For Phormio

Phormio’s inexperience in speaking,[*](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.) 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.

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 defendant[*](The terms plaintiff and defendant, as used in the translation of this oration, apply to the suit brought against Phormio.) 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—

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.

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,[*](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.) and these depositions.

The Articles of Agreement. The Challenge. The 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.[*](He had been given his freedom by Pasio.) But you must hear and understand how it was that Pasio came to owe the eleven talents to the bank.

He owed that amount, not because of poverty, but because of his thrift.[*](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.) For the real property of Pasio was about twenty talents, but in addition to this he had more than fifty talents in money of his own lent[*](As eleven talents of this money belonged to the bank, this phrase is open to question.) out at interest. Among these were eleven talents of the bank’s deposits, profitably invested.

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.

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.

The Will. The Challenge. The Depositions

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.[*](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.) 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.

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.

For in that case, when Pasicles came of age and Phormio relinquished the lease, you[*](Addressed to the two brothers, Apollodorus and Pasicles.) 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.

The Deposition

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,[*](By right of seniority.) 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,[*](That is, the conduct of a manufacturing business entailed more labor and trouble than the management of a bank.) 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.

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.

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.[*](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.)

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.

The Deposition

Evidence has been submitted to you, men of Athens, that they[*](The plural denotes the two brothers, Apollodorus and Pasicles.) granted a lease to these men also, and gave over to them no private banking-capital; and that they gave them their freedom,[*](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.) 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,[*](Children, that is, whom she had borne to Phormio.) and a bit of underwear and a serving-girl.

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,[*](The two first named represented Apollodorus; the latter two, Phormio.) 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,[*](The Parthenon, as it is stated below to have been on the Acropolis.) gave Phormio for the second time a release from all demands.

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.

The Award. The Deposition

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.

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.

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.

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.