ μέτοικος καὶ οὐδὲν δυνάμενος, ὥστε μὴ προσθέσθαι ἂν παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον τῷ Κηφισιάδῃ μᾶλλον τὸν πατέρα ἢ τούτῳ τὰ δίκαια ποιῆσαι.

  [25] I would have you regard the following point also, men of the jury. Callippus was one of your citizens, a man able both to render a service and to do an injury, while Cephisiades was a resident alien and a person without influence; so one cannot suppose that my father would have taken the side of Cephisiades in defiance of justice rather than do what was right for the plaintiff.

  [26] ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία, ἴσως ἂν εἴποι, κερδαίνων τι ἰδίᾳ ὁ πατὴρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐκείνῳ μᾶλλον προσετίθετο τὴν γνώμην ἢ τούτῳ. εἶτα πρῶτον μὲν τὸν δυνησόμενον διπλάσιον τοῦ λήμματος κακὸν ποιῆσαι ἠδίκει, ἔπειτα ἐνταῦθα μὲν αἰσχροκερδὴς ἦν, εἰς δὲ τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ λῃτουργίας καὶ δωρεὰς τῇ πόλει οὔ;

  [26] Ah, but he will say perhaps, that my father got some private profit out of the money, and therefore took sides with Cephisiades rather than with the plaintiff. Then we are to believe, in the first place, that he wronged a man who would be able to do him injury to twice the amount of his gains, and secondly that my father in this instance was a base lover of gain, whereas in regard to special taxes and public services and gifts to the state he was not.

  [27] καὶ τῶν μὲν ξένων οὐδένα ἠδίκει, Κάλλιππον δέ; καὶ οὗτος, ὡς χρηστῷ μὲν αὐτῷ ὄντι καὶ οὐδὲν ἂν ψευσαμένῳ ὅρκον ἐδίδου, ὥς φησιν, ὡς περὶ πονηροῦ δὲ καὶ ἀπαλείφοντος ἀπὸ τῶν παρακαταθηκῶν νυνὶ διαλέγεται; κἀκεῖνος οὔτ᾽ ὀμόσαι ‘θέλων, ὡς οὗτός φησιν, οὔτ᾽ ἀποδιδοὺς οὐκ εὐθὺς ἂν ὠφλήκει; τῷ ταῦτα πιστά, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί;

  [27] And did he, who never wronged a stranger, wrong Callippus? And did the plaintiff, as he alleges, tender an oath to my father as to one who was a worthy man and would tell no falsehood, and yet does he now speak of him as a base fellow, who erases records of deposits? And, if my father refused to take the oath, as the plaintiff claims, or to make payment, how could he have escaped immediate condemnation? Who can believe this, men of the jury? I certainly think no one can.

  [28] ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐδενὶ οἴομαι. καὶ ὁ Ἀρχεβιάδης εἰς τοῦτο φαυλότητος ἥκει, ὥστε τοῦ Καλλίππου δημότου ὄντος αὐτῷ καὶ πολιτευομένου καὶ οὐκ ἰδιώτου ὄντος καταμαρτυρεῖ, καὶ φησὶν ἡμᾶς μὲν ἀληθῆ λέγειν, τοῦτον δὲ ψεύδεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα εἰδὼς ὅτι, ἂν οὗτος βούληται ἐπισκήψασθαι αὐτῷ τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων καὶ ἄλλο μηδὲν ποιῆσαι ἢ ἐξορκῶσαι, ἀνάγκη αὐτῷ ἔσται πίστιν ἐπιθεῖναι ἣν ἂν κελεύῃ οὗτος.

  [28] And has Archebiades forsooth sunk to such an extreme of baseness as to testify against Callippus, a fellow-demesman of his own, one in public life, and an official, and to say that I am telling the truth while Callippus is lying, and all this, when he knows that, if Callippus chooses to proceed against him for false testimony, or to do no more than put him on oath, he will be compelled to take whatever oath Callippus may require?

  [29] ἔπειτα ἵνα ὁ Κηφισιάδης ἔχῃ τὸ ἀργύριον, ἄνθρωπος μέτοικος, ἢ Φορμίων, ὅν φησιν ἀπαληλιφέναι τι οὗτος τοῦ ἀργυρίου, πεισθήσεσθε ὑμεῖς ὡς ἐπιορκήσειεν ἂν ὁ Ἀρχεβιάδης; οὐκ ἔκ γε τῶν εἰκότων, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί. οὐ γὰρ ἄξιον οὔτε Ἀρχεβιάδου κακίαν οὐδεμίαν καταγνῶναι οὔτε τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἡμετέρου: πολὺ γὰρ αὐτὸν φιλότιμον ἴστε μᾶλλον ὄντα ἢ κακόν τι ἢ αἰσχρὸν ἐπιτηδεύοντα, καὶ πρὸς Κάλλιππον οὐχ οὕτως ἔχοντα ὥστε καταφρονήσαντα τούτου ἀδικῆσαι ἄν τι αὐτόν.

  [29] And again, can anyone persuade you that Archebiades would perjure himself in order that Cephisiades, a resident alien, might get the money, or Phormion either, a man whom Callippus charges with having expunged some records of deposit? It is not a probable thing, men of the jury. Nor is it right to judge either Archebiades or my father guilty of any act of baseness; you know that my father was too emulous of honor to indulge in any base or shameful practices, and that his relations with Callippus were not such as to lead him through contempt to do him an injury.

  [30] οὐ γὰρ οὕτω μοι δοκεῖ δύνασθαι ὥστ᾽ εὐκαταφρόνητος εἶναι, ὃς οὕτως ἐρρωμένος ἐστίν, ὥστε πέρυσί μοι λαχὼν τὴν δίκην ταυτηνὶ καὶ προκαλεσάμενος τῷ Λυσιθείδῃ ἐπιτρέψαι, ἐγὼ μὲν καίπερ καταπεφρονημένος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦτό γε ὀρθῶς ἐβουλευσάμην （κατὰ τοὺς νόμους γὰρ ἐπέτρεψα καὶ ἀπήνεγκα πρὸς τὴν ἀρχήν）, οὗτος δὲ τὸν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἀπενηνεγμένον διαιτητὴν ἔπεισεν ἀνώμοτον διαιτῆσαι, ἐμοῦ διαμαρτυρομένου κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ὀμόσαντα διαιτᾶν, ἵνα αὐτῷ ᾖ πρὸς ὑμᾶς λέγειν ὅτι καὶ Λυσιθείδης, ἀνὴρ καλὸς κἀγαθός, ἔγνω περὶ αὐτῶν.

  [30] Callippus indeed does not appear to me to be a man of such slight importance as to be treated with contempt — a man of such influence that last year, after he had instituted this action against me, and had challenged me to refer the matter to Lysitheides for arbitration （and I, although scorned by him, yet took wise counsel in this at any rate — I made the reference in due legal form, and carried the matter before the magistrate）, Callippus, I say, induced the arbitrator, who had been designated according to the laws, to pronounce his award without taking oath, although I protested that he should give it on oath as the laws ordain, his purpose being that he might be able to say before you, that Lysitheides, a good and worthy man, had already given a decision regarding the matters at issue.

  [31] Λυσιθείδης γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἕως μὲν ὁ πατὴρ ἔζη, καὶ ἄνευ ὅρκου καὶ μεθ᾽ ὅρκου ἴσως ἂν οὐκ ἠδίκησεν ἐκεῖνον: ἔμελε γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐκείνου. ἐμοῦ δὲ ἄνευ μὲν ὅρκου οὐδὲν αὐτῷ ἔμελεν, μεθ᾽ ὅρκου δὲ ἴσως ἂν οὐκ ἠδίκησεν διὰ τὸ αὑτοῦ ἴδιον: διόπερ ἀνώμοτος ἀπεφήνατο. ὡς δὲ ἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ τούτων ὑμῖν τοὺς παραγενομένους μάρτυρας παρέξομαι.”Μάρτυρες”

  [31] Lysitheides, men of the jury, so long as my father lived, would probably not have wronged him either with or without an oath, for he had a regard for him; but for me he had no regard, while not upon his oath, although perhaps, if put upon his oath, he would have abstained from wronging me in his own interest. This is why he made the award without taking an oath.

  To prove
that I am speaking the truth, I shall, in regard to these matters also, bring forward as witnesses those who were present.” Witnesses”

  [32] ὅ τι μὲν καὶ παρὰ τοὺς νόμους καὶ παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον δύναται διαπράττεσθαι Κάλλιππος, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τῆς μαρτυρίας ἀκηκόατε. δέομαι δὲ ὑμῶν αὐτός τε ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ πατρός, ἀναμνησθέντας ὅτι πάντων μὲν ὑμῖν καὶ μάρτυρας καὶ τεκμήρια καὶ νόμους καὶ πίστεις παρεσχόμην ὧν εἴρηκα, τούτῳ δὲ ἐπιδείκνυμι ὅτι ἐξόν, εἴπερ τι αὐτῷ προσῆκεν τοῦ ἀργυρίου, ἐπὶ τὸν Κηφισιάδην βαδίζειν τὸν ὁμολογοῦντα κεκομίσθαι καὶ ἔχειν τὸ ἀργύριον,

  [32] That Callippus is able to achieve his ends contrary to the laws and contrary to justice, you have heard, men of the jury, from the deposition. I, on my part, beseech you on my own behalf and on my father’s, to bear in mind that, in support of all that I have said, I have produced before you witnesses and circumstantial evidence and laws and sworn statements; and in the case of the plaintiff I have shown that, while, if he had any claim to this money, he might have proceeded against Cephisiades, who admits that he collected the money and has it in his possession, and still take these pledges from me, he does not proceed against him, although he knows that the money is not in our hands — I beseech you to remember all these facts, and to give a verdict in my favor.