There is one proof which I omitted in my former speech, quite as important as any of those which were brought forward, to prove that these men did not pay the marriage-portion to Aphobus. This I shall speak of first, and shall then undertake to refute the falsehoods which the defendant has uttered before you. For the fellow, men of the jury, when he first determined to lay claim to the property of Aphobus, declared that he had paid as the marriage-portion, not a talent, as he now alleges, but eighty minae; and he set up pillars1 on the house for two thousand drachmae, and on the land for a talent, wishing to preserve both the one and the other for Aphobus. [2] When, however, the trial against him had been decided, and he saw what your attitude was toward those who were too brazen in their wrongdoings, he came to his senses, and concluded that I should appear to be suffering outrageous treatment, if, after being robbed of such large sums, I should be unable to recover anything whatever from Aphobus, who had my property in his possession, but it should become clear that I was prevented by the defendant from recovering anything. [3] What, then, does he do? He removes the pillars from the house, and declares that the marriage-portion was a talent only, which sum was guaranteed by a mortgage on the land. Yet, if the inscription on the house was set up by him in fairness and sincerity, it is plain that the one on the land was also. But if he set up a false inscription in the former case with the intent to commit fraud, it is probable that the latter one was false also. [4] This matter you should consider, not in the light of the proofs which I have advanced, but from the conduct of Onetor himself. No man on earth compelled him; he took down the pillars himself; and thus by his own act he makes clear that he is a liar. To prove that these statements of mine are true, that he even now declares that the land is mortgaged for a talent, but that he laid claim to two thousand drachmae more on the house, and took the pillars down after the suit was decided, I shall bring forward witnesses who know the facts.

Now take the deposition.“ Deposition ” [5]

It is plain, then, that Onetor having put up pillars on the house for two thousand drachmae, and on the land for a talent, intended to push his claim as though he had paid eighty minae. Could you have stronger proof that there is not a word of truth in what he now says, than the fact that his present story is different from the one he told at first about the same matters? To me it seems that no stronger proof than this could be found. [6]

Now note the shamelessness of the man. He had the audacity to say before you that he is not depriving me of what the land is worth beyond a talent, and that, too, when he has himself fixed its value as nothing more. With what end in view, Onetor, did you fix your pillars on the house for the two thousand extra drachmae, when you were demanding eighty minae, if the land was really worth more, instead of securing the two thousand drachmae also by a mortgage on the land? [7] Or, when it suits your purpose to save all of the property of Aphobus, is the land to be worth a talent only, and are you to hold the house on a mortgage of two thousand drachmae more; and the marriage-portion being eighty minae, will you claim the right to hold both the land and the house; or again, when this is not to your interest, is all to be different: the house is to be worth a talent, because now it is I that hold it, and what is left of the farm is to be worth not less than two talents, in order that it may seem that I am wronging Aphobus, not myself being robbed? [8] Do you see that, while you pretend to have paid the dowry, you are shown not to have paid it in any way whatsoever? For that line of conduct is sincere and free from guile, which remains throughout such as it was at the first, but you are proven to have followed the contrary course, so as to fulfil your service as an underling to my detriment. [9]

It is worth while to consider in the light of these facts what sort of an oath he would have sworn, if an oath had been tendered him. For, when he declared that the dowry was eighty minae, if one had granted that he should recover that sum on condition of his swearing that this statement of his was true, what would he have done? Is it not plain that he would have taken the oath? What can he say to deny that he would have sworn it under those circumstances, when he demands the right to do so now? Well then, his own words prove that he would have perjured himself; for he now claims that he paid, not eighty minae, but a talent. What reason is there why one should believe that he is forswearing himself in one statement rather than in the other? Or what opinion should one rightly hold of a man who thus lightly convicts himself of perjury? [10]

But perhaps not all of his acts have been of this nature, nor is he proven in every instance to be a trickster. Yet it has been shown that he sought in Aphobus's interest to have the damages fixed at a talent, and himself offered to act as bail for the payment to me of that sum. Yet observe that this is a proof not only that his wife was living with Aphobus and that Onetor was on intimate terms with him, but also that he had not paid the dowry. [11] For what man would be so foolish as, first, to pay out so large a sum, then to take as security a single piece of property, the title to which was under dispute, and finally, not satisfied with his previous losses and assuming that the one who had wronged him was now going to act justly, to become his bail for the damages assessed by the court? Nobody would, to my thinking. The assumption is not even rational, that a man unable to recover a talent for himself, should promise to pay that sum to another, and further to give bail for it. No; from these facts alone it is clear that he has never paid the dowry, but as a close friend of Aphobus he took this mortgage in return for my large property, wishing to make his sister jointly with Aphobus an inheritor of my estate. [12] Then he seeks now to deceive and beguile you by claiming that he set up the pillars before judgement was given against Aphobus. Aye, Onetor; but not before it was given by you, if what you now say is true. For it is clear that you acted as you did because you were convinced of his guilt. Again, this language of yours is absurd, as though you, men of the jury, did not know that all those who commit frauds of this sort determine what they are going to say, and that no one ever lost a suit through keeping quiet, or admitting that he was in the wrong; but it is, I think, when he has been convicted of making a false statement, that men know what manner of man he is. [13] And this is what appears to me to be exactly the plight of Onetor. For tell me, how can it be just, if you set up pillars for eighty minae, that the dowry should be eighty minae; and, if for more, more; and, if for less, less? Or how is it just, when your sister up to this present day has never lived with any other man, or been separated from Aphobus, when you have neither paid the dowry, nor been willing to have recourse to the torture, or to any other fair means of determining the matters at issue, that because you claim to have set up pillars, the farm shall belong to you? I certainly do not see how it can be. It is the truth to which we must look, not to arguments which a man has contrived （as you are doing） in order to seem to speak with some plausibility. [14] Then—the most outrageous thing of all—suppose you had in reality paid the marriage-portion （which you have not paid）, whose fault was it? Was it not yours? For you paid it on the security of my property. Was it not ten full years before he became your brother-in-law that Aphobus took possession of my estate for which judgement has been rendered against him? And was it right for you to recover the whole amount, while I, who had been awarded damages against him, I, an orphan who had been wronged and robbed of a marriage-portion that was genuine, I who with better right than any other man should have been exempted from the risk of having to pay costs,2 should be forced to suffer thus, and should have recovered nothing whatever, though ready to meet any of your3 proposals, had you been willing to do anything that justice required?

1 To signify that the property was mortgaged.

2 See note a on Dem. 27.67

3 The pronoun is in the plural and refers to Onetor and Aphobus.

Men of the jury, having entered a plea that the action is not admissible, I wish first to speak concerning the laws in accordance with which the plea was entered. The laws, men of the jury, ordain that actions for shipowners and merchants shall be upon loans for shipments to or from Athens, concerning which there shall be written agreements; and if anyone brings suit in violation of this provision, the action shall not be maintainable. [2] Now between this man Zenothemis and myself there has been no contract or agreement in writing, as he himself acknowledges in his complaint. He states that he made a loan to Hegestratus, a shipowner, and that after the latter was lost at sea, we appropriated the cargo. This is his charge in the complaint. The same speech will suffice to prove to you that his action is not maintainable, and to make you see the whole of his plot and his rascality. [3] I beg of you all, men of the jury, if you ever attended closely to any matter, to attend to this. You will hear of a man's audacity and villainy that go beyond all bounds, provided I am able, as I hope to be, to tell you the whole tale of what he has done. [4]

Zenothemis, who is here before you, being an underling of Hegestratus, the shipowner, who he himself in his complaint states to have been lost at sea （how, he does not add, but I will tell you）, concocted with him the following fraud. Both of them borrowed money in Syracuse. Hegestratus admitted to those lending money to Zenothemis, if inquiries were made, that there was on board the ship a large amount of grain belonging to the latter; and the plaintiff admitted to those lending money to Hegestratus that the cargo of the ship was his. As one was the shipowner and the other a passenger, they were naturally believed in what they said of one another. [5] But immediately on getting the money, they sent it home to Massalia, and put nothing on board the ship. The agreement being, as is usual in all such cases, that the money was to be paid back if the ship reached port safely, they laid a plot to sink the ship, that so they might defraud their creditors. Hegestratus, accordingly, when they were two or three days' voyage from land, went down by night into the hold of the vessel, and began to cut a hole in the ship's bottom, while Zenothemis, as though knowing nothing about it, remained on deck with the rest of the passengers. When the noise was heard, those on the vessel saw that something wrong was going on in the hold, and rushed down to bear aid. [6] Hegestratus, being caught in the act, and expecting to pay the penalty, took to flight, and, hotly pursued by the others, flung himself into the sea. It was dark, and he missed the ship's boat, and so was drowned. Thus, miserable as he was, he met a miserable end as he deserved, suffering the fate which he purposed to bring about for others. [7] As for this fellow, his associate and accomplice, at the first on board the ship immediately after the attempted crime, just as though he knew nothing of it but was himself in utter consternation, he sought to induce the sailing-master and the seamen to embark in the boat and abandon the vessel with all speed, declaring that there was no hope of safety and that the ship would presently sink; thinking that thus their design might be accomplished, the ship be lost, and the creditors thus be robbed of their money. [8] In this he failed, for our agent,1 who was on board, opposed the plan, and promised the sailors large rewards if they should bring the ship safe into port. The ship safely brought to Cephallenia, thanks chiefly to the gods, and after them to the bravery of the seamen. Again after this he schemed together with the Massaliotes, the fellow-countrymen of Hegestratus, to prevent the vessel from completing her voyage to Athens, saying that he himself was from Massalia; that the money came from thence; and that the shipowner and the lenders were Massaliotes. [9] In this, too, he failed; for the magistrates in Cephallenia decided that the vessel should return to Athens, from which port she had set sail. Then the man, whom no one would have thought audacious enough to come here, after having plotted and wrought such deeds—this man, Athenians, has so surpassed all in shamelessness and audacity, that he has not only come, but has actually laid claim to my grain, and has brought suit against me! [10]

What, then, is the reason for this? And what can have induced the fellow to come here and commence this suit? I will tell you, men of the jury, though Heaven knows it gives me pain to do so; but I must. There exists in the Peiraeus a gang of scoundrels2 closely leagued with one another. [11] You would know them at once, should you see them. When this man Zenothemis was scheming to prevent the vessel from completing her voyage to Athens we chose one of these men after consulting with one another3 as our representative. He was known to us after a fashion, but we had no idea of his real character. This was in fact a piece of misfortune for us as great, if so much may be said, as our having to deal with rascals at the start. This man who was sent out by us—his name was Aristophon, and he is the same one, as we now hear, who managed the business of Miccalion—has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, and has sold him his services. In a word he is the one who is managing the whole affair, and Zenothemis has been glad to accept this help. [12] For when he failed in his scheme to destroy the vessel, not being able to pay back their money to his creditors—how could he pay, when at the start he had put nothing on board?—he lays claim to my goods, and declares that he has lent money to Hegestratus on the security of the grain which our agent sailing with him had purchased. The creditors, who had been deceived in the first instance, seeing that instead of receiving their money, they have a scoundrel as their debtor and nothing more, and hoping that, if you are imposed upon by Zenothemis, they may recover their own out of my property, are forced to make common cause with him in order to protect their own interests, although they know him to be making these false charges against me. [13]

Such, to speak briefly, is the matter on which you are to cast your votes. But I wish first to bring before you the witnesses to what I am saying, and then to instruct you regarding other aspects of the case.

Please read the depositions.“ Depositions ” [14]

When the vessel arrived here—for the Cephallenians ordered, despite the plaintiff's machinations, that it should put into the port from which it first sailed—those who had lent money on the ship immediately took possession of her, and the man who had bought the grain took possession of it; he was the one who had borrowed the money of us. After this the plaintiff came, having with him Aristophon, the man sent out as our representative, and laid claim to the grain, saying that he had lent money to Hegestratus. [15] “What are you saying, fellow?” exclaimed Protus immediately. （This was the name of the man who imported the grain, and who owed us the money.） “Is it you who have given money to Hegestratus, you who aided him to deceive the others, that he might borrow of them? Would you who often heard him say that those who ventured their money would lose it, would you, I say, hearing this, have ventured yours?” “Yes,” said he impudently. “Well, then,” interrupted one of those present, “if what you say is never so true, your partner and fellow-countryman, Hegestratus, has taken you in, it appears, and for that has passed sentence of death upon himself, and is dead.” [16] “Yes,” said another of the bystanders, “and that this fellow has co-operated with Hegestratus in the whole matter, I will give you a proof. For before the attempt was made to cut through the ship's bottom, this man and Hegestratus deposited with one of the ship's company a written agreement. Yet, if you had confidence in him when you gave the money, why should you have sought some security for yourself before the crime? But if you distrusted him, why did you not, like the others, get a legal acknowledgement before sailing?” [17] But why relate all that was said? We made no progress by all this talking; he held on to the grain. Protus tried to put him out, and so did Phertatus, Protus's partner; but he wouldn't budge, declaring point-blank that he would not be put out of possession by anyone, unless I myself should put him out.4 [18] After this Protus and I challenged him to go before the Syracusan authorities, and, if it should be shown that Protus had bought the grain, that the customs duties were recorded in his name, and that it was he who had paid the price, we demanded that Zenothemis be punished as a rascal; if this were not proved, we agreed that he should receive back all he had expended and a talent in addition and that we would relinquish our claim to the grain. Despite this challenge and all that Protus and I could say, we made no progress, but I had to choose either to put Zenothemis out, or to lose my property which had been brought safe to port and was there before my eyes. [19] Protus on his part adjured us by the gods to put him out, declaring himself ready to sail back to Sicily; but if, despite this willingness of his, I should give up the grain to Zenothemis, he said it made no difference to him. To prove that I am telling the truth in this—that the plaintiff refused to be put out of possession except by me, that he refused the challenge to sail back to Sicily, and that he deposited the agreement in the course of the voyage—read the depositions.“ Depositions ” [20]

When, therefore, he refused to be put out of possession by Protus, or to sail back to Sicily for an equitable settlement, and when it was proved that he was an accomplice in all the villainy of Hegestratus, the only course left for us, who had lent our money here at Athens and had taken over the grain from the man who had honestly purchased it there in Sicily, was to dispossess the plaintiff. [21] What else could we have done? Not one of us partners had as yet any idea that you would ever declare the grain to be this man's property—grain which he tried to induce the sailors to abandon, that it might be lost by the sinking of the ship. This fact is the strongest proof that none of it belonged to him; for who would have tried to induce those who were attempting to save it to abandon grain which belonged to himself? Or who would not have accepted the challenge and have sailed to Sicily, where these matters might have been clearly proved? [22] And surely I was not going to have so poor an opinion of you as to imagine that you would vote to allow this man to enter a suit regarding these goods, whose entry into your port he had sought by every means to prevent,—first when he tried to induce the sailors to abandon them, and again when in Cephallenia he strove to prevent the ship from sailing here. [23] Would it not be a shameful and outrageous thing, if Cephallenians, in order to save property for Athenians, ordered the ship to be brought here, but you, who are Athenians, should order the property of your citizens to be given up to those who wished to throw it into the sea, and should allow this fellow to enter an action for goods which he schemed to prevent from being brought here at all? Do not do that, I implore you by Zeus and the Gods. Now read, please, the special plea which I entered.“ Plea ”

Now please read the law.“ Law ” [24]

That my plea that the action is not admissible is in harmony with the laws, has, I think, been sufficiently proved; but you must hear the trick of this clever fellow Aristophon, who has concocted the whole scheme. When they saw that, in the light of the facts, they had absolutely no basis of right, they made overtures to Protus, and induced him to leave the matter wholly in their hands. From the first, as has now become plain to us, they had been working to this end, but had been unable to carry their point. [25] For Protus, so long as he thought to get a profit for himself from the grain by going, clung to it, and chose rather to make his profit, and to render to us what was our due, than to make common cause with these men, sharing with them the advantage gained and doing us an injury. But when, after he had come back here and was negotiating about these matters, grain fell in price, he straightway changed his mind. [26] At the same time （for, men of Athens, the whole truth shall be told you）, we on our part, who had made the loan, came to a quarrel and felt bitter against him （for the loss on the grain was falling on us）, and charged that he had secured for us this pettifogging scoundrel instead of our money. After this, being manifestly none too honest by nature, he went over to their side, and agreed to let judgement go by default in the suit which Zenothemis had brought against him before they had come to an agreement with one another. [27] For, if he had dropped his suit against Protus, it would have been made clear at once that his action against us was a malicious one, and Protus would not consent to have judgement given against him while he was here present, in order that, if they should do for him what they had agreed—well and good; but, if not, he might have the judgement by default set aside. But why speak of all this? If Protus really did what Zenothemis here has written in his complaint, he justly deserves, as it seems to me at least, not merely to have judgement given against him, but to be put to death. For if in danger and tempest he drank so much wine as to be like a madman, what punishment does he not deserve to suffer? [28] Or, if he stole documents, or secretly broke the seals? However, the facts regarding all these things you will determine in your own minds; but, Zenothemis, do not mix up that action with mine. If Protus has wronged you in word or deed, you have, it seems, had satisfaction. No one of us sought to hinder you, or now begs for leniency for him. If you have brought a baseless charge against him, that is no affair of ours. Ah, but the fellow has disappeared. [29] Yes; thanks to you, who wished to deprive us of his testimony, and to be able yourselves to say against him whatever you please. For if the judgement by default had not been of your own contriving, you would at the same time have called him before the Polemarch, and have had him put under bail; and, if he had appointed sureties, he would have been forced to remain, or you would have had persons from whom you could recover damages; if he had not given bail, he would have gone to prison.5 [30] But, as it is, you have made common cause; he thinks that through your help he will escape paying us the deficiency that has come about; and you, through accusing him, hope to get control of my property. Here is a proof of this. I shall summon him as a witness; you, Zenothemis, did not have him put under bail, nor do you now summon him. [31]

There is yet another way in which they hope to deceive and trick you. They will accuse Demosthenes, and will say that I relied upon his help when I put Zenothemis out of possession of the grain, assuming that this charge will be credited because he is an orator and a well-known personage. Demosthenes, men of Athens, is indeed my blood-relation （I swear to you by all the gods that I shall speak the truth）, [32] but when I approached him, and entreated him to be present and to aid me in any way he could, he said to me, ”Demo, I will do as you bid me; it would be cruel to refuse you. You must, however, consider both your own circumstances and mine. My own position is this: from the time when I first began to speak on public affairs I have not come forward to plead in a single private case, but . . .6

1 Presumably Protus, who seems to have sailed as supercargo.

2 For the Greek phrase compare Dem. 37.39, Dem. 39.2, and Dem. 40.9

3 The precise meaning of the phrase ἐκ βουλῆς is disputed. Others take it as meaning that the man in question was a member of the Athenian βουλή, or Senate.

4 The meaning appears to be that Zenothemis considered Demo, rather than Protus, a person from whom he might hope to win damages for ejectment.

5 The word οἴκημα, “lodging,” is used as a euphemism for δεσμωτήριον, “prison.” Cf. Dem. 56.4

6 The speech is mutilated at the end, and the concluding words yield no satisfactory sense.

The law, men of Athens, ordains that actions for merchants and shipowners shall be before the Thesmothetae1 if they have been in any way wronged in the market either in connection with a voyage from Athens to any point, or from some other port to Athens; and it fixes imprisonment as the penalty for wrongdoers until such time as they shall have paid the amount adjudged against them, so that no one may lightly do wrong to any merchant. [2] To those, however, who are brought into court in cases where no contract has been made, the law gives the right to have recourse to a special plea, that no one may bring a baseless or malicious suit, but that actions may be confined to those among the merchants and shipowners who are really wronged. Many defendants in mercantile suits have before now entered special pleas in accordance with this law, and have come before you and proved that their adversaries were making unjust charges and bringing baseless suits under pretence of being engaged in commerce. [3] Who it is that has conspired with this fellow against me and who has concocted this suit, will become clear to you as my speech goes on. Since, however, Apaturius has made a false charge against me, and is suing me contrary to law, seeing that there had been a release and discharge from all contracts made between him and me, and there exists no other contract made with him by me whether for business by sea or on land, I have entered the special plea that the action is not maintainable, according to the following laws.“ Laws ” [4]

That Apaturius, then, has instituted suit against me contrary to these laws and that his charges are false, I shall show you by many proofs. I, men of the jury, have by now been for a long time engaged in foreign trade, and up to a certain time risked the sea in my own person; it is not quite seven years since I gave up voyaging, and, having a moderate capital, I try to put it to work by making loans on adventures overseas. [5] As I have visited many places and spend my time in your exchange, I know most of those who are seafarers, and with these men from Byzantium I am on intimate terms through having myself spent much time there. My position, then, was such as I have described, when this fellow put into our port with a fellow-countryman of his, named Parmeno, a Byzantine by birth, who was an exile from his country. [6] The plaintiff and Parmeno came up to me on the exchange and spoke about money. It happened that the plaintiff owed forty minae on his ship, and his creditors were pressing him hard with demands for their money, and were about to board the ship and take possession of it, as his note was overdue. While he was in this embarrassment, Parmeno agreed to give him ten minae, and the plaintiff asked me to contribute thirty minae, charging that the creditors in their eagerness to secure the ship had slandered him on the exchange, that they might seize the ship by putting him in a position where he could not pay. [7] I happened to have no ready money in hand, but being acquainted with Heracleides, the banker, I persuaded him to lend the money, and to take me as surety. But when now the thirty minae had been procured, Parmeno happened to fall out with the plaintiff. However, seeing that he had agreed to furnish him with ten minae and had already given him three of them, he was compelled on account of the money he had given to pay the remainder as well. [8] Not wishing, however, for the reason given, to make the loan in his own name, he bade me to arrange it so that things should be as safe as possible for him. So I took over the seven minae from Parmeno, and having had transferred to myself the obligation for the three, which the plaintiff had already received from him, caused a bill of sale to be executed on the ship and the slaves until such time as he should repay me the ten minae, which he had received through me, and also the thirty for which he had made me his surety with the banker. In proof that my words are true, hear the depositions.“ Depositions ” [9]

In this way, then, Apaturius here got rid of his creditors. Not long after this, the bank having failed, and Heracleides for a time having gone into hiding, the plaintiff schemed to send the slaves from Athens, and to remove the ship from the harbor. This was the cause of my first quarrel with him. For Parmeno, learning of the fact, laid hands on the slaves as they were being taken away, and prevented the sailing of the ship; then he sent for me, and told me of the affair. [10] When I heard him, thinking this fellow a most impious wretch because of his attempt, I set about considering how I might myself get free from my guaranty to the bank, and how the foreigner2 might avoid the loss of the money he had lent this fellow through me. After stationing men to guard the ship I told the whole story to the sureties of the bank and turned the security over to them, telling them that the foreigner had a lien of ten minae on the ship. Having arranged this, I attached the slaves, in order that, if any shortage occurred, the deficiency might be made up by the proceeds of their sale. [11] In this way, when I found that Apaturius was a rascal, I set matters right in my own interest and in the interest of the foreigner. But Apaturius, as though the wrong was on my side, and not on his, made complaint to me, and asked if it were not enough for me to be released from my guaranty to the bank, without also attaching the ship and the slaves to secure his money for Parmeno, and thus making an enemy of himself in the interest of one who was an exile. [12] I replied that, when a man had put his trust in me, I was all the less inclined to leave him in the lurch, because, while he was an exile and in misfortune, he was being wronged by the plaintiff; and after I had done everything possible, and had incurred the utmost enmity on the part of this fellow, I with difficulty secured the money, the ship being sold for forty minae, the precise amount for which she was mortgaged. The thirty minae then having been paid back to the bank, and the ten minae to Parmeno, in the presence of many witnesses, we cancelled the bond in accordance with which the money had been lent, and mutually released and discharged one another from our engagements so that the plaintiff had nothing more to do with me, nor I with him. In proof that my words are true, hear the depositions.“ Depositions ” [13]

Since then I have had no business transaction with the fellow, whether great or small, but Parmeno sued him for damages for the blows which he received from him when he laid hands on the slaves as they were being carried off, and because he had been prevented by him from making the voyage to Sicily. When the action had been instituted, Parmeno tendered an oath to Apaturius regarding some of his charges, and he accepted it, and furthermore made a deposit to be forfeited if he did not swear the oath.

In proof that my words are true, take the deposition.“ Deposition ” [14]

Having accepted the oath, since he was aware that many would know that he had perjured himself, he did not present himself for the swearing, but, as though he could get free of the oath by an action, he summoned Parmeno into court. When both actions had been instituted, on the advice of persons present they proceeded to an arbitration, and after drawing up an agreement they submitted the matter to one common arbitrator, Phocritus, a fellow-country-man of theirs; and each one appointed one man to sit with Phocritus, Apaturius choosing Aristocles of Oea,3 and Parmeno choosing me. [15] They agreed in the articles that, if we three were of one mind, our decision should be binding on them, but, if not, then they should be bound to abide by what the two should determine. Having made this agreement, they appointed sureties for one another to guarantee its fulfillment. Apaturius appointed Aristocles, and Parmeno Archippus of Myrrhinus.4 At the outset they deposited their agreement with Phocritus, but upon his bidding them to deposit it with someone else, they deposited it with Aristocles.

In proof that my words are true, hear the depositions.“ Depositions ” [16]

That the agreements were deposited with Aristocles, and that the arbitration was left with Phocritus, Aristocles and myself, has been testified to you by witnesses who know the facts. And now, men of the jury, I beg of you to hear from me what happened after this; for from this it will be clear to you that this man Apaturius is making a claim upon me which is baseless and malicious. For when he saw that Phocritus and I were of one mind, and realized that we should give judgement against him, wishing to break down the arbitration, he sought, in collusion with the man who held them, to destroy the articles of agreement, [17] and he proceeded to contend that Aristocles was his arbitrator, and declared that Phocritus and I were empowered to do nothing else than seek to bring about a reconciliation. Angered at this statement, Parmeno demanded of Aristocles that he produce the agreement, adding that if there had been any criminal meddling with the papers, proof of the fact would not be far to seek, for his own slave had written them. [18] Aristocles promised that he would produce the articles, but up to this day has not brought them to light. He did meet us on the appointed day at the Hephaesteum,5 but made the excuse that his slave while waiting for him had fallen asleep and lost the document. The man who concocted this plot was Eryxias, the physician from Peiraeus, an intimate friend of Aristocles, the same man who out of enmity toward me has also got up this action against me.

Now in proof that Aristocles pretended that he had lost the document, hear the depositions.“ Depositions ” [19]

After this the arbitration was done away with, the articles of agreement having disappeared and the authority of the arbitrators being questioned. They did endeavor to draw up new articles about these matters, but could come to no agreement, as the plaintiff insisted on having Aristocles, and Parmeno the three to whom in the first instance the arbitration had been referred. Nevertheless, although no new articles had been drawn, and those originally drawn had been made away with, the man who had made away with them came to such a pitch of shamelessness that he declared he would in his own single person pronounce the award. Parmeno called witnesses to be present, and forbade Aristocles to pronounce an award against him, without his co-arbitrators, in defiance of the articles of agreement.

Hear the deposition of those in whose presence he thus forbade him.“ Deposition ” [20]

After this there befell Parmeno, men of the jury, a dire misfortune. He was dwelling in Ophrynium6 because of his being an exile from home, when the earthquake in the Chersonese occurred; and in the collapse of his house his wife and children perished. Immediately on hearing of the disaster he departed by ship from Athens. Aristocles, although the man had adjured him in the presence of witnesses not to pronounce judgement against him without his co-arbitrators, when Parmeno had left the country because of the disaster, pronounced an award against him by default. [21] Phocritus and I, who were named in the same articles, refused to participate in the award, because the plaintiff denied that in his view we were arbitrators; but Aristocles, whose authority was not only disputed, but who had expressly been forbidden to act, nevertheless made the declaration—a thing which not one of you and not one of all the other Athenians could have been induced to do. [22]

For all that Apaturius and the arbitrator did in connection with the disappearance of the articles and the pronouncing of the award, the man wronged, if ever he comes safely back to Athens, will obtain satisfaction from them. But since Apaturius has come to such a pitch of shamelessness as to bring suit against me also, charging that I undertook to pay any sum that might be awarded against Parmeno, and since he declares that my name was entered in the articles as surety, I shall free myself from such a charge in the proper way; I shall first bring forward witnesses to prove that it was not I who became surety for Parmeno, but Archippus of Myrrhinus; and I shall then undertake, men of the jury, to make my defence by circumstantial proofs. [23]

In the first place, I hold that the time is a witness for me to prove that the charge is groundless. For the agreement to arbitrate made by this fellow and Parmeno and the award of Aristocles took place two years ago; but merchants may bring action every month from Boëdromion to Munichion,7 in order that they may obtain their rights without delay and put to sea. So, if I was in truth a surety for Parmeno, why did not Apaturius immediately after the award proceed to collect the sum guaranteed? [24] It is not open to him to say that because of his friendship for me he was loth to incur my enmity, for he had himself in utter unfriendliness been forced by me to pay the one thousand drachmae due to Parmeno; and when he was trying to get his ship out of the port in his plot to sneak away and to defraud the bank of what was due, it was I who prevented him. So, if I had become a surety for Parmeno, he would not have waited until two years afterward to exact the sum guaranteed, but would have proceeded to do so at once. [25]

Ah, but he was well provided with funds, so that it was open to him to proceed against me later on, and at the moment he had no time, as he was about to put to sea! On the contrary, he was in such straits that he had lost all his effects, and had sold his ship. And, if there really had been anything to prevent his immediately bringing suit against me, why, when he was in town last year, did he not dare, I will not say to bring suit, but even to make a demand? It was surely the proper course for him, if judgement had been given against Parmeno in his favour, and if I was the latter's surety, to come to me himself accompanied by witnesses, and to demand the amount guaranteed, if not the year before last, at any rate in the year just past; and then, if I proffered payment, to take his money, and, if I did not, to bring suit. [26] For in claims of this sort everyone makes demand before he brings suit. Well, there isn't a person living who will testify that he was present either last year or the year before, when this man either instituted proceedings against me or made any mention to me whatever of the claims for which he is now suing me.

To prove that he was in town last year when the courts were open, please take the deposition.“ Deposition ” [27]

Now, please take the law which declares that guaranties shall be for a year only.8 I do not lay stress on the law to show that I should not pay what is due, if I actually became a surety, but I declare that the law is a witness that I did not become one, and so is the fellow himself; for otherwise he would have brought suit against me within the time specified by the law.“ Law ” [28]

Let this, then, be another proof to you that Apaturius is lying. If I had become surety to him for Parmeno, it is inconceivable that I should have made the plaintiff my enemy for Parmeno's sake, taking every care that the latter should not lose what he had lent the plaintiff through me, and yet have allowed myself to be left in the lurch by him as his surety to the plaintiff. For what ground had I to hope that leniency would be shown me by the man whom I had compelled to do justice to Parmeno? And when I had made him my enemy by exacting from him what was guaranteed to the bank, what treatment could I myself have expected to receive at his hands? [29]

It is worth while also for you to bear this in mind, men of the jury, that, if I had been surety, I should never have denied it. For my argument was much stronger, if I admitted the guaranty and appealed to the agreement in accordance with which the arbitration was to be held. That the matter was referred to three arbitrators has been shown by testimony. When, then, there had been no decision by the three, why in the world should I have denied the guaranty? For, if judgement had not been given in accordance with the agreement, neither should I have been open to action for my guaranty. Therefore, men of the jury, if I had really become a surety, I should not have given up a defence which was at hand, and have proceeded to deny the fact. [30]

Again, the following fact has been testified to you by witnesses, that, after the articles of agreement had been made away with by these men, the plaintiff and Parmeno sought to have new articles drawn up, thus admitting that their former agreement was without force. Yet, when they sought to have other articles drawn in regard to the judgement that was to be given, since the existing ones had been lost, how was it possible that, if other articles were not drawn, there could be either arbitration or guaranty? It was the fact that they disagreed upon this very point that prevented their writing new articles, Apaturius demanding that there should be one arbitrator, and Parmeno that there should be three. But, since the original articles were made away with, in accordance with which he alleges that I became a surety, and other articles were not written, what right has he to bring suit against me, against whom he is able to produce no agreement? [31]

Further, it has been testified to you by witnesses that Parmeno forbade Aristocles to give judgement against him without the concurrence of his co-arbitrators. When, therefore, it is shown that the same person has made away with the document in accordance with the terms of which the arbitration was to be made, and declares that he has made the decision without his co-arbitrators, and in defiance of the notice forbidding him to do so, how can you with any fairness credit the fellow and condemn me? Consider this, men of the jury: [32] suppose it was not against me, but against Parmeno, that this man Apaturius were now taking action, seeking to recover the twenty minae in reliance upon the judgement of Aristocles; and that Parmeno was present and making his defence, calling witnesses to prove that he had turned the matter over to Aristocles, not as a single arbitrator, but as one of three; [33] that he had forbidden him to announce a decision against him without his co-arbitrators; and that, after his wife and children had perished in the earthquake, and he in the face of a disaster so appalling had sailed for home, the man who had made away with the articles of agreement announced a judgement against him by default in his absence, is there a single one of you who, when Parmeno had brought out these facts in his defence, would have considered an award so unjustly made to be valid? [34] More than this; suppose that not every point was under dispute; that there were in existence articles of agreement; that Aristocles was admittedly an arbitrator having sole authority; that Parmeno had not forbidden him to make the award; but that the calamity had befallen the man before the announcement of the award; what adversary or what arbitrator would have been so cruel as not to postpone the case until the man returned to the country? Then, if Parmeno, coming to plead before you, should be judged in every point to speak with more justice than the plaintiff, how can you justly give judgement against me, who have absolutely no contract with this man? [35]

That I, on my part, have made my special plea with good right, and that Apaturius has lodged against me a claim that is .baseless, and instituted a suit contrary to law, has, I think, been shown to you, men of the jury, by many proofs. The main point is this: Apaturius will not even attempt to say that he has any articles showing an agreement between us. When he falsely states that my name was written in as surety in the agreement made with Parmeno, demand of him the articles. [36] Meet him on this ground: that all men, when they make agreements with one another, seal the articles and deposit them with persons whom they can trust, for this very purpose, that, if a dispute arises between them, they may refer to the document and so settle the point at issue. But when a man, after doing away with the source of accurate knowledge, undertakes to deceive you with words, how can you with justice put any confidence in him? [37] But perhaps some witness （for this is the easiest course for those who have chosen to do wrong and to bring baseless charges） will testify for him against me. If then, I take action against the witness, how will he prove that his testimony is true? By the articles of agreement? Well, then, let there be no delay about this; let the one who has them bring forward the articles at once. But if he says they have been lost, how, then, shall I find means of refuting the false testimony brought against me? If the document had been deposited with me, it would have been open to Apaturius to charge that I had made away with it because of my guaranty; [38] but, if it was deposited with Aristocles, why is it, if the agreement has been lost without the plaintiff's knowledge, that instead of bringing suit against the man who received the agreement but does not produce it, he makes charges against me, bringing forward as a witness against me the man who made away with the agreement, against whom he ought to feel resentment, if it were not that they are leagued together in their evil scheming?

I have made a just plea to the best of my ability. Do you now give a just decision in accordance with the laws.

1 The Thesmothetae were the six archons （other than the Eponymus, the Basileus, and the Polemarch）, and were empowered to administer justice in cases not specifically within the province of any other magistrate.

2 The foreigner is, of course, Parmeno.

3 A deme of the tribe Oeneïs.

4 A deme of the tribe Pandionis.

5 The temple of Hephaestus; perhaps the well-preserved Doric structure commonly called the Theseum.

6 A city in the Troad.

7 Roughly, from September to April, the period when the seas were closed, and the ships laid up in port.

8 That is, they become invalid, if not renewed at the end of a year.

The request that I shall make of you, men of the jury, is a fair one, that you should hear us with goodwill as we speak in our turn,1 knowing well that we are wholly without experience in the art of speaking; and long as we have been frequenting your mart, and many as are the merchants to whom we have made loans, we have never until now appeared in any suit before you either as plaintiffs or as defendants. [2] And you may be sure, men of Athens, that we should not even now have brought this action against Phormio, if we believed that the money which we lent him had been lost on the ship that was wrecked; we are not so shameless nor so unaccustomed to losses. But as many have kept taunting us, and especially those who were in Bosporus with Phormio, who knew that he had not lost the money together with the ship, we thought it a dreadful thing not to seek redress after being wronged as we had been by this man. [3]

With reference to the special plea my argument is a brief one. For even the defendants do not absolutely deny that a contract was made on your exchange2; but they claim that there exists no longer any obligation on their part due to the contract, for they have done nothing that contravenes the terms of the agreement. [4] The laws, however, in accordance with which you sit as jurors, do not use this language. They do indeed allow the production of a special plea when there has been no contract at all at Athens or for the Athenian market; but if a man admits that a contract was made, yet contends that he has done everything that the contract requires, they bid him to make a defence on the merits of the case, and not to make the plaintiff a defendant.3 Not but that I hope to prove from the facts of the case itself that this suit of mine is admissible. [5] And I beg you, men of Athens, to consider what is admitted by these men, and what is disputed; for in this way you will best sift the question. They admit that they borrowed the money, and that they had contracts made to secure the loan; but they claim that they have paid the money to Lampis, the servant of Dio, in Bosporus. We, on our part, shall prove, not only that Phormio did not pay it, but that it was actually impossible for him to pay it. But I must recount to you a few of the things that happened at the outset. [6]

I, men of Athens, lent to this man, Phormio, twenty minae for the double voyage to Pontus and back, on the security of goods of twice that value,4 and deposited a contract with Cittus the banker. But, although the contract required him to put on board the ship goods to the value of four thousand drachmae, he did the most outrageous thing possible. For while still in the Peiraeus he, without our knowledge, secured an additional loan of four thousand five hundred drachmae from Theodorus the Phoenician, and one of one thousand drachmae from Lampis the shipowner. [7] And, whereas he was bound to purchase at Athens a cargo worth one hundred and fifteen minae,5 if he was to perform for all his creditors what was written in their agreements, he purchased only a cargo worth five thousand five hundred drachmae, including the provisions; while his debts were seventy-five minae. This was the beginning of his fraud, men of Athens; he neither furnished security, nor put the goods on board the ship, although the agreement absolutely bade him do so.

Take the agreement, please.“ Agreement ”

Now take also the entry made by the customs-officers and the depositions.“ Entry of the Customs ”“ Depositions ” [8]

When he came, then, to Bosporus, having letters from me, which I had given him to deliver to my slave, who was spending the winter there, and to a partner of mine,—in which letter I had stated the sum which I had lent and the security, and bade them, as soon as the goods should be unshipped, to inspect them and keep an eye on them,—the fellow did not deliver to them the letters which he had received from me, in order that they might know nothing of what he was doing; and, finding that business in Bosporus was bad owing to the war which had broken out between Paerisades6 and the Scythian, and that there was no market for the goods which he had brought, he was in great perplexity; for his creditors, who had lent him money for the outward voyage, were pressing him for payment. [9] When, therefore, the shipowner bade him put on board according to the agreement the goods bought with my money, this fellow, who now alleges that he has paid the debt in full, said that he could not ship the goods because his trash was unsalable; and he bade him put to sea, saying that he himself would sail in another ship as soon as he should dispose of the cargo.

Please take this deposition.“ Deposition ” [10]

After this, men of Athens, the defendant was left in Bosporus, while Lampis put to sea, and was shipwrecked not far from the port; for although his ship was already overloaded, as we learn, he took on an additional deck-load of one thousand hides, which proved the cause of the loss of the vessel. He himself made his escape in the boat with the rest of Dio's servants, but he lost more than thirty7 lives besides the cargo. There was much mourning in Bosporus when they learned of the loss of the ship, and everybody deemed this Phormio lucky in that he had not sailed with the others, nor put any goods on board the ship. The same story was told by the others and by Phormio himself.

Read me, please, these depositions.“ Depositions ” [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]

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] 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] 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] 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]

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]

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]

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 alien8 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] 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] 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,9 but declared that he was out of his mind when he made it. Now read me this deposition.“ Deposition ” [21]

10 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]

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] 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 staters11（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] 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.12 [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] 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 agreement13 though you were under no necessity of doing so? [27] And you had no fear of those men, to whom their agreements gave the right of exacting payment in Bosporus, but declare that you had regard for the claims of my partner, though you wronged him at the outset by not putting on board the goods according to your agreement in setting out from Athens? And now that you have come back to the port where the loan was made, you do not hesitate to defraud the lender, though you claim to have done more than justice required in Bosporus, where you were not likely to be punished? [28] All other men who borrow for the outward and homeward voyage, when they are about to set sail from their several ports, take care to have many witnesses present, and call upon them to attest that the lender's risk begins from that moment14; but you rely upon the single testimony of the very man who is your partner in the fraud. You did not bring as a witness my slave who was in Bosporus or my partner, nor did you deliver to them the letters which we gave into your charge, and in which were written instructions that they should keep close watch on you in whatever you might do! [29] Why, men of Athens, what is there which a man of this stamp is not capable of doing, who, after receiving letters, did not deliver them in due and proper course? Or how can you fail to see that his own acts prove his guilt? Surely （O Earth and the Gods） when he was paying back so large a sum, and more than the amount of his loan, it was fitting that he should make it a much talked of event on the exchange and to invite all men to be present; but especially the servant and partner of Chrysippus. [30] For you all know, I fancy, that men borrow with few witnesses, but, when they pay, they take care to have many witnesses present, that they may win a reputation for honesty in business dealings. But in your case, when you were paying back both the debt and the interest on both voyages, though you had used the money for the outward voyage only, and were adding thirteen minae besides, should you not have caused many witnesses to be present? Had you done so, there is not a single merchant who would have been held in higher esteem than you. [31] But, as it was, instead of securing many witnesses to these acts you did everything you could that none should know, as though you were committing some crime! Again, had you been making payment to me, your creditor, in person, there would have been no need of witnesses, for you would have taken back the agreement and so got rid of the obligation; whereas in making payment, not to me, but to another on my behalf, and not at Athens but in Bosporus, when your agreement was deposited at Athens and with me, and when the man to whom you paid the money was mortal and about to undertake a voyage over such a stretch of sea, you called no one as a witness, whether slave or freeman. [32] Yes, he says, for the agreement bade me pay the cash to the shipowner.15 But it did not prevent you from summoning witnesses, or from delivering the letters! The parties here present16 drew up two agreements with you in the matter of the loan, showing that they greatly distrusted you, but you assert that without a single witness you paid the gold to the shipowner, although you well know that an agreement against yourself was deposited at Athens with my colleague here! [33]

He says that the agreement bids him pay back the money, “when the ship reaches port in safety.” Yes, and it bids you also to put on board the ship the goods purchased, or else to pay a fine of five thousand drachmae. You ignore this clause in the agreement, but after having from the first violated its provisions by failing to put the goods on board, you raise a dispute about a single phrase in it, though you have by your own act rendered it null and void. For when you state that you did not put the goods on board in Bosporus, but paid the cash to the shipowner, why do you still go on talking about the ship? For you have had no share in the risk, since you put nothing on board. [34] At first, men of Athens, he seized upon this excuse, pretending that he had shipped the goods; but when he saw that the falsity of this claim was likely to be exposed in many ways,—by the entry filed with the harbor-masters in Bosporus, and by the testimony of those who were staying in the port at the same time—then he changes his tack, enters into a conspiracy with Lampis, and declares that he has paid him the money in cash, [35] finding a support for his plea in the fact that the agreement so ordered, and thinking that we should not find it easy to get at the truth regarding all that they did by themselves alone. And Lampis declares that all that he said to me17 before he was corrupted by this Phormio was spoken when he was out of his head; but as soon as he got a share of my money, he declares that he is in his right mind and remembers everything perfectly! [36]

Now, men of the jury, if it were toward myself only that Lampis were showing contempt, it would be nothing to cause surprise; but in reality he has acted far more outrageously than Phormio toward you all. For when Paerisades had published a decree in Bosporus that whoever wished to transport grain to Athens for the Athenian market might export it free of duty, Lampis, who was at the time in Bosporus, obtained permission to export grain and the exemption from duty in the name of the state; and having loaded a large vessel with grain, carried it to Acanthus18 and there disposed of it,—he, who had made himself the partner of Phormio here with our money. [37] And he did this, men of the jury, though he was resident at Athens, and had a wife and children here, and although the laws have prescribed the severest penalties if anyone resident at Athens should transport grain to any other place than to the Athenian market; besides, he did this at a critical time, when those of you who dwelt in the city were having their barley-meal measured out to them in the Odeum,19 and those who dwelt in Peiraeus were receiving their loaves at an obol each in the dockyard and in the long-porch,20 having their meal measured out to them a gallon21 at a time, and being nearly trampled to death.

In proof that my words are true, take, please, the deposition and the law.“ Deposition ”“ Law ” [38]

Phormio, then, with the help of this fellow as his accomplice and witness, thinks proper to rob us of our money—us, who have continually brought grain to your market, and who in three crises which have come upon the state, during which you put to the test those who were of service to the people, have not once been found wanting. Nay, when Alexander entered Thebes,22 we made you a free gift of a talent in cash; [39] and when grain earlier advanced in price and reached sixteen drachmae, we imported more than ten thousand medimni of wheat, and measured it out to you at the normal price of five drachmae a medimnus, and you all know that you had this measured out to you in the Pompeium.23 And last year my brother and I made a free gift of a talent to buy grain for the people.

Read, please, the depositions which establish these facts.“ Depositions ” [40]

Surely, if any inference may be based upon these facts, it is not likely that we should freely give such large sums in order to win a good name among you, and then should bring a false accusation against Phormio in order to throw away even the reputation for honorable dealing which we had won. It is right, therefore, that you should come to our aid, men of the jury. I have shown you that Phormio in the first place did not put on board the vessel goods to the value of all the loans which he had secured at Athens, and that with the proceeds from the goods sold in Bosporus he with difficulty satisfied his creditors who had lent money for the outward voyage; [41] further, that he was not well off, and not so foolish as to pay thirty-nine minae instead of twenty-six hundred drachmae; and besides all this, that when, as he says, he paid the money to Lampis he summoned neither my slave nor my partner, who was at the time in Bosporus, as a witness. Again, Lampis himself is shown to have testified to me, before he was corrupted by Phormio, that he had not received the money. [42] Yet,24 if Phormio were thus to prove his case point by point, I do not see what better defence he could have made. But that the action is admissible the law itself solemnly declares, when it maintains that mercantile actions are those for contracts made at Athens or for the Athenian market, and not only those made at Athens, but all that are made for the purpose of a voyage to Athens.

Please take the laws.“ Laws ” [43]

That the contract has been entered into between Phormio and myself at Athens even our opponents themselves do not deny, but they enter a special plea alleging that the action is not admissible. But to what tribunal shall we come, men of the jury, if not to you, since it was here in Athens that we made our contract? It would be hard indeed that, if a wrong had been done me in connection with a voyage to Athens, I should be able to get satisfaction from Phormio in your court, but, when the contract has been made in your market, these men should say that they will not be tried before you. [44] When we referred the case to Theodotus for arbitration, they admitted that my action against them was admissible; but now they say what is the direct opposite of what they have themselves before admitted; as if, forsooth, it were proper that they should be tried before Theodotus, the privileged alien, without a special plea, but, when we enter the Athenian court, the action should no longer be admissible. [45] I for my part am trying to conceive what in the world he would have written in the special plea, if Theodotus had dismissed the suit, when now, after Theodotus has decreed that we should go into court, he declares that the action is not one that can be brought before you, to whom Theodotus bade us go.25 Surely I should suffer most cruel treatment if, when the laws declare that suits growing out of contracts made at Athens shall be brought before the Thesmothetae, you, who have sworn to decide according to the laws, should dismiss the suit. [46]

That we lent the money is attested by the agreement, and by Phormio himself; that it has been repaid is attested by no one except Lampis, who is an accomplice in the crime. Phormio claims to prove the payment on the testimony of Lampis alone, but I adduce Lampis and those who heard him declare that he had not received the money. Further, Phormio is in a position to bring my witnesses to trial, if he maintains that their testimony is false, but I have no means of dealing with his witnesses, who say they know that Lampis testified that he had received the money. If Lampis's own deposition had been put into court,26 these men would perhaps have said that I ought to prosecute him for giving false testimony; but, as it is, I have not this deposition, and Phormio thinks he should get off unscathed, since he has left no valid security for the verdict which he urges you to pronounce.27 [47] Would it not indeed be absurd if, when Phormio admits that he borrowed, but alleges that he has made payment, you should make of none effect that which he himself admits and by your vote give effect to what is under dispute? And if, when Lampis, on whose testimony my opponent relies, after at first denying that he had received the money, now testifies to the contrary, you should determine that he has received it, although there are no witnesses to support the fact? [48] And if you refuse to admit as proofs all that he truthfully stated, and should count more worthy of belief the lies which he told after he had been corrupted? Verily, men of Athens, it is far more just to draw conclusions from statements made in the first instance than from those subsequently fabricated; for the former he made truthfully, and not with ulterior purpose, while the later ones are lies designed to further his interests. [49]

Remember, men of Athens, that even Lampis himself never denied saying that he had not received the money; he admitted that he so stated, but declared he was not in his right mind at the time. But would it not be absurd for you to accept as worthy of credit that part of his testimony which favors the defrauding party, and to discredit that which favors the party defrauded? [50] Nay, men of the jury, I beg you, do not do this. You are the same persons who punished with death, when he had been impeached before the assembly, a man who obtained large additional loans on your exchange, and did not deliver to his creditors their securities, though he was a citizen and the son of a man who had been general. [51] For you hold that such people not only wrong those who do business with them, but also do a public injury to your mart; and you are right in holding this view. For the resources required by those who engage in trade come not from those who borrow, but from those who lend; and neither ship nor shipowner nor passenger can put to sea, if you take away the part contributed by those who lend. [52] In the laws there are many excellent provisions for their protection. It is your duty to show that you aid the laws in righting abuses, and that you make no concession to wrongdoers, in order that you may derive the greatest possible benefit from your market. You will do so, if you protect those who risk their money, and do not allow them to be defrauded by monsters such as these.

I have said all that it was in my power to say. But I am ready to call another of my friends, if you so bid.

1 Others, less probably, render, “as we take our turns in addressing you.”

2 The word rendered “exchange” or “market,” may well designate merely the Peiraeus, which was in a very real sense the ἐμπόριον of Athens.

3 As happened, of course, when a plea in bar of action was introduced.

4 Such seems the most probable meaning of the disputed phrase.

5 If the loans were all made on the same basis （i.e. on the security of goods of a value twice as great as the loan） we should have to read one hundred and fifty instead of one hundred and fifteen, as the combined loans amounted to seventy-five minae. It is possible, however, that Theodorus and Lampis, whose loans were for the outward voyage only, and who sailed with Phormio, accepted a lower rate than that demanded by Chrysippus and his partner, who remained in Athens.

6 The King of Pontus.

7 The MS. reading is τριακόσια （300）, but it is most unlikely that there were so many persons on board, unless this was a slave ship. Such an aspiration, however, seems improbable, and does not accord well with the statement that there was much mourning in Bosporus over the disaster.

8 The word is used of one who, though an alien, paid only the taxes paid by citizens without the addition of the special tax on aliens.

9 I take the phrase πρὸς τοῦτον with εἰρηκέναι, assuming that the reference is to the partner of Chrysippus, who apparently takes the latter's place as speaker at the beginning of the next paragraph.

10 It is commonly assumed that the second speaker begins with this paragraph. In Dem. 34.23 Chrysippus is referred to as οὗτος, so the fact of a change of speakers is patent.

11 The stater of Cyzicus （a town on the south shore of the Propontis, or sea of Marmora） was a coin made of electrum, an alloy of approximately three-quarters gold and one-quarter silver. It was nearly twice as heavy as the ordinary gold stater, which was worth twenty drachmae, and had a value （as stated in the text） of twenty-eight drachmae. The addition of the word “there” indicates that the value differed in different places according to the rate of exchange.

12 That is, of course, the sum of the two items, or three thousand nine hundred and twenty drachmae. The total is not mentioned here, as it is given in the lines immediately following. Note that the speaker inexactly speaks as if the whole sum （including the interest） had been paid to Lampis （according to Phormio's claim）. The argument is, however, valid, as the sum represents the cost to Phormio of paying off the loan.

13 We learn from Dem. 34.33 that the contract entailed a penalty of five thousand drachmae in case a return cargo was not shipped, but of course payment could not have been exacted in Bosporus. The speaker seems to identify the overpayment of one thousand three hundred and twenty drachmae with this penalty; but the “overpayment” represents almost exactly the amount of the money Lampis had loaned to Phormio, plus the thirty percent interest. It is, of course, possible that the penalty of five thousand drachmae was to be paid if Phormio neither shipped the goods nor paid Lampis, and the lesser sum if payment was made to Lampis without the shipment of a return cargo.

14 That is, from the moment of sailing.

15 This is best explained by assuming that the contract gave Phormio the right to pay the money to Lampis in Bosporus, if he did not ship a return cargo to Athens.

16 The reference is not wholly clear. It may be that others than Chrysippus and his partner had contributed to the sum lent to Phormio.

17 Either the speaker was with Chrysippus at the time Lampis made this statement, or else Chrysippus is now again the speaker.

18 A town in Chalcidicê.

19 We learn from Aristoph. Wasps 1109, that the Odeum, built by Pericles as a music school, near the great theatre, was sometimes used as a law-court, and Pollux 8.33, states that suits concerning grain were decided there. Compare Dem. 59.52. It is easy, therefore, to assume that distribution of grain may have been made there.

20 The long-porch was a warehouse for grain in the Peiraeus.

21 Literally a half-sixth （i.e. one-twelfth） of a medimnus, a measure containing about twelve gallons.

22 In 355 B.C.

23 This was a hall near the Dipylon, in which the dresses and other properties used in the Panathenaic procession （πομπή） were kept.

24 The speaker is about to return to the argument that the special plea was inadmissible. He says, in effect, I have shown that Phormio is guilty. If he had been able to prove his case as clearly （i.e. in the suit as instituted） it would have been his best defence. He could not do so, and therefore had recourse to a special plea, arguing that my suit could not be brought into court. This, however, is inadmissible, and his course in entering it proves that he had no defence.

25 If, under the present circumstances, Phormio's insolence is so great, who can say what it would have been, had the arbitrator decided in his favor?

26 When the arbitrator determined that the case before him should be tried in court, he sealed in two jars, or boxes （ἐχῖνοι）, all documents bearing upon the case. One of these was assigned to either party in the suit, and only such depositions, citations of laws, or challenges, as were contained in them, might be introduced at the trial.

27 Phormio relies upon the testimony of Lampis. Under the circumstances it is impossible for me to sue Lampis for perjury, in which case Phormio might be prosecuted for collusion. He therefore hopes to get off scot-free.

The Phaselites,1 men of the jury, are up to no new tricks; they are merely doing what it is their wont to do. For they are the cleverest people at borrowing money on your exchange; but, as soon as they get it and have drawn up a maritime contract, they straightway forget the contract and the laws, and that they are under obligation to pay back what they have received. [2] They consider that, if they pay their debts, it is like having lost something of their own private property, and, instead of paying, they invent sophisms, and special pleas, and pretexts; and are the most unprincipled and dishonest of men. Here is a proof of this. Out of the hosts of people, both Greeks and barbarians, who frequent your exchange, the Phaselites alone have more lawsuits, whenever the courts sit,2 than all others put together. That is the sort of people they are. [3] But I, men of the jury, lent money to Artemo, this fellow's brother, in accordance with the commercial laws for a voyage to Pontus and back. As he died before having repaid me the money I have brought this suit against Lacritus here in accordance with the same laws under which I made the contract, [4] since he is the brother of Artemo and has possession of all his property, both all that he left here and all that he had at Phaselis, and is the heir to his whole estate; and since he can show no law which gives him the right to hold his brother's property and to have administered it as he pleased, and yet to refuse to pay back money which belongs to others and to say now that he is not the. heir, but has nothing to do with the dead man's affairs. [5] Such is the rascality of this fellow, Lacritus; but I beg of you, men of the jury, to give me a favorable hearing in regard to this matter and, if I prove to you that he has wronged us, who lent the money, and you as well, to render us the aid that is our due. [6]

I myself, men of the jury, had not the slightest acquaintance with these men; but Thrasymedes the son of Diophantus, that well-known Sphettian,3 and Melanopus, his brother, are friends of mine, and we are on the most intimate terms possible. These men came up to me with Lacritus here, whose acquaintance they had made in some way or other—how, I do not know,— [7] and asked me to lend money to Artemo, this man's brother, and to Apollodorus for a voyage to Pontus, that they might be engaged in a trading enterprise. Thrasymedes like myself knew nothing of the rascality of these people, but supposed them to be honorable men and such as they pretended and declared themselves to be; and that they would do all that they promised and that this fellow Lacritus undertook that they should do. [8] He was utterly deceived, and had no idea what monsters these men were with whom he was associating. I allowed myself to be persuaded by Thrasymedes and his brother, and upon the assurance given me by this Lacritus, that his brothers would do everything that was right, I, with the help of a Carystian,4 who was a friend of mine, lent thirty minae in silver. [9] I wish you first, men of the jury, to hear the agreement in accordance with which we lent the money, and the witnesses who were present when the loan was made; after that I shall take up the remaining features of the case, and show you how like burglars they acted in the matter of this loan.

Read the agreement, and then the depositions. [10] “Agreement

Androcles of Sphettus and Nausicrates of Carystus lent to Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, three thousand drachmae in silver for a voyage from Athens to Mendê or Scionê,5 and thence to Bosporus—or if they so choose, for a voyage to the left parts of the Pontus as far as the Borysthenes,6 and thence back to Athens, on interest at the rate of two hundred and twenty-five drachmae on the thousand; but, if they should sail out from Pontus to Hieron7 after the rising of Arcturus,8 at three hundred on the thousand, on the security of three thousand jars of wine of Mendê, which shall be conveyed from Mendê or Scionê in the twenty-oared ship of which Hyblesius is owner.” [11] “They give these goods as security, owing no money upon them to any other person, nor will they make any additional loan upon this security; and they agree to bring back to Athens in the same vessel all the goods put on board in Pontus as a return cargo; and, if the goods are brought safe to Athens, the borrowers are to pay to the lenders the money due in accordance with the agreement within twenty days after they shall have arrived at Athens, without deduction save for such jettison as the passengers shall have made by common agreement, or for money paid to enemies; but without deduction for any other loss. And they shall deliver to the lenders in their entirety the goods offered as security to be under their absolute control until such time as they shall themselves have paid the money due in accordance with the agreement.” [12] “And, if they shall not pay it within the time agreed upon, it shall be lawful for the lenders to pledge the goods or even to sell them for such price as they can get; and if the proceeds fall short of the sum which the lenders should receive in accordance with the agreement, it shall be lawful for the lenders, whether severally or jointly, to collect the amount by proceeding against Artemo and Apollodorus, and against all their property whether on land or sea, wheresoever it may be, precisely as if judgement had been rendered against them and they had defaulted in payment.” [13] “And, if they do not enter Pontus, but remain in the Hellespont ten days after the rising of the dogstar,9 and disembark their goods at a port where the Athenians have no right of reprisals,10 and from thence complete their voyage to Athens, let them pay the interest written into the contract the year before.11 And if the vessel in which the goods shall be conveyed suffers aught beyond repair, but the security is saved, let whatever is saved be the joint property of the lenders. And in regard to these matters nothing shall have greater effect than the agreement.12

Witnesses: Phormio of Peiraeus, Cephisodotus of Boeotia, Heliodorus of Pitthus.13” [14]

Now read the depositions.“Deposition

Archenomides, son of Archedamas, of Anagyrus, deposes that Androcles of Sphettus, Nausicrates of Carystus, and Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, deposited articles of agreement with him, and that the agreement is still in custody in his hands.”

Read also the deposition of those who were present.“Deposition

Theodotus, privileged alien, Charinus, son of Epichares, of Leuconium, Phormio, son of Ctephisophon, of Peiraeus, Cephisodotus of Boeotia and Heliodorus of Pitthus depose that they were present when Androcles lent to Artemo three thousand drachmae in silver, and that they know they deposited the agreement with Archenomides of Anagyrus.” [15]

In accordance with this agreement, men of the jury, I lent the money to Artemo, this man's brother, at the request of Lacritus, and upon his engaging that I should receive everything that was my due in accordance with the agreement under which the loan was made. Lacritus himself drew up the agreement and joined in sealing it after it was written; for his brothers were still youngish, in fact mere boys, but he was Lacritus, of Phaselis, a personage of note, a pupil of Isocrates.14 [16] It was he who managed the whole matter, and he bade me look to him; for he declared that he would himself do everything that was right for me, and that he would stay in Athens, while his brother Artemo would sail in charge of the goods. At that time, men of the jury, when he wanted to get the money from us, he declared that he was both the brother and the partner of Artemo, and spoke with wondrous persuasiveness; [17] but, as soon as they got possession of the money, they divided it, and used it as they pleased; while as for the maritime agreement on the terms of which they secured the money, in no matter great or small did they carry out its provisions, as the facts themselves make clear. And in all these things this fellow Lacritus was the prime mover. I shall take up the clauses of the contract one by one, and shall show that in no single instance have these men done what was right. [18]

In the first place it stands written that they borrowed from us thirty minae on three thousand jars15 of wine, giving out that they possessed security for thirty minae more, so that the price of the wine would amount to a talent of money, including the expenses to be incurred in the stowage of the wine; and that these three thousand jars were to be conveyed to Pontus in the twenty-oared ship, of which Hyblesius was owner. [19] These provisions, men of the jury, stand written in the agreement which you have heard. But instead of three thousand jars, these men did not put even five hundred on board the boat; and instead of having bought the quantity of wine which they should have, they used the money in whatever way they pleased; as for those three thousand jars which the agreement called for, they never meant nor intended to put them on board.

To prove that these statements of mine are true, take the deposition of those who sailed with them in the same ship. [20] “Deposition

Erasicles deposes that he was pilot of the ship of which Hyblesius was owner, and that to his knowledge Apollodorus16 was conveying in the ship four hundred and fifty jars of Mendaean wine, and no more; and that Apollodorus conveyed no other cargo in the ship to Pontus.

Hippias, son of Athenippus, of Halicarnassus, deposes that he too sailed in the ship of Hyblesius as supercargo of the vessel and that to his knowledge Apollodorus of Phaselis was conveying in the ship from Mendê to Pontus four hundred and fifty jars of Mendaean wine, and no other cargo.

In addition to these, written affidavits17 were submitted by Archiades, son of Mnesonidas,of Acharnae, Sostratus, son of Philip, of Histiaea, Eumarichus, son of Euboeus, of Histiaea, Philtiades, son of Ctesias, of Xypetê, and Dionysius, son of Democratides, of Cholleidae.18” [21]

In regard, then, to the quantity of wine which it was their duty to put on board the ship that was what they contrived to do; and from this point they began from its very first clause to violate the agreement and to fail to perform what it required. The next clause that stands written in the agreement states that they pledge these goods free from all encumbrances; that they owe nothing to anyone upon them; and that they will not secure further loans upon them from anyone. [22] This is expressly stated, men of the jury. But what have these men done? Disregarding the terms of the agreement they borrow money from a certain youth, whom they deceived by stating that they owed nothing to anybody. Thus they cheated us, and without our knowledge borrowed money upon our security, and they also deceived that young man who lent them the money by alleging that the goods upon which they borrowed from him were unencumbered. Such are the rascalities of these men, and they are all clever devisings of this man Lacritus.

To prove that I am speaking the truth and that they did borrow additional sums contrary to the agreement, the clerk shall read you the deposition of the man himself who made the additional loan. [23]

Read the deposition.“Deposition

Aratus of Halicarnassus deposes that he lent to Apollodorus eleven minae in silver on the merchandise which he was conveying in the ship of Hyblesius to Pontus, and on the goods purchased there as a return cargo; and that he was unaware that the defendant had borrowed money from Androcles; for otherwise he would not himself have lent the money to Apollodorus.” [24]

Such are the rascalities of these men. But after this it stands written in the agreement, men of the jury, that when they should have sold in Pontus the goods which they brought thither, they should purchase with the proceeds other goods as a return cargo, and should bring this return cargo back to Athens; and that when they should have reached Athens, they should within twenty days repay us in certified coin19; and that pending the payment we should have control of the goods, and that they should deliver them to us in their entirety until we should get back our money. [25] These terms stand written thus precisely in the agreement. But these people, men of the jury, have here shown most strikingly their own insolence and shamelessness, and that they paid not the slightest heed to the terms written in the agreement; but regarded the agreement as mere trash and nonsense. For they neither purchased any other goods in Pontus nor took on board any return cargo to be conveyed to Athens; and we who had lent the money, when these men themselves returned from Pontus, had nothing which we could lay hold of or keep in possession until we should recover our money; for these men brought nothing whatsoever into your harbor. Nay, we have suffered the most unheard-of treatment, men of the jury. [26] In our own city, without ourselves having committed any wrong, or having had judgement rendered against us in their favor, we have been robbed of our own possessions by these men who are Phaselites, just as if rights of reprisal had been given to Phaselites against Athenians.20 For when they refuse to pay back what they received, what other name can one give to such people, than that they take by force the goods of others? For my own part, I have never heard of a more abominable act than that which these men have committed in relation to us, and that, too, while admitting that they received the money from us. [27] For whereas all clauses in contracts which are open to dispute require a judicial decision, men of the jury, those on the contrary which are admitted by both the contracting parties, and concerning which there exist maritime agreements, are held by all men to be final; and the parties are bound to abide by what is written. That these men, however, have fulfilled not a single one of the provisions of the agreement, but that from the very first they meditated fraud and purposed dishonest action has been thus clearly proven against them by the depositions of witnesses and by themselves. [28]

You must now hear the most outrageous thing which this fellow Lacritus has done; for it was he who managed the whole affair. When they arrived here they did not put into your port, but came to anchor in Thieves' Harbor,21 which is outside of the signs marking your port; and to anchor in Thieves' Harbor is the same as if one were to anchor in Aegina or Megara; for anyone can sail forth from that harbor to whatever point he wishes and at any moment he pleases. [29] Well, their vessel lay at anchor there for more than twenty-five days, and these men walked about in your sample-market.22 We on our part talked to them and bade them see to it that we received our money back as soon as possible; and they agreed, and said they were trying to arrange that very thing. While we thus approached them, we at the same time kept an eye on them to see whether they disembarked anything from the ship, or paid any harbor-dues.23 [30] But when they had been in town a good many days, and we found that nothing had been disembarked from the ship, nor had any harbor-dues been paid in their name, we began from then on to press them more and more with our demands. And when we made ourselves burdensome to them, this fellow Lacritus, the brother of Artemo, answered that they would be unable to pay us, for all their goods were lost; and Lacritus declared he could make out a good case in the matter.24 [31] We, men of the jury, were indignant at these words, but we gained nothing by our indignation, for these men cared not a fig for it. Nevertheless we asked them in what way the goods had been lost. This man, Lacritus, said that the ship had been wrecked while sailing along the coast from Panticapaeum to Theodosia,25 and that in the wreck of the vessel the goods of his brothers which were at the time on board were lost; there was on board salt fish, Coan wine, and sundry other things; this, they said, had been put on board as a return cargo, and they had intended to bring it to Athens, had it not been lost in the ship. [32] That is what he said; but it is worth your while to learn the abominable wickedness of these men, and their mendacity. Concerning the vessel which was wrecked they had no contract,26 but it was another man who had lent from Athens upon the freight to Pontus, and on the vessel itself. （Antipater was the lender's name; he was a Citian27 by birth.） The Coan wine （eighty jars of wine that had turned sour） and the salt fish were being transported in the vessel for a certain farmer from Panticapaeum to Theodosia for the use of the laborers on his farm. Why, then, do they keep alleging these excuses? It is in no wise fitting. [33]

Now please take the deposition first that of Apollonides, showing that it was Antipater who lent money upon the vessel, and that these men were in no wise affected by the shipwreck; and then that of Erasicles and that of Hippias, showing that only eighty jars were being transported in the vessel.“Depositions

Apollonides of Halicarnassus deposes that to his knowledge Antipater, a Citian by birth, lent money to Hyblesius for a voyage to Pontus on the ship of which Hyblesius was in command, and on the freight to Pontus, and that he was himself part-owner of the ship with Hyblesius; that slaves of his own were passengers on the ship; and that, when the ship was wrecked, his servants were present and reported the fact to him, and also the further fact that the ship, having no cargo,28 was wrecked while sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum.” [34] “

Erasicles deposes that he sailed with Hyblesius as pilot of the ship to Pontus, and when the ship was sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum he knows that the ship had no cargo; and that Apollodorus, the very man who is now defendant in this suit,29 had no wine on board the vessel, but that about eighty jars of Coan wine were being conveyed for a certain man of Theodosia.

Hippias, son of Athenippus, of Halicarnassus, deposes that he sailed with Hyblesius as supercargo of the ship, and that when the ship was sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum, Apollodorus put on board the ship one or two hampers of wool, eleven or twelve jars of salt fish, and goat-skins—two or three bundles—and nothing else.

In addition to these, written affidavits30 were submitted by Euphiletus, son of Damotimus, of Aphidnae, Hippias, son of Timoxenus, of Thymaetadae, Sostratus, son of Philip, of Histiaea, Archenomides, son of Strato, of Thria. and Philtiades, son of Ctesicles, of Xypetê.31” [35]

Such is the shamelessness of these men. Now, men of the jury, take thought in your own minds, whether you ever knew or heard of any people importing wine by way of trade from Pontus to Athens, and especially Coan wine. The very opposite is, of course, the case. Wine is carried to Pontus from places around us, from Peparethus, and Cos, and Thasos32 and Mendê, and from all sorts of other places; whereas the things imported here from Pontus are quite different. [36]

When we refused to let them off, and questioned them as to whether any of the goods were saved in Pontus, the defendant, Lacritus, answered that one hundred Cyzicene staters33 were saved; and that his brother had lent this sum in gold in Pontus to a certain shipowner of Phaselis, a fellow-countryman and friend of his; and that he was unable to get it back, so that this also was as good as lost. [37] This is what was said by this fellow, Lacritus; but the agreement, men of the jury, does not say this. It bids these men to take on board a return cargo, and bring it back to Athens; not to lend our property without our consent to whomsoever in Pontus they pleased, but to deliver it in its entirety to us at Athens, until we should recover all the money which we had lent.

Now, please read the agreement again.“ Agreement ” [38]

Does the agreement, men of the jury, bid these men lend our money, and that to a man whom we do not know, and have never seen? Or does it bid them put on board their ship a return cargo and convey it to Athens, and there display it to us, and deliver it to us in its entirety? [39] The agreement does not permit anything to have greater effect than the terms contained in it, nor that anyone should bring forward any law or decree or anything else whatever to contravene its provisions; yet these men from the very outset paid no heed to this agreement, but made use of our money as if it had been their very own; so rascally are they as sophists and dishonest as men. [40] For my own part, I swear by Zeus the king and by all the gods, I never made it a matter of reproach to anyone, men of the jury, nor blamed him, if he chose to be a sophist and to pay money to Isocrates; I should be mad if I concerned myself about anything of that sort. But, by Zeus, I do not think it right that men, because they look down on people and think themselves clever, should covet the property of others and seek to defraud them, trusting in their power of speech. That is the part of a rascally sophist, who should be made to suffer for it. [41] This fellow Lacritus, men of the jury, has not come into court relying on the justice of his case, but realizing perfectly what he and his brothers have done in the matter of this loan; and because he considers that he is clever and will easily provide arguments to defend evil practices,34 he thinks he will lead you astray just as he pleases. For it is precisely in these matters that he professes himself to be clever, and he asks money, and collects pupils, promising to instruct them in these very things. [42] In the first place, he instructed his own brothers in this art, which you, men of the jury, see to be evil and unjust—the art of borrowing on your exchange money for a maritime adventure, and then defrauding the lenders, and refusing to pay them. How could there be men baser than the one who teaches such an art, or than those who learn of him? Since, then, he is so clever, and trusts in his power of speaking and in the one thousand drachmae which he has paid to his teacher, [43] bid him show you, either that they did not borrow the money from us, or that, having borrowed it, they have paid it back; or that agreements for overseas trade ought not to be binding; or that it is right for people to use money for some other purpose than that for which they received it under agreement. Let him prove to you whatever one of these propositions he chooses. If he can so prove it to you who sit to decide cases of mercantile contracts, I certainly concede that he is the cleverest of men. But I know well that he would not be able to prove it to you or induce you to believe any one of them. [44]

But apart from all this, suppose, by heaven, men of the jury, that the case were reversed,—that it was not this man's dead brother who owed me the money, but that I owed his brother a talent, or eighty minae, or more or less; do you fancy that this fellow, Lacritus, would employ the same language that he now so lavishly uses? Or would say that he is not the heir and has nothing to do with his brother's affairs? Or that he would not exact payment from me mercilessly, as he has from the others who owed anything to the deceased, whether in Phaselis or anywhere else? [45] And, if any one of us, being defendant in a suit brought by him, had dared to enter a special plea declaring that the action was not one that could be brought into court, I know well that he would have waxed indignant, and would have protested to you, declaring that he was suffering treatment that was outrageous and contrary to law, if anyone voted that his action, being a mercantile one, was not one that could be brought. Then, Lacritus, if you consider this just for yourself, why should it not be just for me? Do not the same laws stand written for us all? And have we not all the same rights in regard to mercantile suits? [46] But he is a man so vile, so surpassing all human kind in baseness, that he seeks to induce you to vote that this mercantile action cannot be brought when you are now sitting to judge mercantile suits.

What is it you would have, Lacritus? Is it not enough that we should be robbed of the money we lent you but should we also be given over to prison by you, if we do not pay the costs adjudged against us? [47] Would it not be outrageous, and cruel, and shameful, for you, men of the jury, if those who have lent money in your port for an adventure overseas, and have been defrauded of it, should be led off to prison by those who borrowed and are seeking to evade payment? Is it this, Lacritus, that you would have these gentlemen sanction? But, men of the jury, where are we to obtain justice in the matter of commercial contracts? Before what magistrates, or at what time? Before the Eleven35? But they bring into court burglars and thieves and other evil-doers who are charged with capital crimes. Before the Archon36? [48] But it is for heiresses, and orphans, and parents that the Archon is appointed to care. Then before the King-archon37? But we are not gymnesiarchs, nor are we indicting anyone for impiety. Or will the Polemarch38 bring us into court? Yes, for disregard of a patron, or for having no patron.39 Well then, the Generals40 are left. But they appoint the trierarchs; they bring no mercantile suits into court. [49] I, however, am a merchant, and you are the brother and heir of a merchant, who got from me money for a mercantile venture. Before whom, then, should this suit be entered? Tell me, Lacritus; only say what is just and according to law. But there lives no man clever enough to be able to say anything that is just in connection with a case like yours. [50]

It is not in these matters only, men of the jury, that I have suffered outrageous wrongs at the hands of this man Lacritus; for, besides being defrauded of my money, I should have been brought into the gravest danger, so far as his power went, if the agreement made with these men had not come to my aid by bearing witness that I lent the money for a voyage to Pontus and back to Athens. For you know, men of the jury, how severe the law is, if any Athenian transports corn to any other port than the port of Athens, or lends money for use in any market save that of Athens; you know what penalties there are in such cases, and how severe and to be dreaded they are. [51]

However, read them the law itself, that they may have more exact information.“Law

It shall be unlawful for any Athenian or any alien residing at Athens or for any person over whom they have control, to lend money on any vessel which is not going to bring to Athens grain or the other articles specifically mentioned.41 And if any man lends out money contrary to this decree, information and an account of the money shall be laid before the harbor-masters in the same manner as is provided in regard to the ship and the grain. And he shall have no right to bring action for the money which he has lent for a voyage to any other place than to Athens, and no magistrate shall bring any such suit to trial.” [52]

The law, men of the jury, is thus severe. But these men, the most abominable of humankind, although it stands expressly written in the agreement that the money should come back to Athens, allowed what they borrowed from us at Athens to be conveyed to Chios. For when the Phaselite shipowner wanted to borrow other money in Pontus from a certain Chian, and the Chian declared he would not lend it unless he should receive as security all the goods which the shipowner had on board or in his keeping, and unless those who had made the former loan should consent to this, these men nevertheless permitted these goods of ours to become security for the Chian, and put them all into his control. [53] On these terms they sailed back from Pontus with the Phaselite shipowner and the Chian who had made the loan, and put into Thieves' Harbor, without anchoring in your port. And now, men of the jury, money which was lent for a voyage from Athens to Pontus and back again from Pontus to Athens has been brought to Chios by these men. [54] It is, therefore, just as I assumed at the beginning of my speech—you are wronged no less than we who lent the money. Consider, men of the jury, how the wrong touches you also. When a man seeks to set himself above your laws, and makes of no effect nautical agreements, but does away with them, and has sent away to Chios money lent here on our exchange, is it not clear that such a man wrongs you as well as us [55]

My words, men of the jury, are addressed to these people only, for it was to them that I lent the money. It will remain for them to deal with that Phaselite shipowner, their own countryman, to whom they say they lent the money unknown to us and contrary to the agreement. For we do not know what transactions were entered into by them with their countryman; but they know themselves. [56] This we hold to be a just course; and we beg you, men of the jury, to come to the aid of us who are being wronged, and to punish those who devise evil and resort to sophistries, as these men do. If you do this, you will be found to have decided in accordance with your own interests, and will rid yourselves of all the rascalities of unprincipled men, which certain ones of them are employing in regard to maritime contracts.

1 Phaselis was a town in Bithynia, on the southern coast of Asia Minor.

2 The courts for the settlement of maritime cases sat from September to April, the period when the sea was closed to navigation. See Dem. 33.23.

3 Sphettus was a deme of the tribe Acamantis.

4 Carystus was a town in Euboea.

5 Towns in the peninsula of Pallenê, in Chalcidicê. Weather conditions would determine which port should be entered.

6 The modern Dnieper.

7 This was a place, called Hieron from a temple of Zeus, at the entrance to the Thracian Bosporus on the Asiatic side.

8 About the middle of September. This was considered a perilous season for navigation; hence the higher rate of interest.

9 The ten days following the rising of Sirius—July 25 to August 5—were, it was thought, apt to be stormy.

10 In such ports Athenian ships would be safe.

11 If the return voyage is delayed until the legal year has expired （at the summer solstice） the rate of interest is to remain unchanged.

12 That is, the terms of the contract shall be absolute. Compare Dem. 35.39.

13 Pittus （Pithus） was a deme of the tribe Cecropis.

14 The noted orator, essayist, and teacher of rhetoric.

15 The κεράμιον held about six gallons.

16 Perhaps a bit of carelessness on the part of the writer of this spurious deposition. In Dem. 34.16 we are told that it was Artemo who was to sail with the cargo.

17 Affidavits, taken down in writing in the presence of witnesses appointed for the purpose, and verified by them under oath, were accepted as evidence when the individuals could not be present in person.

18 Acharnae was a deme of the tribe Oeneïs, Xypetê a deme of the tribe Cecropis, and Cholleidae a deme of the tribe Aegeis.

19 Certified, that is, as to weight and fineness. Tampering with gold and silver coins seems not to be a merely modern device.

20 On the right of reprisal, cf. Dem. 35.13 above, and see Smith, Dictionary of Antiquities, art. “Sylae.”

21 Some small inlet, which cannot be identified with certainty, used by thieves and smugglers. See Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 450.

22 A place in the market where samples of goods could be displayed. Compare Dem. 50.24.

23 The books of the harbor-masters would show whether the tax of 2 percent had been collected, and thus whether any goods had been landed.

24 A sharp thrust at the sophist, ever ready “to make the worse the better reason.”

25 Panticapaeum is the modern Kertsch, and Theodosia the modern Kaffa in the Crimea.

26 The speaker's contention is that even if the ship was wrecked, that fact does not release Lacritus from his obligation; for the loan made by Androcles was secured not by the ship, which appears to have been mortgaged to Antipater, but upon the cargo of Mendaean wine and the return cargo which was to have been brought from Pontus. The wares lost （by jettison when the ship was damaged） were not, the speaker holds, the return cargo. That the ship was not actually lost seems a necessary inference from Dem. 35.28, where it is stated that she returned to Athens.

27 Citium is a port in Cyprus.

28 No full cargo, that is; merely the salt fish and the Coan wine mentioned above.

29 If this clause is not an interpolation, we must assume that Apollodorus was being sued as co-defendant with Lacritus. But this whole inserted document may well be spurious.

30 See note 17 above.

31 Aphidnae was a deme of the tribe Acantis; Thymaetadae, a deme of the tribe Hippothontis; Thria, a deme of the tribe Oeneïs; and Xypetê, a deme of the tribe Cecropis.

32 Peparethus, Cos, and Thasos were all islands in the Aegean.

33 See note 11 on Dem. 34.23.

34 The close parallel between this passage and the portrayal of the “school” of Socrates in Aristoph. Cl. will hardly escape the reader.

35 A board of police commissioners, having jurisdiction in the case of capital crimes, and charged with the custody of those convicted.

36 The archon （ἐπώνυμος） had the duty of passing judgement upon complaints of parents, orphans, and unmarried girls who had inherited property. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 56. 6-7.

37 The functions of the King-archon were largely religious, and the gymnesiarchs, or superintendents of the festal games, were under his control. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 57.

38 The third archon, originally minister of war, presided over the court in which cases regarding the rights of aliens were settled. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 58.

39 A resident alien was required to be enrolled under some citizen as patron.

40 Ten Generals were appointed annually, one of whom had judicial functions connected with the appointment of trierarchs. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 61.1.

41 The reader does not quote the law in full, but abridges it, and adds this clause as a sort of “et cetera.”

Phormio's inexperience in speaking,1 and his utter helplessness, you all see for yourselves, men of Athens. It is necessary for us, his friends, to state and set forth for you the facts, which we know full well from having heard him often relate them; in order that, when you have duly learned from us and have come to know the rights of the case, you may give a verdict that is both just and in harmony with your oaths. [2] We have put in a special plea in bar of action, not that we may evade the issue and waste time, but that, if the defendant2 shows that he has committed no wrong whatsoever, he may win in your court an acquittal which will be final. For all that in the minds of other people brings about a firm and lasting settlement without engaging in a trial before you— [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]

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,3 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.4 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.5 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 lent6 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.7 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, you8 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,9 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,10 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.11

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 they12 granted a lease to these men also, and gave over to them no private banking-capital; and that they gave them their freedom,13 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,14 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,15 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,16 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 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] 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.17 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, Solon18 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.19 [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.20

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this evidence has been submitted showing that he received a fourth share21 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 false 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.22 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 debts23—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.24 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.25 [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]

That you may know, men of Athens, the amount of property which he has received, and the public services which he has assumed, the clerk shall read to you the items one by one.

Please take this list and this challenge and these depositions.“ List ”“ Challenge ”“ Depositions ” [41]

All these monies he has received; he has debts due him to the value of many talents, which he is collecting, some by voluntary payments, some by bringing action. These debts were owing to Pasio—quite apart from the rent of the bank and the other property which he left;—and these the two brothers have recovered. He has expended upon public services merely what you have heard, the smallest fraction of his income, not to say of his capital; and yet he will assume a bragging air, and will talk about his expenditures for trierarchal and choregic services.26 [42] I have shown you that these assertions of his will be false; however, even if they should all prove to be true, I think it more honorable and more just that he should continue to render public service from his own funds, than that you should give him the defendant's property, and while receiving yourselves but a small portion of the whole, should see the defendant reduced to extreme poverty, and the plaintiff in wanton insolence and spending his money in the manner that has been his wont.27 [43]

With regard now to Phormio's wealth and his having got it from your father's estate, and the questions you said you were going to ask as to how Phormio acquired his fortune, you have the least right of any man in the world to speak thus. For Pasio, your father, did not acquire his fortune, any more than Phormio did, by good luck or by inheritance from his father, but he gave proof to the bankers, Antisthenes and Archestratus, who were his masters, that he was a good man and an honest, and so won their confidence. [44] It is remarkable what a striking thing it is in the eyes of people who are active in commercial life and in banking, when the same man is accounted industrious and is honest.28 Well; this quality was not imparted to Pasio by his masters; he was himself honest by nature; nor did your father impart it to Phormio. It was yourself, rather than Phormio, whom he would have made honest, if he had had the power. If you do not know that for money-making the best capital of all is trustworthiness, you do not know anything at all. But, apart from all this, Phormio has in many ways shown himself useful to your father and to you, and in general to your affairs. But your insatiate greed and your character, I take it, no one could adequately express. [45] I am surprised that you do not of yourself make this reflection, that Archestratus, to whom your father formerly belonged, has a son here, Antimachus, who fares not at all as he deserves, and who does not go to law with you and say that he is outrageously treated, because you wear a soft mantle, and have redeemed one mistress, and have given another in marriage （all this, while you have a wife of your own）, and take three attendant slaves about with you, and live so licentiously that even those who meet you on the street perceive it, while he himself is in great destitution. [46] Nor does he fail to see Phormio's condition. And yet if on this ground you think you have a claim on Phormio's property, because he once belonged to your father, Antimachus has a stronger claim than you have. For your father in his turn belonged to those men, so that both you and Phormio by this argument belong to Antimachus. But you are so lost to all proper feeling, that you yourself compel people to say things which you ought to hate anyone for saying. [47] You disgrace yourself and your dead parents, and you cast reproach upon the state, and instead of adorning and cherishing this good fortune29 which your father, and afterward Phormio have come to enjoy through the kindness of these men, so that it might have appeared as the highest of honors for those who gave it and for you who obtained it, you drag it into public view, you point the finger of scorn at it, you criticize it; you all but taunt the Athenians for admitting to citizenship a person like yourself. [48] Indeed you have come to such a pitch of insanity—what other name can one find for it?—as not to see that at this moment we, who claim that, since Phormio has received his freedom, it should not be remembered against him that he once belonged to your father, are speaking in your interest; while you, in insisting that he should never be on a footing of equality with yourself, are speaking against yourself; for the same rule, which you lay down as just for yourself against Phormio, will be advanced against you by those who at the first were the masters of your father.

To prove that Pasio also was somebody's slave, and that he afterwards won his freedom in the same manner in which Phormio won his from you, take, please, these depositions, which show that Pasio belonged to Archestratus.“ Depositions ” [49]

The man, then, who at the first saved the family fortune, and rendered himself useful in many ways to this man's father, the man who has conferred upon Apollodorus himself all the benefits of which you have heard, he it is against whom the plaintiff seeks a judgement with such heavy damages, and thinks proper to cast out in ruin contrary to all right. For that, Apollodorus, is all that you could possibly accomplish. For, if you look closely at the property, you will see to whom it belongs, in case—which heaven forbid!—these jurymen are misled by you.30 [50] Do you see Aristolochus, son of Charidemus? Once he possessed some land; now many people own it; for he acquired it while he was in debt to many. And Sosinomus and Timodemus and the other bankers, who, when they had to settle with their creditors, had to give up all their property. But you think it unnecessary to have regard even for the precautions which your father, a far better man than you and a wiser, took to meet all contingencies. [51] He—O Zeus and the gods—esteemed Phormio to be so much more valuable than you both to yourself and to him and to your business, that, although you were a man grown, it was to Phormio, not to you, that he left the control of the leases, and gave him his wife in marriage and honored him as long as he lived. And justly too, men of Athens. For other bankers, who had no rent to pay, but carried on their business on their own account, have all come to ruin; while Phormio, who paid a rent of two talents and forty minae, saved the bank for you. [52] For this Pasio was grateful to him, but you make no account of it. Nay, in defiance of the will and the imprecations written in it by your father, you harass him, you prosecute him, you calumniate him. My good sir—you can be addressed by this term—will you not desist, and know this—that to be honest profits more than great wealth? In your own case, at any rate, although, if your words are true, you received all this money, it has all been lost, as you say. But, if you had been a man of character, you would not have squandered it. [53]

For my own part, by Zeus and the gods, though I look at the matter from every side, I can see no reason why the jury should be induced by you to give a verdict against the defendant. Why should they? Because you make your charges so soon after the offence? But you make them years and ages later. Ah, but you avoided the trouble of lawsuits all this time? But who does not know of all the cases in which you have been engaged without ceasing, not only prosecuting private suits of no less importance than the present one, but maliciously trumping up public charges, and bringing men to trial? Did you not accuse Timomachus? Did you not accuse Callippus, who is now in Sicily? Or, again, Meno? or Autocles? or Timotheus? or hosts of others?31 [54] But is it reasonable to believe that you, who are Apollodorus, would deem it your duty to seek satisfaction for public wrongs, which touched you only in part, sooner than for the private wrongs, concerning which you now bring charges, especially when they were as grave as you now claim? Why, then, did you accuse those men, and leave Phormio alone? You were suffering no wrong, but methinks the charges which you are now bringing are baseless and malicious. [55] I think, then, men of Athens, that nothing could be more to the purpose than to bring forward witnesses to these facts. For if one is continually making baseless charges, what can one expect him to do now? In truth, men of Athens, I think that whatever serves as an index of Phormio's character, and of his uprightness and his generosity, I may rightly bring before you as something quite to the purpose. For one who is dishonest in all matters might perhaps have wronged the plaintiff among others; but a man who has never wronged anybody in anything, but, on the contrary, has voluntarily done good to many, how could he reasonably be thought to have wronged Apollodorus alone of all men?

When you have heard these depositions, you will know the character of either.“ Depositions ” [56]

Now read those which bear upon the baseness of Apollodorus.“ Depositions ”

Is this fellow of like stamp? Consider. Read on.“ Depositions ”

Now read all the services which Phormio has rendered to the state.“ Depositions ” [57]

Phormio, then, men of Athens, who has in so many ways proved himself of service to the state and to many of you, and has never done harm to anyone either in public or in private, and who is guilty of no wrong toward this man Apollodorus, begs and implores and claims your protection, and we, his friends, join in the same plea to you. Of another fact, too, you should be informed. Depositions have been read to you, men of Athens, showing that the defendant has supplied you with funds in excess of the whole amount that he or anybody else possesses; but Phormio has credit with those who know him for so great an amount and for far larger sums, and through this he is of service both to himself and to you.32 [58] Do not throw this away, nor suffer this abominable fellow to destroy it; do not establish a shameful precedent, that it is permitted by you that rascals and sycophants should take the property of those who are active in business and who lead well-ordered lives. Far greater advantage accrues to you from this wealth while it remains in the possession of the defendant. For you see for yourselves, and you hear from the witnesses, what a friend he shows himself to be to those in need. [59] And not one of these acts has he done with a view to pecuniary advantage, but from generosity and kindliness of disposition. So it is not right, men of Athens, that you should give up such a man to be the prey of Apollodorus. Do not show Phormio pity at a time when it will be of no profit to him, but now when it is in your power to save him; for I see no time in which one could more fittingly come to his aid than now. [60] Most of what Apollodorus will say you must regard as mere talk and baseless calumny. Bid him demonstrate to you, either that his father did not make this will, or that there is another lease than the one which we produce; or that he himself after going over the reckoning did not give Phormio a release from all the claims regarding which his father-in-law made the award with the plaintiff's own concurrence; or that the laws permit one to bring action regarding matters thus decided. Or bid him try to show anything of that sort. [61] But if, for want of proofs, he goes on uttering charges and calumnies and abuse, do not heed him, nor let his noisy talk and shamelessness lead you astray. Nay, keep in mind, and remember all that you have heard. If you do this you will be faithful to your oaths, and will save the defendant, as justice bids. By Zeus and all the gods he deserves it. [62]

Take, and read them the law and these depositions.“ Law ”“ Depositions ”

I do not know what reason there is why I should say more; for I believe that nothing that I have said has escaped you. Pour out the water.33

1 This is not merely the conventional plea of inexperience （compare Dem. 34.1）; Phormio was by now an old man, and further, since he was a manumitted slave, he can have had no training which would equip him for the task, and furthermore, he was, of course, of barbarian birth. His friends, therefore, came to his aid, and one of them speaks in his behalf.

2 The terms “plaintiff” and “defendant,” as used in the translation of this oration, apply to the suit brought against Phormio.

3 It is not stated precisely what this challenge was; but it may well have been a demand made to Apollodorus to produce the articles in question.

4 He had been given his freedom by Pasio.

5 The word naturally denotes industry, but the clause might possibly be rendered “because he did not wish capital to lie idle”; so Dareste. In Dem. 45.33, Apollodorus implies that the debt was due to mismanagement on the part of Phormio.

6 As eleven talents of this money belonged to the bank, this phrase is open to question.

7 That is, of Pasicles, who was a minor. That the guardian should marry the widow was a common provision （so in the case of Demosthenes' own mother; See Dem. 33）. In Dem. 45 Apollodorus denies that he had been challenged to produce the will, or that he had been left by his father.

8 Addressed to the two brothers, Apollodorus and Pasicles.

9 By right of seniority.

10 That is, the conduct of a manufacturing business entailed more labor and trouble than the management of a bank.

11 If it were true that Apollodorus had been defrauded by Phormio of capital which Pasio had invested in the bank, then, when the bank was let to new lessees on the same terms as before, Apollodorus would have had to make up the missing capital from some other source.

12 The plural denotes the two brothers, Apollodorus and Pasicles.

13 These men would appear to have been slaves originally, and, like Phormio himself, were rewarded with emancipation. The alternative rendering, “freed them from all claims,” seems less probable.

14 Children, that is, whom she had borne to Phormio.

15 The two first named represented Apollodorus; the latter two, Phormio.

16 The Parthenon, as it is stated below to have been on the Acropolis.

17 The two verbs ἀφιέναι and ἀπαλλάτειν seem at times to be virtual synonyms, used freely with the redundancy of legal usage. In some cases, however, ἀφιέναι refers clearly to the creditor's act, and ἀπαλλάτειν to the effect on the debtor. Parallel passages are Dem. 37.1 and Dem. 37.19; and Dem. 38.1.

18 It was the custom at Athens to emphasize the sanctity of a given law by attributing its enactment to the great lawgiver, Solon. So, in Sparta, laws were conventionally assumed to have been enacted by Lycurgus.

19 It is probable that the word “gave” refers to provisions in the will of Strymodorus. We must then assume that the wife died after the will was made, but before the death of Strymodorus. So Sandys.

20 Illegitimate children could not inherit; and the fact that Apollodorus recognized the children of Phormio and Archippê as heirs, proves that he admitted the legality of the marriage.

21 There were four children: Apollodorus and Pasicles, and the two born of Phormio and Archippê.

22 A right not often recognized in Attic law. Compare Dem. 39.29.

23 The debts, that is, due to his father.

24 The rent of the factory was a talent a year, and that of the bank a talent and forty minae, making a total of one hundred and sixty minae annually, or eighty minae apiece for each of the two brothers, or ten talents and forty minae for the eight-year period.

25 The rents under the new lease remained the same as before, but Apollodorus received only that from the shield-factory, or a talent annually.

26 As a matter of fact Apollodorus had served as trierarch with distinction, and had been most liberal in his expenditures. See Dem. 50.11 ff., and Oration Dem. 45.78.

27 Contrast with this passage the statements of Apollodorus himself regarding his manner of life in Dem. 45.77.

28 The order of the words suggests a slight contrast between δόξαι and εἶναι.

29 That is, of course, the right of citizenship.

30 The property of Phormio consisted chiefly in the money of the depositors which he had invested in diverse ways. If heavy damages were assessed against him, the depositors would at once demand their money, and such a run on the bank would be ruinous.

31 Timomachus, Meno, and Autocles （see Dem 50.） were successive commanders of the Athenian fleet in Thracian waters, where Apollodorus served as trierarch. Callippus is all but certainly to be identified with the trierarch of that name, who at the bidding of Timomachus, and after Apollodorus's own refusal to do so, had transported the exile Callistratus from Macedonia to Thasos. Timotheus was the well-known Athenian general, against whom Apollodorus brought also a private suit to recover funds （Dem. 49）.

32 I follow Sandys in the interpretation of this passage.

33 The speaker concludes without having exhausted the time allowed him; there is, therefore, water left in the water-clock. This he effectively bids the attendant to pour out. Dem. 38 closes with these same words. In Dem. 54, while depositions are being read, the attendant is bidden to check the flow of the water.

Inasmuch as the laws, men of the jury, have granted that a special plea be entered in cases where a man, after having given a release and discharge, nevertheless brings suit, and as both of these have been given me by Pantaenetus here, I have pleaded, as you have just now heard, that his suit is not admissible. I did not think that I should forgo this right, or that, after I had proved among other things that the plaintiff had released me, and that I had got rid of him, it should be open to him to declare that I was uttering a falsehood and to try to employ the argument that, if any such release had been granted me, I should have put in a special plea to bar his suit. No, I determined to come before you relying on this plea and to prove both points—that I have never done the plaintiff any wrong, and that he is suing me contrary to law. [2] If Pantaenetus had suffered any of the wrongs with which he now charges me, he would be found to have brought suit against me at the time when the contract between us was made, for these actions must be decided within the month,1 and both Evergus and I were in town; since all men are wont to be most indignant at the very time of their wrongs, and not after a period has intervened. Since, however, the plaintiff, though he has suffered no wrong, as I know well you will yourselves agree when you have heard the facts, elated by the success of his suit against Evergus,2 brings a malicious and baseless action, there is no other course left me, men of the jury, than to prove in your court that I am guilty of no wrong whatever, to produce witnesses in support of what I say, and to endeavor to save myself. [3] I shall make a reasonable and fair request of you all, that you hear with goodwill what I have to say regarding my special plea, and that you give your attention to every aspect of the case. For, while hosts of cases have been tried in Athens, I think it will be shown that no man has ever brought before you one so marked by shamelessness and malice as this, which this fellow has had the audacity to bring into your court. I shall with all possible brevity set before you all the facts of the case. [4]

Evergus and I, men of the jury, lent to this man Pantaenetus one hundred and five minae on the security of a mining property in Maroneia3 and of thirty slaves. Of this loan forty-five minae belonged to me, and a talent to Evergus. It happened that the plaintiff also owed a talent to Mnesicles of Collytus4 and forty-five minae to Phileas of Eleusis and Pleistor. [5] The vendor to us of the mining property and the slaves was Mnesicles, for he had purchased them for the plaintiff from Telemachus, the former owner; and the plaintiff leased them from us at a rent equal to the interest accruing on the money, a hundred and five drachmae a month. We drew up an agreement in which the terms of the lease were stated, and the right was given the plaintiff of redeeming these things from us within a given time. [6] When these transactions had been completed in the month of Elaphebolion in the archonship of Theophilus,5 I at once sailed away for Pontus, but the plaintiff and Evergus remained here. What transactions they had with one another while I was away, I cannot state, for they do not tell the same story, nor is the plaintiff always consistent with himself; sometimes he says that he was forcibly ousted from his leasehold by Evergus in violation of the agreement; sometimes that Evergus was the cause of his being inscribed as a debtor to the state;6 sometimes anything else that he chooses to say. [7] But Evergus tells a plain and consistent story, that since he was not receiving his interest, and the plaintiff was not performing any of the other things stipulated in the agreement, he went and took from the plaintiff, with the latter's consent, what was his own, and kept it; that after this the plaintiff went away, but came back bringing men to make claim to the property; that he on his own part did not give way in their favour, but made no objection to the plaintiff's holding that for which he had given a lease, provided he should observe the terms of the agreement. From these men, then, I hear stories of this sort. [8] This, however, I know well, that, if the plaintiff speaks the truth, and has been outrageously treated, as he says, by Evergus, he has had satisfaction to the amount at which he himself assessed his damages; for he came into your court and won his suit against him; and surely he has no right to obtain damages for the same wrongs both from the one who committed them and from me, who was not even in Athens. But, if it is Evergus who speaks the truth, he has been made the object, it appears, of a baseless and malicious charge; but even so there is no ground for my being sued on the same charge.

To prove, in the first place, that I am speaking the truth in this, I shall bring before you the witnesses to establish these facts.“ Witnesses ” [9]

That, therefore, the man who sold us the property was the man who had been the original purchaser; that under the agreement the plaintiff rented the mining establishment and the slaves, recognizing them as belonging to us; that I was not present at the transactions which subsequently took place between the plaintiff and Evergus, and indeed was not even in Athens; that he brought suit against Evergus, and never made any charge against me,—all this, men of the jury, you hear from the witnesses. [10] Well, then, when I came back, having lost practically everything I had when I sailed, I heard, and found it was true, that the plaintiff had given up the property and that Evergus was in possession and control of what we had purchased. I was distressed beyond words, seeing that the matter had got into an awkward predicament; for it was now necessary for me either to enter into partnership with Evergus for the working and management of the property, or have him for a debtor instead of Pantaenetus, and draw up a new lease and enter into a contract with him; and I liked neither of these alternatives. [11] Being vexed at the matters of which I am telling you, and happening to see Mnesicles, who had sold us the property, I came up to him, and reproached him, telling what sort of a man he had recommended to me, and I questioned him regarding the claimants, asking what this was all about. On hearing this, he laughed at the claimants, but stated that they wished to have a conference with us. He declared that he would bring us together, and that he would urge the plaintiff to do all that was right in my regard, and he thought he would persuade him to do so. [12] When we had our meeting—what need is there to tell you all the details?—the men came who claimed to have made loans to the plaintiff on the security of the mining property and the slaves, which we bought from Mnesicles; and there was nothing straightforward or honest about them. Then, when they were convicted of falsehood in all their statements and Mnesicles confirmed our having bought the property, they offered us a challenge, assuming that we should not accept it, either to take all our money from them and withdraw, or to settle with them by paying their claims; for the security which we held was, they claimed, worth far more than the sums we had lent. [13] When I heard this, on the spur of the moment and without even taking thought, I agreed to take my money, and I persuaded Evergus to adopt the same course. But when the time came for us to receive our money, the matter having been brought to this conclusion, the people who had previously made the offer declared then that they would not pay us unless we became vendors to them of the property, and in this point anyway, men of Athens, they were prudent; for they saw in what baseless and malicious charges we were involved by this fellow.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, take, please, these depositions also.“ Depositions ” [14]

When the matter stood thus, and the people whom the plaintiff had introduced to us would not give up the money, and it was clear that we were rightfully in possession of what we had purchased, he begged, and implored, and besought us to sell the property. As he made this demand and begged me most earnestly—there is nothing he did not do—I gave way in this matter also. [15] I saw, however, men of Athens, that he was a man of evil disposition, that at the outset he had made charges to us against Mnesicles, and then had quarrelled with Evergus, with whom he was on terms of closest friendship; that at the first, when I returned from my voyage, he pretended that he was glad to see me, but when the time came for him to do what was right, he became surly with me; that he was a friend to all men until he got some advantage and attained what he wanted, and thereafter became their foe and was at variance with them; [16] I therefore thought it best, if I withdrew and assumed the position of vendor in this man's interest, that I should obtain a full release and discharge from all claims, and thus make a final settlement with him. This was agreed to, and he gave me a release in full, while I, as he begged me to do, assumed the position of vendor of the property, exactly as I had myself bought it from Mnesicles. Having, then, recovered my money, and having done the plaintiff no wrong whatsoever, I imagined, by the gods, that, no matter what should happen, he would never bring a suit against me. [17]

These, men of the jury, are the facts regarding which you are to cast your votes, these are the grounds upon which I have entered the special plea that this baseless and malicious suit is not maintainable. I shall bring forward witnesses who were present when I was given a release and discharge by the plaintiff, and shall then proceed to prove that under the law the suit is not maintainable.

Please read this deposition.“ Deposition ”

Now, please, read the deposition of the purchasers, that you may be assured that I sold the property at the bidding of the plaintiff and to the persons to whom he bade me sell it.“ Deposition ” [18]

Not only have I these witnesses to prove that I have been released and am now the object of a baseless and malicious charge, but Pantaenetus himself is a witness also. For when, in bringing suit against Evergus, he left me out of the question, he himself bore witness that he had no further claim against me. For surely, assuming that he had the same charge to bring against both for the same wrongdoing, he would not, when both were at hand, have passed over the one and brought suit against the other. However, that the laws do not allow a fresh suit to be brought regarding matters that have been thus settled you know, I presume, even without my telling you.

Nevertheless, read them this law also.“ Law ” [19]

You hear the law, men of Athens, expressly stating that in cases where anyone has given a release and discharge, there shall be no further action. And that both these have been effected between the plaintiff and myself, you have heard from the witnesses. One should not, of course, bring suit in any case when the law forbids it, but least of all ought one in a case like this. For in regard to sales made by the state, one might claim that it had made the sale unjustly, or had sold what was not its own; [20] and in regard to court decisions it might be claimed that the decision had been rendered through error; and in all other cases where the law forbids action exception might plausibly be taken to each one. But when anyone has himself yielded to argument and given a release, he cannot in the very nature of the case charge himself with having acted unjustly. Those who bring suit in defiance of any other of these provisions fail to abide by what others have determined to be just; but he who again brings suit in matters regarding which he has given a release fails to abide by his own decision. Therefore, against all such your anger should be particularly severe. [21]

Well then, that he released me from all claims, when I sold the slaves to him, I have proved to you; and that the laws do not allow suits to be brought in such cases you have heard from the law which has just been read. However, that no one of you, men of Athens, may suppose that it is because I am at a disadvantage regarding the rights of the matters at issue that I have recourse to this special plea, I propose to show you that in every one of his charges against me his statements are false. [22]

Read the complaint itself, which he brings against me.“Complaint

Nicobulus has harmed me by laying a plot against me and against my property, having ordered Antigenes, his slave, to take away from my slave the silver which he was bringing to be paid to the state for the mining property which I bought for ninety minae,7 and having also caused me to be inscribed as debtor to the treasury for double that amount.” [23]

Stop reading. All these charges which he has now lodged against me he previously made against Evergus, and won his suit. Now evidence has been brought before you in the opening of my speech that I was not in the country when these men quarrelled with one another; but the fact is clear from the complaint itself. For he nowhere stated that I have done any of these things, but, suggesting that I laid a plot against him and against his property, he declares that I ordered my slave to commit these acts; and in this he lies. For how could I have given this order, seeing that at the time I set sail I could by no possibility have had knowledge of what was going to happen here? [24] And then how absurd when he says that I plotted to disenfranchise him and bring him to utter ruin, to have written in the charge that I ordered a slave to do this,—a thing which even a citizen could not do to another citizen.8 What, then, is the meaning of this? I suppose that, being unable to refer to me the doing of any of these acts, but wishing to go on with his malicious suit, he wrote in the complaint that I had given the order. There was no sense in his charge, if he had not done this. [25]

Read what follows.“Complaint

And after I had become a debtor to the state, having stationed his slave Antigenes in my mining property at Thrasyllus,9 in full control of my works, although I forbade him . . .”

Stop reading. In all this he will again be convicted of falsehood by the facts themselves; for he has written in the complaint that I stationed the slave and that he forbade me. But this was impossible in the case of one who was not in the country. Neither did I station anyone, seeing that I was in Pontus, nor did he forbid a man who was not in Athens. [26] How could he? What was it, then, that forced him to make this statement? I fancy that Evergus, at the time he made the mistakes10 for which he has paid the penalty, being on friendly terms with me and well known, took the slave from my house and stationed him at his own works to keep guard. If, then, he had written the truth, it would have been ridiculous. For, if Evergus stationed the slave there, wherein do I wrong you? It was to avoid this absurdity that he was compelled to write as he did, that his charge might be directed against me.

Read what follows.“Complaint

And then having persuaded my slaves to sit in the foundry11 to my prejudice.” [27]

This is out-and-out impudence. Not only from my challenging him to give up these slaves for torture and from his refusing to do so, but from every circumstance of the case its falsehood is manifest. Why, pray, should I have induced them to do this? That, forsooth, I might get possession of them. But when the option was given me either to keep the property or to recover my money, I chose to recover my money; and of this you have heard the evidence.

Nevertheless, read the challenge.“ Challenge ” [28]

Although he did not accept the challenge, but declined it, see what a charge he makes immediately thereafter.

Read what comes next.“Complaint

And having reduced the silver-ore which my slaves had dug, and keeping the silver smelted from that ore.”

Again, how could this have been done by me when I was not here?—things, too, for which you won a judgement against Evergus? [29]

Read the further charges.“Complaint

And having sold my mining property and the slaves, contrary to the agreement which he had made with me.”

Stop reading. This far outdoes all the rest. For in the first place he says, “contrary to the agreement which he had made with me.” What agreement is this? We leased our own property to this man, at a rent equal to the interest on the loan; that was all. It was Mnesicles who sold it to us, in the presence of the plaintiff and at his request. [30] Afterwards in the same way we sold the property to others on the same terms upon which we had ourselves bought it, and the plaintiff not only urged but actually implored us to do so; for no one was willing to accept him as the vendor. What, then, does the agreement to lease it have to do with the matter? Why, most worthless of men, did you insert that clause?

However, to prove that we resold the property at your request, and on the same terms as those upon which we ourselves bought it, read the deposition.“ Deposition ” [31]

You are yourself also a witness to this; for what we purchased for one hundred and five minae, this you afterward sold for three talents and twenty-six hundred drachmae. And yet who, if he had you12 as one to complete a final sale, would have given a single drachma?

To prove that I speak the truth in this, call, please, the witnesses who establish the facts.“ Witnesses ” [32]

He has, then, received the sum which he agreed to take for his property,—he even begged me that I should assume the position of vendor for the sum which I had advanced—yet this same man sues me for two talents more. And the rest of the charges are even more outrageous.

Read, please, the remainder of the complaint.“ Complaint ” [33]

Here he brings against me in one mass a host of dreadful charges; for he accuses me of assault and battery, outrage, and of violent wrongs even against heiresses.13 But for each of these wrongdoings actions are separate; they do not come before the same magistrates and they are not for the recovery of the same penalties. Assault and battery and crimes of violence come before the Forty14; cases of outrage before the Thesmothetae; and all crimes against heiresses before the Archon.15 And the laws grant the filing of pleas to bar action also in case of charges brought before magistrates who have not due competency.

Read them this law.“ Law ” [34]

Although I had entered this exception in bar of action in addition to the other, and although the Thesmothetae have not competency in the matters concerning which Pantaenetus is bringing his suit, it has been erased, and is not found in the plea as written. How this has come about it is for you to consider.16 To me, so long as I am able to produce the law itself, it makes not the slightest difference; for he will not be able to erase from your minds your power to know and understand the right. [35]

Take also the mining law. For I think I can show you from this, too, that the action is not maintainable, and that I deserve thanks rather than to be made the object of a baseless and malicious charge.

Read.“ Law ”

This law has clearly defined in what cases mining actions may properly be brought. Observe—the law makes a man liable if he eject another from his workings; but I, far from ejecting the plaintiff, gave over to him and put him in possession of that of which another was seeking to deprive him; and I became the vendor of it at his request. [36] Yes, says he, but if one commit other wrongs concerning mines, for these, too, actions may be brought. Certainly, Pantaenetus; but what are these? If one smokes out another, if one makes an armed attack, if one makes cuttings which encroach upon another's workings. These are the other cases; but I, of course, have done nothing of this sort to you, unless you hold that people who seek to recover what they had risked in a loan to you are making an armed attack. If you hold that view, you have mining suits against all those who risk their own money. [37] But there is no justice in that. For consider—if a man purchases a mine from the state, shall he disregard the general laws in accordance with which all men are bound to render and obtain justice, and bring suit in a mining court, if he borrows from another?—if he be evil spoken of?—if he be beaten?—if he charge one with theft?—if he fail to recover money advanced for another's tax?—if, in short, he has any other ground for action? I think not. [38] Mining suits, in my judgement, are to be brought against those sharing in the business of mining and those who have bored through into another's property, and, in short, against those engaged in mining who do any of the things mentioned in the law. But a man who has lent money to Pantaenetus, and by persistently sticking to him has with difficulty got it back, is not also to be made defendant in a mining suit; I should say not! [39]

That I have, therefore, done no wrong to the defendant and that the suit is not admissible under the laws one may easily determine from a consideration of these points. So, as he had not a single valid argument to advance in support of his charges, but had even incorporated false statements in his complaint, and was bringing suit regarding claims for which he had given a release, last month, men of Athens, when I was on the point of entering the court, and the court-rooms had already been allotted to the jurymen, he came up to me and surrounded me with his minions （that gang of his fellow-conspirators）, and did a most outrageous thing. [40] He read me a long challenge, demanding that a slave who, he claimed, was acquainted with the facts, should be put to the torture; and that, if the facts as alleged by him were true, I should have to pay him the damages charged without adjustment by the jury; but if they were false, Mnesicles, the torturer, should determine the value of the slave. When he had received sureties to this agreement from me and I had sealed the challenge （not that I thought it fair; [41] for how could it be fair that it should depend upon the body and life of a slave, whether I should be condemned to pay two talents, or the bringer of this malicious suit get off scot-free? But I, wishing to prevail by a preponderance of fair play, made this concession）—after this he again summoned me in the suit, as soon as he had taken back his deposits;17 so clear did he make it at once that he would not abide by the conditions which he had himself laid down. [42] But when we had come before the torturer, instead of opening the challenge, showing its contents, and proceeding in accordance with its terms to do what seemed right （for on account of the turmoil at that time and the fact that the case was about to be called, it was like this: I offer you this challenge.—I accept it.—Let me have your ring.—Take it.—Who is your surety?—This man here.—and I had taken no copy or anything else of that sort）; instead of acting in the way of which I speak, he had brought with him a different challenge, insisting that he should himself torture the man, and he laid hold of him, dragged him this way and that, and went beyond all bounds in blackguardly action. [43] On my part, men of the jury, I was led to reflect what gain there is in a life molded to serve one's ends.18 For it seemed to me that I was suffering this treatment because I was despised as one who lived a simple and natural life, and that I was paying a heavy penalty in having to submit to this.

However, to prove that I was compelled to give a counter-challenge contrary to what I thought was right, that I offered to give up the slave, and that I am speaking the truth in this, read the challenge.“ Challenge ” [44]

Since he refused this, and refused the challenge which he himself gave at the first, I wonder what in the world he will have to say to you. But that you may know who it is at whose hands he claims to have suffered these indignities—behold him!19 This is the man who dispossessed Pantaenetus; this is the man who was stronger than the friends of Pantaenetus, and stronger than the laws. For I myself was not in Athens; even he does not make that charge. [45]

I wish to tell you also the means by which he misled the former jury, and convicted Evergus, that you may realize that in this trial also there will be no limit to his impudence and that he will shrink from no falsehoods. More than this; in regard to his present suit against me, you will find my means of defence20 are the same as those of Evergus, which is the most convincing proof that Evergus has been the victim of a malicious and baseless charge. For in addition to all the other accusations the plaintiff charged that Evergus came to his home in the country, and made his way into the apartments of his daughters, who were heiresses, and of his mother; and he brought with him into court the laws concerning heiresses. [46] And yet up to this day he has never had the case examined before the Archon, whom the law appoints to have charge of such matters, and before whom the wrongdoer runs the risk of having punishment or fine adjudged against him, while by the prosecutor redress is sought without risk;21 nor has he impeached either me or Evergus as wrongdoers, but he made these charges in the court-room, and secured a verdict for two talents. [47] For, I take it, it would have been an easy matter for Evergus, if he had known in advance （as under the laws he should have known） the charge on which he was being tried, to set forth the truth of the matter and the justice of his cause, and so win acquittal; but in a mining suit regarding matters concerning which he could never have imagined that he would be accused, it was hard to find, offhand, means to free himself from the false charges; and the indignation22 of the jurymen, who were misled by the plaintiff, found him guilty in the matter upon which they sat in judgement. [48] And yet do you think that the man who deceived those jurymen will hesitate to try to deceive you?—or that he comes into court with his confidence fixed upon the facts, and not rather upon assertions and upon the witnesses who are in league with him （that foul blackguard Procles, the tall fellow there, and Stratocles, the smoothest-tongued of men and the basest）, and in his readiness to weep and wail without disguise or shame? [49] But you are so far from deserving pity, that more than any man in the world you should rightly be detested for the deeds you have wrought—you who, owing one hundred and five minae and not being able to satisfy your creditors, and then finding men who helped you to raise the money and enabled you to do what was right by those who originally made the loan, are seeking, quite apart from the wrongs you committed against them in regard to the loan itself, also to deprive them of their civic rights. In the case of other men one may see borrowers having to give up their property, but in your case it is the lender who has come to this plight, and, having lent a talent, has been forced to pay two talents as the victim of a baseless charge; [50] and I, who lent forty minae, am defendant in this suit for two talents. Again, on property on which you were never able to borrow more than one hundred minae, and which you sold outright for three talents and two thousand drachmae,23 you have, as it seems, sustained damages to the amount of four talents! From whom? From my slave, you will say. But what citizen would let himself be ousted from his own property by a slave? Or who would say that it is right that my slave be held responsible for acts, for which the plaintiff has brought action against Evergus and obtained a verdict? [51] Besides all this, the plaintiff has himself given him a release from all charges of this kind. He ought not to be stating these charges now, nor to have inserted them in the challenge in which he demanded the slave for torture, but to have instituted suit against him, and to have prosecuted me as his owner. As it is, he has instituted suit against me, but accuses him. This the laws do not permit. For whoever instituted suit against the master, and charged the facts against his slave—as though the slave had any authority of his own? [52]

When anyone asks him, “What valid charges will you be able to make against Nicobulus?” he says, “The Athenians hate money-lenders; Nicobulus is an odious fellow; he walks fast,24 he talks loud, and he carries a cane; and （he says） all these things count in my favor.” He is not ashamed to talk in this way, and also fancies that his hearers do not understand that this is the reasoning, not of one who has suffered wrong, but of a malicious pettifogger. [53] I, for my part, do not regard a money-lender as a wrongdoer, although certain of the class may justly be detested by you, seeing that they make a trade of it, and have no thought of pity or of anything else, except gain. Since I have myself often borrowed money, and not merely lent it to the plaintiff, I know these people well; and I do not like them, either but, by Zeus, I do not defraud them, nor bring malicious charges against them. [54] But if a man has done business as I have, going to sea on perilous journeys, and from his small profits has made these loans, wishing not only to confer favors, but to prevent his money from slipping through his fingers without his knowing it, why should one set him down in that class?—unless you mean this, that anyone who lends money to you ought to be detested by the public.

Read me, please, the depositions, to show what manner of man I am to those who lend money, and to those who need my help.“ Depositions ” [55]

Such am I, Pantaenetus, the fast walker, and such are you, who walk slowly. However, regarding my gait and my manner of speech, I will tell you the whole truth, men of the jury, with all frankness. I am perfectly aware—I am not blind to the fact—that I am not one of those favored by nature in these respects, nor of those who are an advantage to themselves. For if in matters in which I reap no profit, I annoy others, surely I am to this extent unfortunate. [56] But what is to come of it? If I lend money to so-and-so, am I for this reason also to lose my suit? Surely not. The plaintiff cannot point out any baseness or villainy attaching to me, nor does a single one among you, many as you are, know any such thing against me. As to these other qualities, each one of us, I take it, is as nature happened to make him; and to fight against nature, when one has these characteristics, is no easy task （for otherwise we should not differ from one another）; though to recognize them in looking on another and to criticize them is easy. [57] But which one of these qualities has any bearing on my dispute with you, Pantaenetus? You have suffered many grievous wrongs? Well, you have had satisfaction. Not from me? No; for you were not wronged in any way by me. Otherwise you would never have given me the release, nor, when you were making up your mind to bring suit against Evergus, would you have passed me by; nor would you have demanded that one who had done you many grievous wrongs should undertake to be vendor of the property. Besides, how could I have wronged you, when I was not present or even in the country? [58] Well then, suppose25 one should grant that Pantaenetus has suffered the greatest possible wrongs, and that everything which he will now allege about these matters is true, this, at least, I presume, you would all admit: that it has happened to others ere now to have suffered many wrongs more serious than pecuniary wrongs. For involuntary homicides, outrages on what is sacred, and many other such crimes are committed; yet in all these cases the fact that they have yielded to persuasion and given a release is appointed for the parties wronged as a limit and settlement of the dispute. [59] And this just principle is so binding among all men, that if anyone having convicted another of involuntary homicide, and clearly shown him to be polluted,26 subsequently takes pity on him and releases him, he has no longer the right to have the same person driven into exile. Again, if the victim himself before his death releases the murderer from bloodguiltiness, it is not lawful for any of the remaining kinsmen to prosecute; but those whom the laws sentence to banishment and exile and death, upon conviction, if they are once released, are by that word freed from all evil consequences. [60] If, then, when life and all that is most precious are at stake, a release has this power and validity, shall it be without effect when money is at stake, or claims of lesser importance? Surely not. For the thing most to be feared is, not that I should fail to obtain justice in your court, but that you should now in our day do away with a just practice, established from the beginning of time.

1 That is, within a month from the time of filing the suit; “the object being that the mine-proprieter might not be too long detained from his business.” （Boeckh, quoted by Sandys）.

2 Evergus and Nicobulus, as stated in the Introduction, had leased the mining property to Pantaenetus. As the lessee failed to pay the interest, Evergus, in the absence of Nicobulus, who had gone abroad, took possession of the property and even seized some silver which a slave of Pantaenetus was bringing to his master that he might make a payment due to the state. Because of this Pantaenetus became a debtor to the state and was required to pay double the amount due. He then sued Evergus, and won a verdict of two talents damages.

3 Maroneia was a small district in the mining area of Laurium in Attica.

4 Collytus was a deme of the tribe Aegeïs.

5 That is, in March 347 B.C.

6 See note on Dem. 37.2 and the Introduction.

7 Presumably the amount due to the state for the purchase of the mine, though the sum differs from the amount secured by the mortgage.

8 That is, disenfranchisement could come only by act of the state itself.

9 A site in Maroneia, so called from a monument of Thrasyllus which stood there.

10 A euphemism for the violence and lawlessness with which Evergus had been charged by Pantaenetus.

11 The precise meaning of κεγχρεών cannot be determined. It seems to have denoted either the pit into which the silver was run when melted, or the furnace in which it was refined.

12 The title was not vested in Pantaenetus, but in the other claimants to whom it had been transferred at his request.

13 See Dem. 37.45; and compare the oration against Meidias （Dem. 21.79）.

14 “The Forty” were circuit judges.

15 That is, the chief archon.

16 He hints that the omission of the exception filed by him was not an accident.

17 There is much obscurity here. The acceptance of the challenge by Nicobulus should have put an end to the action. The plaintiff had then the right to take back the sum deposited （as court-fees πρυτανεῖα?） when the suit was brought.

18 His own desire to live simply and naturally had caused him to be imposed upon, and to be despised as one lacking in spirit. The passage is variously interpreted, and the text is uncertain. The MSS. have καταπεπλῆχθαι, which yields no satisfactory sense, unless with Wolf we insert the negative μή. The meaning in that case would be that a life of ruthless self-assertion is a “great gain.”

19 Here the speaker effectively brings before the jury the slave, Antigenes—a feeble, old man.

20 Possibly, “the charges against me.”

21 Whereas in the court the plaintiff ran the risk of having to pay the heavy penalty of the ἐπωβολία, if he failed to make good his case. See note on Dem. 27.67.

22 Due to the alleged intrusion into the women's apartment.

23 That is, in round numbers. In Dem. 37.31 the sum is given as three talents, twenty-six hundred drachmae.

24 Compare Oration Dem. 45.77.

25 The following passage is repeated almost verbatim in the next oration, Dem. 38.21-22.

26 Homicide, even if accidental, entailed pollution, which required expiation.

Inasmuch as the laws, men of the jury, have granted that a special plea may be entered in cases where a man, after giving a release and discharge,1 nevertheless brings suit, and as both of these have been given to our father by Nausimachus and Xenopeithes who have commenced suit against us, we have pleaded, as you have just now heard, that their suit is not admissible. [2] I shall make of you all a just and reasonable request: first, that you listen to my words with goodwill, and, secondly, that if you think that I am being wronged and made defendant in a suit which has no valid basis, you render me the succor which is my due. The damages claimed in the action are, as you have heard, thirty minae; but the sum for which we are really being sued is four talents. For there are two of them, and they have entered four suits against us, all for a like amount, each for three thousand drachmae damages;2 and now on a complaint for thirty minae we are brought to trial for so large a sum. [3] The malicious actions of these men, and the guile with which they have proceeded against us, you will come to know from the facts themselves. But first the clerk shall read to you the depositions which show that they released our father from the charges which they made on the matter of his guardianship; for it is on this ground that we entered our plea that the action is not maintainable.

Please read these depositions.“ Depositions ” [4]

That they entered suit, men of the jury, regarding the guardianship; that they dropped those actions; and that they have in their possession the sums of money agreed upon, you hear from the witnesses. That the laws do not allow suit to be entered afresh regarding matters which have been thus settled, I presume you know, even if I say nothing about the matter; nevertheless I want to read you the law itself.

Read the law.“ Law ” [5]

You hear the law, men of the jury, expressly stating the several cases in which there shall be no actions. One of them （and it is as binding as any of the others） is that suit may not be brought in matters for which anyone has given a release and discharge. Yet, although the release was thus given in the presence of numerous witnesses, and although the law manifestly absolves us, these men have come to such a pitch of shamelessness and audacity, [6] that, when fourteen years have elapsed from the time when they gave my father a release, and twenty-two years after they had first indicted him,3 when my father was now dead, with whom the settlement had been made and also the guardians who after his death had charge of our property, when their own mother, too, was dead, who was well-informed regarding all these matters, and the arbitrators, the witnesses, and almost everybody else, if I may so say, counting our inexperience and necessary ignorance a boon to themselves, they have instituted these suits against us, and have the audacity to make statements which are neither just nor reasonable. [7] They declare that they did not sell their father's estate for the money which they received, nor did they give up the property, but that all that was left them—credits, furniture, and even money—still belongs to them. I, for my part, know by hearsay that Xenopeithes and Nausicrates4 left their entire property in outstanding debts, and possessed very little tangible property; and that when the debts had been collected and some furniture and slaves had been sold, their guardians purchased the farms and lodging-houses, which our opponents received from them. [8] If there had been no dispute about these matters before, and no suit had been entered charging maladministration of the property, it would have been another story; but since these men brought suit against our father in the matter of his general conduct as guardian and recovered damages, all these matters were at that time released. For our opponents, I take it, did not bring suit for the mere name “mal-administration in guardianship,” but for the money; nor did the guardians buy off this name with the money which they paid, but they bought off the claims. [9]

That, therefore, these men have no right of action against us for the debts which our father collected before the settlement, or, in general, for monies which he received by virtue of his guardianship, seeing that they have given a release for their claims, I think you have all adequately learned from the laws themselves and from the release. Moreover, that it is impossible that the collection of these funds should have been made subsequently （this is the story they are making up to lead you astray）, I wish to prove. [10] As for my father, they cannot charge that he received them; for he died three or four months after the settlement was made with them; and that Demaretus, whom our father left as our guardian, could not have received them either （for they have written his name also in their complaint）, this, too, I shall show. [11] These men are themselves our strongest witnesses; for they will be shown never to have brought suit against Demaretus in his lifetime; but, more than that, anyone who examines and studies the case itself will see, not only that he did not receive the money, but that it was impossible that he should have received it. For the debt was in Bosporus, a place which Demaretus never visited; how, then, could he have collected it? Ah, but, they will say, he sent someone to get the money. [12] But look at the matter in this way. Hermonax owed these men one hundred staters,5 which he had received from Nausicrates. Aristaechmus was for sixteen years the guardian and caretaker of these men. Therefore, the money which Hermonax paid in his own person after these men had come of age, he had not paid when they were minors; for he certainly did not pay the same debt twice. Now is there any man so silly as voluntarily to pay money to one not entitled to it, who demanded it by letter, when he had for so long a time evaded payment to the rightful owners? For my part, I think there is not. [13]

However, to prove that I am speaking the truth,—that our father died immediately after the settlement, that these men never brought suit against Demaretus for this money, and that he absolutely never went to sea, nor visited Bosporus, take the depositions.“ Depositions ” [14]

Well then, that our father did not collect the money after the release; that no one would voluntarily have paid the money, if Demaretus had sent someone to get it; and that he himself neither put out to sea nor visited Bosporus, has been made clear to you from the dates and the depositions. I wish, then, to show you that their whole statement too of the case is absolute falsehood. They have written in the complaint which they are now prosecuting, that we owe the money, inasmuch as our father received it in payment, and passed it over to them as a debt due and payable in his account of his guardianship.

Take, and read me, please, the complaint itself.“ Complaint ” [15]

You hear it stated in the complaint, “inasmuch as Aristaechmus passed the debt over to me in his account of his guardianship.” But, when they brought suit against my father in the matter of his guardianship, they wrote the very opposite of this; for they plainly charged him with not rendering an account.

Read, please, the complaint itself, which they then brought against my father.“ Complaint ” [16]

In what account, pray, Xenopeithes and Nausimachus, do you now charge that he passed the debt over to you? For at one time you brought suit and demanded money on the ground that he rendered no account. But if it is to be permitted you to bring your malicious charge on both grounds, and at one time you collected money because he did not hand something over to you, and at another are suing him on the ground that he did hand it over, there is nothing to prevent your looking for some third ground after this, so as to commence proceedings afresh. But that is not what the laws state: they declare that suit may be brought once only against the same person for the same acts. [17]

Now, men of the jury, that you may know that they not only have suffered no wrong in the present case, but that they are bringing suit in defiance of all your laws, I wish to cite to you this statute also, which expressly states that, if five years have elapsed and they have brought no suit, it is no longer permitted to orphans to bring suit regarding claims connected with guardianship.

The clerk will read you this law.“ Law ” [18]

You hear the law, men of the jury, flatly stating that if they do not bring suit within five years, they have no longer the right to sue. But we did bring suit, they may say. Yes, and you made a settlement, too; so you have no right to bring a fresh suit. Else it would be an outrageous thing, if for original wrongdoings the law does not allow suit to be brought by orphans after five years against guardians who have not been released, but now in the twentieth year you are to maintain an action against us, the children of your guardians, for matters concerning which you did give them a release. [19]

But I hear that they are going to shun arguments based upon the facts of the case and upon the laws, and are prepared to assert that a large estate was left them and that they were defrauded of it; and that they will advance as a proof of this the large sum asked as damages in their original suit, and they will wail over their orphanhood, and will go through the guardianship accounts. These and such-like points are the ones upon which they have fixed their trust, and by which they hope to beguile you. [20] For my own part, I think that the large sum asked as damages in the suits then brought is a stronger proof for us, that our father was the victim of a malicious action, than for them, that they were being defrauded of a large estate. For if he could prove his claims for eighty talents, no man in the world would have accepted three talents in settlement; whereas anyone, being defendant in a guardianship suit involving such large sums, would have paid three talents to buy off the risk and the advantages with which at that time nature supplied these men. They were orphans and young, and you were ignorant of their real characters; and everyone says that in your courts these things have more weight than strong arguments. [21]

Moreover, I think I can also prove that you might with good reason refuse to hear a word from them in regard to the guardianship.6 For suppose one should grant that they have suffered the greatest possible wrongs, and that everything which they will now allege about these matters is true, this, at least, I presume you would all admit: that it has happened to others ere now to have suffered many wrongs more serious than pecuniary wrongs. For involuntary homicides, outrages on what is sacred, and many other such crimes are committed; yet in all these cases the fact they have yielded to persuasion and given a release is appointed for the parties wronged as a limit and settlement of the dispute. [22] And this just principle is so binding among all men, that, if one, having convicted another of involuntary homicide, and clearly shown him to be polluted, subsequently takes pity upon him, and releases him, he has no longer the right to have the same person driven into exile. If, then, when life and all that is most precious are at stake, a release has this power and validity, shall it be without effect, when money is at stake, or claims of lesser importance? Surely not. For the thing most to be feared is, not that I should fail to obtain justice in your court, but that a just practice, established from the beginning of time, should now be done away with. [23]

“They did not let our property,” they will perhaps say. No; for your uncle Xenopeithes did not want it let, but, after Nicidas had denounced him for this,7 induced the jurors to allow him to administer it; and this everybody knows. “They robbed us of huge sums.” Well, for this you have received from them the damages upon which you agreed; and, I take it, you are not entitled to recover it again from me. [24] But, that you may not think there is anything in all this—it is of course not fair （how could it be?） after having come to a settlement with the guilty parties, to accuse persons who know nothing about the case—none the less, Xenopeithes and Nausimachus, if you have the idea that your claims are so marvellously valid, pay back three talents, and go on with your suit. After having exacted so large a sum for not pressing your charges, you are bound to keep silent until you have paid this back—not to make the charges and keep the money; that is the very extreme of unfair dealing. [25]

Now it is likely that they will talk about their trierarchies, and say that they have expended their property upon you. That their statements will be false; that they have squandered much of their property upon themselves, while the state has received but a small share; and that they will deem it right to reap from you a gratitude that is not deserved nor due—all this I shall pass over. I myself, men of the jury, deem it right that somewhat of gratitude should be accorded by you to all who bear the public burdens. But to whom should you accord most gratitude? To those who, while in their actions doing what is of service to the state, do not bring to pass what all would call a shame and a reproach. [26] But those who while performing public services have squandered their own property, bring the state into disrepute instead of rendering her service. For no man ever yet blamed himself; on the contrary, he declares that the state has taken away his property. But those who with ready hearts perform all the duties you lay upon them, and who by the soberness of their lives in other matters preserve their property, rightly have the better of the others in this respect, that they both have been and will be of service, and also because this service accrues to you from them without reproach. We shall be found to be men of this type in our relations to you; as for them, I shall pass them by, that they may not charge that I am speaking evil of them. [27]

I should not be surprised if they try to shed tears and make themselves seem worthy of pity. But I deem that, in view of this, you should all remember that it is the part of shameless men, or rather of men with no sense of right, after having squandered their fortune in gluttony and wine-bibbing along with Aristocrates and Diognetus and others of that stamp in shameful and evil fashion, to weep and wail now in the hope of getting what belongs to others. You would have good cause to weep over your former doings. Yet it is not now a time to weep, but to prove that you did not give a release, or that action may be had afresh for the matters released, or that it is legal to bring an action after the lapse of twenty years, when the law has fixed five years as the limit. These are the questions which these gentlemen are to decide. [28] If they are unable to prove these things, as they will be unable, we beg of you all, men of the jury, not to deliver us up as prey to these men, nor to give yet a fourth fortune to those who have mismanaged three others—that which they received from their guardians without compulsion, that which they exacted by compromising their suits, and that which the other day they took from Aesius by a judgement—but to allow us, as is right, to retain what is our own. It is of greater service to you in our hands than in theirs. And surely it is more just that we should have what is our own than that they should have it.

I do not know what reason there is why I should say more8; for I believe that nothing that I have said has escaped you. Pour out the water.

1 The opening sentences of this speech repeat almost verbatim those of the preceding oration.

2 From this it is plain that each of the two claimants brought suit against each of the four sons of Aristaechmus. This makes eight suits for thirty minae each, so that the total amount is four talents.

3 This passage offers difficulties. The best established text can be rendered only as above; but the question at once arises: why the long lapse of time between the filing of the suit and the settlement? Again, the use of γεγραμμένοι of a civil suit is suprising, although this difficulty might be met by assuming （with Kennedy） that a public prosecution is meant; but even so the eight year period remains unexplained. If with MS. A we read ἐγγεγραμμένοι and render, “after they had been enrolled as citizens,” we still have to ask why they should have waited eight years after attaining their majority before seeking an accounting from their guardians.

4 The former was the uncle, the latter the father of the plaintiff.

5 The Athenian stater was a gold coin worth twenty drachmae.

6 The following passage is repeated almost verbatim from the preceding oration, Dem. 37.58 ff.

7 If a guardian did not fulfil the duties imposed by his position, any citizen might charge him before the archon with breach of trust.

8 The speaker closes with a brief paragraph which occurs also at the end of Dem. 36.

It was not from any love of litigation I protest by the gods, men of the jury, that I brought this suit against Boeotus, nor was I unaware that it will seem strange to many people that I should bring suit because somebody thought right to have the same name as myself; but it was necessary to have the matter decided in your court, in view of the consequences that must result if I do not get this matter righted. [2] If the defendant declared himself the son of another father and not of my own, I should naturally have seemed meddlesome in caring by what name he chose to call himself; but, as it is, he brought suit against my father, and having got up a gang of blackmailers1 to support him—Mnesicles, whom you all probably know, and that Menecles who secured the conviction of Ninus,2 and others of the same sort—he went into court, alleging that he was my father's son by the daughter of Pamphilus, and that he was being outrageously treated, and robbed of his civic rights. [3] My father （for the whole truth shall be told you, men of the jury） feared to come into court lest someone, on the ground of having elsewhere received some injury from him in his public life, should confront him here; and at the same time he was deceived by this man's mother. For she had sworn that if he should tender her an oath in this matter, she would refuse it, and that, when this had been done, all relations between them would be at an end; and she had also had money deposited in the hands of a third party on her behalf3;—on these conditions, then, my father tendered her the oath. [4] But she accepted it, and swore that not only the defendant, but his brother too, her other son, was my father's child. When she had done this it was necessary to enter them among the clansmen,4 and there was no excuse left. My father did enter them; he adopted them as his children and （to cut short the intervening matters） he enrolled the defendant at the Apaturia5 as Boeotus on the list of the clansmen, and the other as Pamphilus. But I had already been enrolled as Mantitheus. [5] My father's death happened before the entries were made on the register of the demesmen,6 but the defendant went and enrolled himself on the register as Mantitheus, instead of Boeotus. How great a wrong he did in this—to me, in the first place, but also to you—I shall show, as soon as I have brought forward witnesses to prove my assertions.“ Witnesses ” [6]

You have heard from the witnesses the manner in which our father enrolled us; I shall now show to you that, as the defendant did not choose to abide by this enrollment, it was both just and necessary for me to bring suit. For I am surely not so stupid nor unreasonable a person as to have agreed to take only a third of my father's estate （though the whole of it was coming to me）, seeing that my father had adopted these men, and to be content with that, and then to engage in a quarrel with my kin7 about a name, were it not that for me to change mine would bring great dishonor and a reputation for cowardice, while for my opponent to have the same name as myself was on many accounts impossible. [7]

To begin with （assuming that it is best to mention public matters before private）, in what way will the state give its command to us, if any duty is to be performed? The members of the tribe will, of course8, nominate us in the same way as they nominate other people. Well then; they will bring forward the name of Mantitheus, son of Mantias, of Thoricus9 if they are nominating one for choregus10 or gymnasiarch11 or feaster of the tribe12 or for any other office. By what, then, will it be made clear whether they are nominating you or me? [8] You will say it is I; I shall say it is you.13 Well, suppose that after this the Archon summons us, or any other magistrate, before whom the case is called. We do not obey the summons; we do not undertake the service. Which of us is liable to the penalties provided by law? And in what manner will the generals enter our names, if they are listing names for a tax-company? or if they are appointing a trierarch? Or, if there be a military expedition, how will it be made clear which of us is on the muster-roll? [9] Or again, if any other magistrate, the Archon, the King-Archon, the Stewards of the Games, makes an appointment for some public service, what sign will there be to indicate which one of us they are appointing? Are they in heaven's name to add the designation “son of Plangon,'' if they are entering your name, or add the name of my mother if they are entering mine? But who ever heard of such a thing? or by what law could this special designation be appended, or anything else, except the name of the father and the deme? And seeing that both of these are the same great confusion must result. [10] Again, suppose Mantitheus, son of Mantias, of Thoricus should be summoned as judge,14 what should we do? Should we go, both of us? For how is it to be clear whether he has summoned you or me? Or, by Zeus, suppose the state is appointing to any office by lot, for example that of Senator,15 that of Thesmothet,16 or any of the rest; how will it be clear which one of us has been appointed?—unless some mark shall be attached to the tablet,17 as there might be to anything else; and even then people will not know to which of us two it belongs. Well then, he will say that he has been appointed, and I shall say that I have. [11] The only course left is for us to go into court. So the city will order a court to be set up for each of the cases; and we shall be cheated of the fair and equal right, that the one chosen by lot shall hold office. Then we shall berate each other, and he who shall prevail by his words will hold office. And in which case should we be better off—by trying to rid ourselves of our existing resentments, or by arousing fresh animosities and recriminations? For these must of necessity result, when we wrangle with one another about an office or anything else. [12] But suppose again （for we must examine every phase of the matter）, one or the other of us persuades the other, in case he is chosen, to yield the office to him, and so obtains the appointment? What is this but one man drawing lots with two tablets? Shall it, then, be permitted us to do with impunity a thing for which the law appoints the penalty of death? “Why, certainly, for we should not do it,” you may say. I know that, at least so far as I am concerned; but it is not right that some persons should even be liable to this penalty, when they need not be. [13]

Very well; but in these cases it is the state that is injured: what harm does it do me individually? Observe in what serious ways I am harmed, and consider if there be anything in what I say. Indeed the wrong done to me is far more grievous than what you have heard. You all know, for instance, that he was intimate with Menecles during his lifetime, and with his crowd, and that he now associates with others no better than Menecles, and that he has cherished the same ambitions, and desires to be thought a clever fellow18; and, by Zeus, I dare say he is. [14] Now, if, as time goes on, he undertakes to set on foot any of the same practices as these men （these are indictments, presentments for contraband, informations, arrests） and on the basis of one of these he is condemned to pay a fine to the state （for there are many vicissitudes in mortal affairs, and you know well how to keep in due bounds even the most clever people on any occasion when they overreach themselves）, why will his name be entered on the record any more than mine? [15] “Because,” it may be said, “everybody will know which of us two was fined.” Very good; but suppose （what might very well happen） that time passes and the debt is not paid; why is there any greater likelihood that the defendant's children will be entered on the list of state debtors any more than my own when the name of the father and the tribe, and all else are identical? Suppose, now, somebody should bring a suit for ejectment against him, and should state that he had nothing to do with me, but, having had the writ registered, should enter the name, why will the name he has entered be that of my opponent any more than my own? What if he fails to pay any of the property-taxes? [16] What if the name be involved in the filing of any other suit, or, in general, in any unpleasant scandal? Who, among people at large, will know which of the two it is, when there are two Mantitheuses having the same father? Suppose, again, that he should be prosecuted for evasion of military service, and should be serving as chorister when he ought to be abroad with the army—as, a while ago, when the rest went over to Tamynae,19 he was left behind here keeping the feast of Pitchers,20 and remained here and served in the chorus at the Dionysia,21 as all of you who were at home saw; [17] then, after the soldiers had come back from Euboea, he was summoned on a charge of desertion, and I, as taxiarch of our tribe,22 was compelled to receive the summons, since it was against my name, that of my father being added; and if pay had been available for the juries,23 I should certainly have had to bring the case into court. If this had not occurred after the boxes24 had already been sealed, I should have brought you witnesses to prove it. [18] Well then; suppose he were summoned on the charge of being an alien. And he does make himself obnoxious to many, and the way in which my father was compelled to adopt him is no secret. You, on your part, while my father was refusing to acknowledge him, believed that his mother was telling the truth; but when, with his parentage thus established, he makes himself odious, you will some day on the contrary conclude that my father's story was true. Again, what if my opponent, in the expectation of being convicted of perjury for the services25 which he freely grants his associates, should allow the suit to go by default? Do you think it would be a slight injury that I should be my whole life long a sharer of his reputation and his doings? [19]

Pray observe that my fear regarding the things I have set forth to you is not a vain one. He has already, men of Athens, been defendant in certain suits, in which, although I have been wholly innocent, odium has attached to my name as well as his; and he has laid claim to the office to which you had elected me; and many unpleasant things have happened to me because of the name; regarding each one of which I will produce witnesses to inform you fully.“ Witnesses ” [20]

You see, men of Athens, what keeps happening and the annoyance resulting from the matter. But even if there were no annoying results, and if it were not absolutely impossible for us both to have the same name, it surely is not fair for him to have his share of my property by virtue of the adoption which my father made under compulsion, and for me to be robbed of the name which that father gave me of his own free will and under constraint from no one. I, certainly, think it is not. Now, to show you that my father not only made the entry in the list of the clansmen in the manner which has been testified to you, but that he gave me this name when he kept the tenth day after my birth,26 please take this deposition.“ Deposition ” [21]

You hear then, men of Athens, that I have always been in possession of the name Mantitheus; but that my father, when he was compelled to enter him, entered the defendant in the list of clansmen as Boeotus. I should be glad, then, to ask him in your presence, “If my father had not died, what would you have done in the presence of your demesman? Would you not have allowed yourself to be registered as Boeotus?” But it would have been absurd to bring suit to force this and then afterwards to seek to prevent it. And yet, if you had allowed him, my father would have enrolled you in the register of demesmen by the same name as he did in that of the clansmen. Then, O Earth and the Gods, it is monstrous for him to claim that Mantias is his father, and yet to have the audacity to try to make of none effect what Mantias did in his lifetime. [22]

He had the effrontery, moreover, to make before the arbitrator the most audacious assertions, that my father kept the tenth day after birth for him, just as for me, and gave him the name Mantitheus; and he brought forward as witnesses persons with whom my father was never known to be intimate. But I think that not one of you is unaware that no man would have kept the tenth day for a child which he did not believe was rightly his own; nor, if he had kept the day and shown the affection one would feel for a son, would afterward have dared to deny him. [23] For even if he might have got into some quarrel with the mother of these children, he would not have hated them, if he believed them to be his own.27 For man and wife are much more apt, in cases where they are at variance with one another, to become reconciled for the sake of their children, than, on the ground of the injuries which they have done one to the other, to hate their common children also. However, it is not from these facts alone that you may see that he will be lying, if he makes these statements; but, before he claimed to be a kinsman of ours, he used to go to the tribe Hippothontis to dance in the chorus of boys.28 [24] And yet, who among you imagines that his mother would have sent him to this tribe, if, as she alleges, she had been cruelly treated by my father, and knew that he had kept the tenth day, and afterward denied it? Not one, I am sure. For it would have been just as much your right to go to school to the tribe Acamantis, and then the tribe would have been in manifest agreement with the giving of the name. To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, I shall bring before you as witnesses those who went to school with him, and know the facts.“ Witnesses ” [25]

Nevertheless, although it is so plain that by his mother's oath and the simplicity of him who tendered the oath to her, he has obtained a father and established his birth in the tribe Acamantis, instead of Hippothontis, the defendant Boeotus is not content with this, but has actually entered two or three suits against me for money, in addition to the malicious and baseless actions which he brought against me before. And yet I think you all know what sort of a man of business my father was.29 [26] I will say nothing about this; but if the mother of these men has sworn truly, it absolutely proves that the fellow is acting as a malicious pettyfogger in these suits. For if my father was so extravagant that after having married my mother in lawful wedlock, he kept another woman, whose children you are, and maintained two establishments, how pray if he were a man of this sort, could he have left any money? [27]

I am well aware, men of Athens, that the defendant, Boeotus, will have no valid argument to advance, but will have recourse to the statements he is always making, that my father was induced by me to treat him with despite; and he claims the right, alleging that he is older than I, to bear the name of his paternal grandfather. As to this, it is better for you to listen to a few statements. I remember seeing him, before he became a relative of mine, casually, as one might see anyone else, and thought him younger than I, and to judge by appearances, much younger; but I will not insist upon this, for it would be silly to do so. [28] However, suppose one should ask this Boeotus the following questions: “When you thought it right to join the chorus in the tribe Hippothontis before you claimed to be the son of my father, what name would you have set down as rightly belonging to you? For if you should say, Mantitheus, you could not do so on the plea that you are older than I, for since at that time you did not suppose you had any connection even with my tribe, how could you claim to be related to my grandfather? [29] Besides, men of Athens, not one of you knows the number of the years, for I shall say that I am the elder, and he will say that he is, but you all understand the just way of reckoning. And what is this? That these men should be considered children of my father from the date when he adopted them. Well then, he entered me on the register of the demesmen as Mantitheus, before he introduced this man to the clansmen. Therefore not by virtue of time only, but also by virtue of justice I have the right to bear this name as a mark of seniority. [30] Very well. Now, suppose one should ask you this question? “Tell me, Boeotus, how is it that you have now become a member of the tribe Acamantis, and of the deme Thoricus, and a son of Mantias, and have your share in the property left by him?” You could give no other answer than, “Mantias while living acknowledged me, too, as his son.” If one should ask you what proof you had of this or what evidence, you would say, “He introduced me to the clansmen.” But if one asked under what name he enrolled you, you would say, “Boeotus,” for that is the name by which you were introduced. [31] It is, then, an outrage that whereas thanks to that name you have a share in the right of citizenship and in the estate left by my father, you should see fit to fling it aside and take another name. Come; suppose my father were to rise from the grave and demand of you either to abide by the name under which he adopted you, or to declare yourself the son of some other father, would his demand not be thought a reasonable one? Well then, I make this same demand of you, either to add to your name that of another father, or to keep the name which Mantias gave you. [32] Ah, you may say, but that name was given you by way of derision or insult. No; very often, during the time when my father refused to acknowledge them, these men used to say that the kinsfolk of the defendant's mother were quite as good as those of my father. Boeotus is the name of his mother's brother; and when my father was compelled to bring them into the clan, when I had already been introduced as Mantitheus, he introduced the defendant as Boeotus, and his brother as Pamphilus. For I challenge you to show me any Athenian who ever gave the same name to two of his sons. If you can, I will grant that my father gave you this name by way of insult. [33] And yet, if your character was such that you could force him to adopt you, but not study how you might please him, you were not what a true son ought to be toward his parents; and, if you were not, you would have deserved, not only to be treated with indignity, but even to be put to death. It would indeed be an outrageous thing, if the laws concerning parents are to be binding upon children whom the father recognizes as his own, but are to be of no effect against those who have forced themselves in30 and compelled an unwilling adoption. [34]

You unconscionable Boeotus, do, pray, give up your present ways; but, if indeed you are unwilling to, do, in Heaven's name, accept advice in this at least; cease to make trouble for yourself, and cease bringing malicious and baseless charges against me; and be content that you have gained citizenship, an estate, a father. No one is trying to dispossess you of these things; certainly not I. Nay, if, as you claim to be a brother, you also act as a brother, people will believe that you are of our blood; but if you go on plotting against me, suing me, evincing malice toward me, slandering me, you will be thought to have intruded yourself into what belonged to others, and then to be treating it as though it were not rightly yours. [35] I certainly am doing you no wrong, even if it were never so true that my father refused to recognize you, though you were really his son. It was not my part to know who were his sons, but it was his to show me whom I must regard as a brother. Therefore, during the time in which he refused to recognize you, I also counted you as no relative; but ever since he, adopted you, I too regard you as a kinsman. What is the proof of this? You possess your portion of my father's estate after his death; you share in the religious rites, and civic privileges. No one seeks to exclude you from these. What is it that you would have? But if he says that he is being outrageously treated, if he weeps and wails, and makes charges against me, do not believe what he says. It is not right that you should, since our argument is not now about these matters. But take this attitude—that he can just as well get satisfaction under the name of Boeotus. [36] Why are you, then, so fond of wrangling? Desist, I beg you; do not be so ready to cherish enmity against me. I am not so minded toward you. For even now—lest the fact escape your notice—I am speaking rather in your interest than in my own, in insisting that we should not have the same name. If there were no other reason, at least anyone hearing it must ask which of us is meant if there are two Mantitheuses, sons of Mantias. Then he will say, “The one whom he was compelled to adopt,” if he means you. How can you desire this? Now take, please, and read these two depositions, proving that my father gave me the name Mantitheus, and him the name Boeotus.“ Depositions ” [37]

It remains, I think, to show you, men of Athens, that not only will you be fulfilling your oaths, if you give the verdict for which I ask, but also that the defendant has given judgement against himself, that he should rightly bear the name of Boeotus, and not Mantitheus. For when I had entered this suit against Boeotus, son of Mantias, of Thoricus, at the first he accepted service of the suit, and put in an oath for delay, as being Boeotus; but finally, when there was no longer room for evasion, he allowed the arbitrators to give judgement against him by default, and then, in Heaven's name, see what he did— [38] he got this judgement for non-appearance set aside, entitling himself Boeotus. And yet he ought in the first place to have allowed me to get my suit finished as against Boeotus, if that name did not, in fact, pertain to him at all, and not subsequently be found getting the judgement for non-appearance set aside under this name. When, a man has thus given judgement against himself that he is properly Boeotus, what verdict can he demand that you sworn jurors shall give? To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, take the decision setting aside the judgement for non-appearance and this complaint.“ Decision ”“ Complaint ” [39]

If, now, my opponent can point out a law which gives children the right to choose their own names, you would rightly give the verdict for which he asks. But if the law, which you all know as well as I, gives parents the right not only to give the name in the first place, but also to cancel it and renounce it by public declaration, if they please; and if I have shown that my father, who had this authority under the law, gave to the defendant the name Boeotus, and to me the name Mantitheus, how can you render any other verdict than that for which I ask? [40] Nay, more, in cases which are not covered by the laws, you have sworn that you will decide as in your judgement is most just, so that even if there were no law concerning these matters, you would have been bound to cast your votes in my favor. For who is there among you who has given the same name to two of his children? Who, that is as yet childless, will do so? [41] No one, assuredly. Well then, what in your minds you have decided to be right for your own children, it is your sacred duty to decide also in our case. Therefore on the basis of what you deem most just, on the basis of the laws, your oaths, and the admissions this man has made, my request of you, men of Athens, is reasonable, and my claims just; while my opponent asks what is not only unreasonable, but contrary to established usage.

1 This strong phrase occurs also in Dem. 40.9.

2 Ninus was a priestess who was put to death, as the scholiast on Dem. 19.281 tells us, for supplying love-potions to young men. The case seems to have been a notorious one, and reflected little credit on Menecles.

3 This money was evidently to be paid to her for fulfilling her promise to refuse the oath.

4 Admission to the clan was necessary, if full family rights were to be secured.

5 The Apaturia was a family festival occurring in the month Pyanepsion （October-November）, and was the time when children were regularly registered in the list of clan-members.

6 Enrollment on the register of the deme marked the beginning of a young man's political life. It took place when he reached the age of eighteen.

7 Literally, “to strive with one under the same yoke.” Such metaphors were very common in Greek antiquity, when horses as well as oxen were driven under the same yoke.

8 The appointment of citizens to undertake the various “liturgies” （such as, e.g., the trierarchy） was made from the tax-groups chosen by the several tribes.

9 Thoricus was a deme of the tribe Acamantis.

10 The choregus had for his duties the equipment and training of a chorus for the dramatic contests at one of the great festivals. For this purpose the tribe chose one of its richest members.

11 The gymnasiarch was appointed by the tribe to maintain a team to represent it in the torch-races, which formed a feature of certain Athenian festivals.

12 This third form of public service entailed the duty of giving the annual dinner （in the Prytaneum （?）） to the members of the tribe.

13 That is, each of them would seek to shift the burden of the required service, so that the other would have to bear it.

14 The word κριτής does not signify a judge in a court of law, but apparently a judge in some festival contest.

15 In Athens the members of the senate （βουλή） of five hundred— fifty from each of the ten tribes—were chosen by lot.

16 The six minor archons bore this name; see note on Dem. 33.1

17 Every candidate had an identification tablet inscribed with his full name （that is, his given name, the name of his father, and the name of his deme）, and this was placed in the urn for drawing.

18 Possibly, “an eloquent speaker.”

19 A town in Euboea.

20 This name was given to the second day of the festival Anthesteria, held in February-March.

21 Service in the chorus at the Dionysiac festival would entitle the individual to exemption from the military for the time being—an easy way out for the “slacker.”

22 The taxiarchs were military officers, each in command of his tribe's contingent of hoplites.

23 Evidently shortage of funds might prevent the courts from sitting; and the Euboean campaign had depleted the treasury.

24 The ἐχῖνοι were receptacles in which the documents, etc., pertaining to the case were put under seal, to be opened only when the case was called. See note on Dem. 34.46

25 The “service” at which the speaker hints is presumably the bearing of false testimony.

26 The child was formally named at a ceremony held on the tenth day after birth, and attended by members of the family and close friends.

27 This passage is repeated with slight changes in the following oration, Dem. 40.29.

28 That is, to the tribe to which his mother belonged, not to that of Mantias, which was the Acamantis. The speaker would have this indicate that the mother was conscious that the boy was not the son of Mantias.

29 He was so poor a man of business that after his death his heirs had to pay off indebtedness incurred by him.

30 The word chosen is the one properly used of aliens who seek to arrogate to themselves the rights of citizenship.

Nothing is more painful, men of the jury, than when a man is addressed by name as “brother” of certain persons, whom in fact he regards as enemies, and when he is compelled, on account of the many cruel wrongs which he has suffered at their hands, to come into court; as is my case now. [2] For instance, I have not only had the misfortune in the beginning that Plangon, the mother of these men, by deceit and manifest perjury, compelled my father to bring himself to acknowledge them, and that consequently I was robbed of two-thirds of my inheritance; but, in addition to this, I have been driven by these men out of the house of my fathers, in which I was born and brought up, and into which they were admitted, not by my father, but by myself after his death; [3] and I am being robbed of my mother's dowry, for which I am now bringing suit, although I have myself given them satisfaction in all the matters in which they made claims upon me, except some trifling cross-demands which they have maliciously brought against me on account of this action, as will be perfectly clear to you also; yet in the course of eleven years I have been unable to obtain from them a reasonable settlement, and so at length I have had recourse to you for help. [4] I beg you all, men of the jury, to listen to me with goodwill, while I speak as best I can; and if I seem to you to have suffered cruel wrongs, to pardon me for seeking to recover what is my own, especially as it is for a marriage-portion for my daughter. For it so happened that I married at my father's request when I was only eighteen, and that I have a daughter who is already of marriageable age. [5] It is, therefore, just on many accounts that you should aid me who am being wronged, and fitting that you should feel indignation against the men, who—O Earth and the Gods—when they need not have come into court at all had they done what is fair, are not ashamed to remind you of any improper acts of my father, or of wrongs which they committed against him, but even force me to go to law with them. To make you understand clearly that it is they, not I, who are to blame for this, I will set forth to you the facts of the case from the beginning with the utmost possible brevity. [6]

My mother, men of the jury, was the daughter of Polyaratus, of Cholargus1, and sister of Menexenus, and Bathyllus and Periander. Her father gave her in marriage to Cleomedon, son of Cleon,2 adding a talent as her marriage-portion; and at the first she dwelt with him as his wife, and bore him three daughters and one son, Cleon. After this her husband died, and she left his family, receiving back her marriage-portion. [7] Her brothers, Menexenus and.Bathyllus （for Periander was still a boy） then gave her again in marriage with the talent for her dowry, and she dwelt with my father as his wife. There were born to them myself and another brother, younger than I, who died while still a child.

To prove that I am speaking the truth, I will first bring forward witnesses to establish these facts.“ Witnesses ” [8]

My father, then, having thus married my mother, maintained her as his wife in his own house; and he brought me up and showed me a father's affection such as you also all show to your children. But with Plangon, the mother of these men, he formed a connection of some sort or other （it is not for me to say what it was）; [9] however, he was not so wholly the slave of his passion as to deem it right even after my mother's death to receive the woman into his own house, or to admit that the defendants were his children. No, for all the rest of the time they lived as not being sons of my father, as most of you know; but after Boeotus had grown up and had associated with himself a gang of blackmailers,3 whose leaders were Mnesicles and that Menecles who secured the conviction of Ninus, in connection with these men he brought suit against my father, claiming that he was his son. [10] Many meetings took place about these matters, and my father declared that he would never be convinced that these men were his children, and finally Plangon, men of the jury （for the whole truth shall be told you）, having in conjunction with Menecles laid a snare for my father, and deceived him by an oath that among all mankind is held to be the greatest and most awful,4 agreed that, if she were paid thirty minae, she would get her brothers to adopt these men, and that, on her own part, if my father should challenge her before the arbitrator to swear that the children were in very truth his sons, she would decline the challenge. For if this were done, she said, the defendants would not be deprived of their civic rights,5 but they would no longer be able to make trouble for my father, seeing that their mother had refused the oath. [11] When these terms had been accepted—for why should I make my story a long one?—he went to meet her before the arbitrator, and Plangon, contrary to all that she had agreed to do, accepted the challenge, and swore in the Delphinium6 an oath which was the very opposite of her former one, as most of you know well; for the transaction became a notorious one. Thus, my father was compelled on account of his own challenge to abide by the arbitrator's award, but he was indignant at what had been done, and took the matter heavily to heart, and did not even so consent to admit these men into his house; but he was compelled to introduce them to the clansmen. The defendant he enrolled as Boeotus, and the other as Pamphilus. [12] As for me, he forthwith persuaded me, for I was about eighteen years of age, to marry the daughter of Euphemus, wishing to live to see children born to me. I, men of the jury, as before, so especially then, when these men were beginning to annoy him with lawsuits and were proving troublesome, thought that I, on the contrary, ought to strive to gladden him by doing everything whereby I could give him pleasure, and so obeyed him. [13] When I had married in this way, and he had lived to see my little daughter born, not many years later he fell sick and died. Then, although during my father's lifetime, men of the jury, I had thought it my duty to oppose him in nothing, yet after his death I received these men into the house, and gave them a share of all the property, not as being really my brothers （for most of you are well aware of the manner in which they became such）, but thinking that, as my father had been beguiled, it was my duty to obey your laws. [14] And when they had thus been received by me into the house, we proceeded to divide the inheritance; and upon my demanding that my mother's marriage-portion be repaid to me, these men put in a counter-claim, and alleged that a portion of like amount was owing to their mother.7 On the advice of friends who were present we divided all the rest of the property but kept apart the house and the domestic servants of my father, [15] in order that whichever party of us might establish his claim to the dowry should recover it from the value of the house; and from the slaves, who were common property, the defendants, should they wish to search out8 any of my father's effects, might make inquiry by torturing them, or by prosecuting their search in any other way they might please.

That I am speaking the truth in this also you will know from these depositions.“ Depositions ” [16]

After this these men brought action against me to establish their claims, and I sued them for the marriage-portion. At the first we had Solon, of Erchia,9 registered as arbitrator, and submitted to him for decision the claims we advanced against each other. These men, however, did not appear, but avoided the hearing; and thus considerable time was wasted, and it came about that Solon died. These men then instituted their suit against me afresh, and I my suit against the defendant, summoning him under the name of Boeotus, and inscribing that name on the complaint; for that was the name my father gave him. [17] In the suit which these men brought against me, Boeotus appeared and fought the case, but, since he was unable to establish any of their claims, the arbitrator decided in my favor; and Boeotus, conscious that he was making charges without any just basis, did not appeal to a jury, and has not now entered any suit against me in regard to these matters, but in regard to some others, thinking to break down this suit of mine by these counter-charges.10 In the suit which at that time I was carrying on against Boeotus in regard to the marriage-portion, since he was here in Athens and did not appear before the arbitrator, the latter gave judgement against him by default. [18] And Boeotus, men of the jury, though he was here at the time would not contest the suit, but declared that I had not received the arbitrator's verdict against him, for his name was not Boeotus, but Mantitheus; and thus, by quibbling about a name, he is in fact depriving me of my mother's portion. As I was at a loss to know how one should deal with a matter like this, I instituted the same suit afresh against him as Mantitheus, and now in the eleventh year I have come to you for help.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this also, the clerk will read the depositions dealing with these matters.“ Depositions ” [19]

That my mother, therefore, men of the jury, bringing a talent as her dowry, and given in marriage by her brothers, as the laws command, lived with my father as his wife; the manner, too, in which I received these men into the house after my father's death; and the fact that I obtained a verdict in the suits which they brought against me;—all this has been established for you by proofs and by testimony.

Come now, take also this law concerning the marriage-portion.“ Law ” [20]

Such being the law, I fancy that this man—call him Boeotus or Mantitheus, or any other name by which he likes to be addressed—will have no valid or genuine defence to offer, but, relying upon his own audaciousness and effrontery, will endeavor to attach to me the misfortunes of his own family, as he is wont to do also in private life; and will allege that when the property of Pamphilus, who was the father of Plangon, was confiscated, my father took from out the council-chamber11 the surplus proceeds12 and he will thus try to show that his own mother brought a dowry of more than one hundred minae, while my mother （he will claim） brought my father no portion whatever. [21] These things he will state at length to you, men of the jury, although he has not put a single deposition in the box to substantiate them, and knows very well that there is not a word of truth in what he says; for he is fully conscious that in your court no man who confessed his guilt was ever acquitted, whereas by lying and advancing arguments to lead you astray many a man ere now has avoided paying the penalty for his deeds. In order, then, that you may not be deceived by him, I think it is better to speak to you briefly about this matter also. [22] For if he shall say that my mother did not bring with her a marriage-portion, while their mother did, bear in mind that he is manifestly lying. To begin with, Pamphilus, the father of this man's mother, died owing five talents to the public treasury, and so far from there being any surplus proceeds for his children after his property had been scheduled and confiscated, even his indebtedness has not been paid in full, but to this day Pamphilus stands inscribed as a debtor to the treasury. How, then, can it be that my father received money from the estate of Pamphilus, which proved inadequate to pay in full even the debt due to the city? [23] Furthermore, men of the jury, bear this in mind, that were it never so true that this surplus money did accrue as these men pretend, it was not my father who would have received it, but the sons of Pamphilus, Boeotus and Hedylus and Euthydemus; and, I fancy, they are not men who would go to all lengths to get hold of the property of others, as you all know, and yet at the same time quietly have allowed my father to take possession of what was theirs. [24]

That the mother of these men did not bring with her a marriage-portion, but that they are lying in regard to this, I think has been proved to you quite adequately; but that my mother did bring one, I shall easily show. In the first place, she was the daughter of Polyaratus, who was both honored by you citizens, and had acquired a large estate. Secondly, it has been proved to you by witnesses that her sister brought a dowry of the like amount when she married Eryximachus, the brother-in-law of Chabrias.13 [25] Besides all this, my mother is shown to have been first given in marriage to Cleomedon, whose father Cleon, we are told,14 commanded troops among whom were your ancestors, and captured alive a large number of Lacedaemonians in Pylos,15 and won greater renown than any other man in the state; so it was not fitting that the son of that famous man should wed my mother without a dowry, nor is it likely that Menexenus and Bathyllus, who had large fortunes themselves, and who, after Cleomedon's death, received back the dowry, defrauded their own sister; rather, they would themselves have added to her portion, when they gave her in marriage to my father, as they themselves and the others have testified before you. [26] And besides this, just consider why in the world, if my mother had not been a lawfully espoused wife, and had brought no dowry, while the mother of these men did, should my father have denied that they were his sons, and have acknowledged me, and brought me up? Because, forsooth, as these men will claim, he dishonored them in order to show favor to me and my mother. [27] But my mother died, leaving me still a little boy, whereas the mother of these men, Plangon, who was a handsome woman, maintained her connection with him both before and after that; so that it was much more likely that for the sake of the living woman, with whom he was in love all this time, he would dishonor the son of her who was dead, than that for my sake and my dead mother's he would refuse to acknowledge the children of her who was living and maintaining her connection with him. [28] My opponent, however, has come to such a pitch of audacity as to declare that my father made feast for him on the tenth day.16 And in regard to this he has put in depositions of Timocrates17 and Promachus alone, who are in no way related to my father, and were not friends of his. The testimony they have borne is so patently false, that, whereas you all know that Boeotus by instituting proceedings forced my father against his will to acknowledge him these men, like witnesses to a summons—and only two of them—depose that he made a feast for this fellow on the tenth day! [29] Is there anyone of you who can believe that? And assuredly it is not open to him to say this, either—that when he was a little child my father acknowledged him, but that when he was grown he scorned him because of some quarrel with the mother of these men;18 for surely man and wife are much more apt, in cases where they are at variance with one another, to become reconciled for the sake of their children than, because of their enmity toward each other, to hate their common children as well. If, therefore, he attempts to say this, do not permit him to brazen it out. [30] And should he go on to talk about the actions brought by them, which the arbitrator decided in my favor, and claim that he was caught by me unprepared, remember, first, that it was not a short time that he had in which to prepare himself, but a great many years, and secondly, that it was he who brought the suit, so that it was much more likely that I should be taken unprepared by him than he by me. [31] And further, all those who were present before the arbitrator have given testimony that Boeotus was present when the arbitrator gave his decision in my favor and that he did not appeal to the court, but acquiesced in the decision. And yet it seems to me a strange thing that, whereas other men, who consider that they are being wronged,19 bring before you on appeal cases even of the slightest import, this fellow, who had brought suit against me to recover a talent as the marriage-portion, and had this suit decided against him by the arbitrator, unjustly, as he claims, should acquiesce in the decision. [32] Ah, but it may be said that he is a man who loves peace and hates litigation. I could indeed wish, men of the jury, that he were a man of that type. But here is the truth: you are so generous and so kind toward your fellow-men that you did not deem it right to banish from the city even the sons of the Thirty Tyrants20; but Boeotus, plotting against me with Menecles, who is the prime mover in all these schemes, having managed to get up a quarrel that from disputes and revilings should come to blows, cut his own head, and summoned me before the Areopagus on a charge of murderous assault, with the intention of driving me into exile from the city. [33] And if Euthydicus, the physician, to whom these men had gone in the first instance, asking him to make a cut on the head of Boeotus—had not told to the court of the Areopagus the whole truth, this man would have taken such vengeance upon me, who was guilty of no wrong toward him, as you would not try to inflict on those who were guilty of the greatest wrongs toward you.

That I may not be thought to be slandering him, read, please, the depositions.“ Depositions ” [34]

This great and formidable contest, then, he got up against me, not as a simple-minded fellow, but as a conspirator and a villain. But after this, instead of the name, Boeotus, which my father had given him, as has been proved to you by witnesses, after my father's death he had his name inscribed on the list of the demesmen as Mantitheus, and being further addressed by the name of the same father and the same deme as I myself, he not only forced a retrial of the case in which I am now suing him,21 but when you had elected me taxiarch, he came in person to the court to pass the probationary test22; and when judgement had been given against him in an ejectment suit, he declared that it was not against him but against me that the judgement had been given. [35] And to sum up the matter for you, he gave me so much trouble that he compelled me to bring suit against him regarding the name, not in order to get money from him, men of the jury, but that, if it should appear to you that I am being outrageously treated and am suffering grievous wrongs, he may go on being called Boeotus, as my father named him.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this also, take, please, the depositions bearing on these matters.“ Depositions ” [36]

In addition to all this, on the charge that, when I was on military service and had collected mercenaries with Ameinias23（seeing that I was well-provided with funds from other sources, and had collected from Mytilene from your proxenus24 Apollonides and the friends of our city three hundred Phocaic staters,25 and had spent that sum upon these troops, in order that a matter might be prosecuted which was of advantage to you and to them alike）— [37] for this he brings suit against me, alleging that I had collected a debt due to my father from the city of the Mytileneans. In this he was seeking to serve Cammys,26 tyrant of Mytilene, who is an enemy of Athens and a private enemy of mine.

But to prove that my father at the time received in person the reward which the people of Mytilene voted him, and that no debt was owing to him in Mytilene, I will produce a deposition of your friends.“ Deposition ” [38]

I could mention many other outrageous acts of which Boeotus has been guilty, men of the jury, both against myself and against you; but I am compelled to pass them by as but little water is left me in the clepsydra.27 I think, however, that, even as it is, you have been shown conclusively that the same man who got up against me a suit involving the risk of banishment, and sued me on charges which concerned me not at all, is not one who would have come before the arbitrator unprepared; so that if he tries to say anything about this, I imagine that you will not tolerate it. [39] If, however, he declares that he offered to turn over all matters at issue between us to Conon,28 son of Timotheus, for arbitration, and that I refused to submit them, be sure that he will be trying to mislead you. I, for my part, was ready to submit all matters upon which a decision had not yet been rendered, either to Conon or to any other impartial arbitrator whom Boeotus might choose; but matters regarding which the arbitrator had given a decision in my favor, after Boeotus had thrice appeared before him and contested the case,—a decision in which Boeotus acquiesced, as witnesses have testified to you,—these matters, I thought, could not justly be reopened. [40] For to what final settlement could we ever have come, if I had made invalid a decision given by an arbitrator in accordance with the laws, and had referred the same charge to the decision of another arbitrator?—especially as I knew full well that, even though in relation to other men it is not proper to insist overmuch on the decisions of arbitrators, yet it is peculiarly fair to deal thus with Boeotus. [41] For come, suppose someone should indict him for the usurpation of the rights of citizenship, declaring that my father denied on oath that this man was his son; could he rely on anything else to meet this charge than that, because of their mother's oath and the decision of the arbitrators, my father was forced to abide by the award? [42] It would, then, be an outrageous thing, if this man, after having become a citizen of your city through an arbitrator's decision, and having secured a share of my inheritance, and obtained all that was fair, should be thought by you to have any justice in his claim, when he demanded the reopening of the suits in which I won my acquittal, when he was present and argued against it, and acquiesced in the verdict; just as though, when it is to his interest, awards ought to be valid, but, when it is not to his interest, his opinion should have more weight than decisions rendered in accordance with your laws. [43] He is such a crafty schemer that his purpose even in this proposal of arbitration was not made that he might be rid of his disputes with me, but that, as he had for eleven years previously carried on his knavery, so now, by rendering invalid the decisions given in my favor by the arbitrator, he might afresh institute his malicious proceedings against me, and elude the present suit. [44] Here is a convincing proof of this. He would not accept the challenge which I gave him according to the laws; and when I had previously referred the suit about the name to Xenippus, whom he had proposed as arbitrator, he forbade him to render any decision.

That I am speaking the truth on these matters also you will learn from the deposition and the challenge.“ Deposition ”“ Challenge ” [45]

This challenge, then, he did not accept, wishing rather to lay a snare for me and to delay the suit as long as he possibly could; and now, as I learn, he will accuse not only me, but my father as well, alleging that my father wronged him in many ways in order to show favor to me. But I beg you, men of the jury, as you would yourselves deem it an unseemly thing to be evil spoken of by your own children, not to allow this man either to speak evil of his father. [46] For it would indeed be an outrageous thing when you yourselves, after having come to terms with those who in the time of the oligarchy put to death without trial numbers of your countrymen, abide by your compact with them,29 as men of honor should do, that you should allow this man, who was reconciled with my father while he lived, and won many advantages to which he had no right, now to renew the quarrel and to speak evil of that father when he is no more. Do not suffer this, men of the jury. [47] If it be possible, prevent him from acting in this way; but if he persists in defying you and in speaking evil of my father, remember that he is bearing witness against himself that he is no son of his. For those who are true-born children, even though they may quarrel with their fathers while they are alive yet speak well of them when they are dead; whereas those who are accounted sons, but are not in truth children of their supposed fathers, quarrel with them without scruple while they are alive, and think nothing of slandering them when they are dead. [48] And, besides, think how absurd it is that this fellow should abuse my father for his failings toward him, when it was thanks to this father's failings30 that he became a citizen of your state. I, on my part, have, thanks to the mother of these men, been deprived of two-thirds of my property, but for all that I have too much respect for you to speak disparagingly of her. [49] But Boeotus feels no shame in disparaging before you the man whom he compelled to become his father, and has even come to such a pitch of vulgarity that, although the laws forbid speaking ill even of other men's fathers after they are dead, he will slander the man whose son he claims to be; whereas it would be proper for him to show resentment if anyone else spoke evil of him. [50]

I fancy, men of the jury, that, when he is at a loss for anything else to say, he will undertake to speak evil of me, and will try to bring me into disrepute, rehearsing at length how I was reared and educated and married in my father's house, while he had no share in any of these advantages. But I bid you bear in mind that my mother died leaving me a child, so that the interest of her marriage-portion was sufficient to rear and educate me; [51] whereas Plangon, the mother of these men, maintained them and a host of female servants in her own house, and herself lived lavishly, having my father ready, because of his passion for her, to supply the funds for all this, and forcing him to heavy expenditures. She therefore spent far more of his property than I did, so that I might with far better reason bring charges against them than they against me. [52] For, besides all the rest, in connection with my father I borrowed twenty minae from Blepaeus the banker, for the purchase of some mining properties, and after my father's death I shared the mines with these men, but had to pay the loan myself. I also borrowed another thousand drachmae from Lysistratus of Thoricus for my father's funeral, and have personally paid the debt.

That I am speaking the truth on these matters also you will learn from these depositions.“ Depositions ” [53]

When I am thus so clearly at a disadvantage in so many respects, shall this man now by making a great to-do and outcry about his wrongs, rob me also of my mother's marriage-portion? But do not, men of the jury, I beg you by Zeus and the Gods, do not be overwhelmed by the noise he makes. He is a violent fellow, violent and ready to go to all lengths; and he is so unscrupulous that, if he has no witnesses to prove a fact, he will say that it is well known to you, men of the jury,—a trick to which all those have recourse who have no just argument to advance. [54] If he shall try any such trick, do not tolerate it; expose him. What anyone of you does not know, let his deem that his neighbor does not know either. Let him demand that Boeotus prove clearly whatever statements he may make, and not shirk the truth by declaring that you know things about which he will have no just argument to advance; since I, on my part, men of the jury, although you all know the way in which my father was compelled to adopt these men, am none the less suing them at law, and have brought forward witnesses responsible for their testimony.31 [55] And yet the risk is not the same for both of us. On my part, if you are now led astray by these men, it will not be open to me to bring suit again for the marriage-portion; but they, if they claim that the arbitrator was wrong in giving his decision in my favor, as at that time they had the right to appeal to your court, so now again will be permitted, if they so wish, to recover their rights from me in your court. [56] I, if you leave me in the lurch, which I pray may not happen, shall have no means of giving a dowry to my daughter, whose own father I am, although, if you see her size, you would deem she was not my daughter but my sister32; but these men, if you come to my aid, will pay nothing out of their own property, but will restore to me what is my own from the house which by common agreement we reserved for the settlement of the marriage-portion, but in which these men have been living by themselves. [57] For it is not fitting that I, having a daughter of marriageable age, should dwell with men of their sort, who are not only themselves living licentious lives, but who also bring into the house a host of others of like stamp with themselves; nay, by Zeus, I do not deem it safe to live in the same house with them myself. When they have thus openly laid a plot, and got up a charge against me before the Areopagus, do you suppose there is any poisoning or any other such villainy from which they would abstain? [58] Besides all the rest （for this has occurred to me just now）, they have come to such a pitch of audacity as to have put in a deposition of Crito, alleging that he has purchased from me my one-third share in the house. Now that this is false you will easily perceive; for in the first place Crito does not live so economically as to be able to purchase a house from someone else, but so extravagantly and licentiously that he spends the property of others as well as his own. Again, he is not now this man's witness, but rather my adversary. For who among you is ignorant that witnesses are those who have no interest in the matter at issue in the suit; while adversaries are those who are involved in the matters in regard to which one goes to law with them? The latter is the case with Crito. [59] And furthermore, out of all your number, men of the jury, out of all the host of the rest of the Athenians, not a single other person has testified that he was present at this sale; Timocrates alone, like a god from the machine,33 testified that my father gave a feast to Boeotus on the tenth day （and Timocrates is of the same age as the present defendant!）. Timocrates declares that he has perfect knowledge of all that is for the advantage of these men; and now on his own sole authority he testifies that he was present with Crito when he bought the house from me. Who among you will believe this? Not one, of course; especially since I am not now suing about the house to determine whether Crito bought it or not, but about the marriage-portion which, seeing that my mother brought it with her, the laws declare that I should recover. [60] Therefore, as I have proved to you by an abundance of testimony and of circumstantial evidence that my mother did bring a talent as her dowry; that I have not recovered it from my father's estate; and that the house was set apart by us to secure its payment; so do you demand of Boeotus that he prove to you, either that I am not speaking the truth, or that it is not right that I should recover the marriage-portion; for these are the questions regarding which you are now going to cast your votes. [61] But if, having no trustworthy witnesses, nor any other proofs regarding the matters upon which he is being sued, he shall try unscrupulously to introduce irrelevant arguments, and if he indulges in outcries and protestations which have nothing to do with the matter, I adjure you by Zeus and the Gods, do not tolerate it; nay, render me the help that is my due, remembering in the light of all that I have urged that it is far more just that you should by your verdict give my mother's portion to my daughter for her dowry, than that Plangon and these men, in addition to all the rest that they have done, should, in utter defiance of justice, rob me also of my house, which was set apart to secure the payment of the marriage-portion.

1 Cholargus was a deme of the tribe Acamantis.

2 The famous demagogue, known to us from Thucydides and Aristophanes.

3 On this whole passage compare the preceding oration, Dem. 39.2.

4 A quotation from Hom. Il. 15.37 f.

5 These would be ensured to them by the fact of their being enrolled in the clan register; but if they were enrolled as sons of the brothers of Plangon, they could no longer “make trouble” for Mantias by claiming to be sons of his.

6 The temple of Apollo Delphinius, situated somewhere near the ancient entrance to the Acropolis.

7 Below （Dem. 40.20, end） the amount is set at more than 100 minae, not a talent merely.

8 The precise meaning of this phrase is open to question. It may imply a claim that some property had been omitted from the inventory or in some way concealed.

9 Erchia was a deme of the tribe Aeantis.

10 Boeotus evidently hoped that making claims on his own behalf he could offset the claim of Mantitheus for the dowry of his mother.

11 The Bouleuterion, the meeting-place of the Council of 500, has been identified with a building found on the east slope of the “Theseum” hill, overlooking the Agora. See Vanderpool, Hesperia, 4. pp. 470 ff.

12 The amount, that is, over and above the debt to the treasury.

13 The famous Athenian general, whose victories over the Lacedaemonians made him one of the most notable figures in Athenian military history during the first half fo the fourth century B.C.

14 A striking instance of the Greek preference for the spoken rather than the written word.

15 This was in 425 B.C. The account is given in Thuc. 4.3 ff.

16 See the Introduction to the preceding oration.

17 Perhaps to be identified with the Timocrates against whom Demosthenes delivered Oration 24 （Dem. 24）.

18 Compare the parallel passage in the preceding oration, Dem. 39.23.

19 That is, by the arbitrator's award.

20 In 403 B.C.

21 By claiming that his name was Mantitheus, not Boeotus, he made of no effect the judgement rendered against him under the latter name.

22 Every Athenian elected to public office had to pass a scrutiny （δοκιμασία） and prove his full citizenship.

23 Apparently an otherwise unknown commander of mercenary troops, under whom Mantitheus served as taxiarch.

24 A state representative in a foreign land, somewhat analogous to our consul.

25 The stater of Phocaea （a city on the coast of Ionia） was a gold coin somewhat heavier than the stater of Cyzicus （Dem. 34.23）.

26 A tyrant of Mytilene, otherwise unknown.

27 The water-clock.

28 The grandson of the famous Athenian general of this name.

29 The allusion is to the amnesty declared after the expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants. For this “gentleness” of the democracy see Aristot. Ath. Pol. 22.4.

30 “There is a play on the double sense of ἁμαρτάνειν, which is often used as a euphemism for the frailties of love.”—Paley.

31 Liable, that is, to prosecution for perjury, if their testimony be proved false.

32 See above, Dem. 40.12.

33 The deus ex machina of the tragic stage.