Humanitext Reader

Demosthenes · Against Phormio §31-37

Absence of Witnesses and Lampis's Grain Smuggling

Passage 5 of 7 · Greek

Summary

The plaintiff points out the absurdity of Phormio's claim to have paid back the money to the shipmaster Lampis without any witnesses, and argues that Phormio took no part in the maritime risk since he loaded no cargo. He further exposes Lampis's grave treachery in abusing the grain export privileges of Athens during a crisis by selling grain to another city instead.

§31σὺ δʼ ἀντὶ τοῦ πολλοὺς μάρτυρας τούτων ποιεῖσθαι πάντας ἀνθρώπους λανθάνειν ἐπειρῶ, ὥσπερ ἀδικῶν τι.
But you, instead of making many people witnesses of these things, tried to escape the notice of all men, as if you were doing something wrong.
καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐμοὶ τῷ δανείσαντι ἀπεδίδους, οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει μαρτύρων· τὴν γὰρ συγγραφὴν ἀνελόμενος ἀπήλλαξο ἂν τοῦ συμβολαίου·
And if you had been paying back to me, the lender, there would have been no need of witnesses; for by taking up the agreement you would have been released from the contract.
νῦν δʼ οὐκ ἐμοί, ἀλλʼ ἑτέρῳ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ἀποδιδούς, καὶ οὐκ Ἀθήνησιν, ἀλλʼ ἐν Βοσπόρῳ, καὶ τῆς συγγραφῆς σοι κειμένης Ἀθήνησι καὶ πρὸς ἐμέ, καὶ ᾧ τὸ χρυσίον ἀπεδίδους ὄντος θνητοῦ καὶ πέλαγος τοσοῦτον μέλλοντος πλεῖν, μάρτυρα οὐδένα ἐποιήσω, οὔτε δοῦλον οὔτʼ ἐλεύθερον.
But as it is, you claim to have paid back not to me, but to another on my behalf, and not at Athens, but in Bosporus, even though the agreement was deposited at Athens with me, and though the person to whom you paid the gold was a mortal and was about to sail over so great a sea, you made no one a witness, neither slave nor free man.
§32ἡ γὰρ συγγραφή με, φησί, τῷ ναυκλήρῳ ἐκέλευεν ἀποδοῦναι τὸ χρυσίον. μάρτυρας δέ γʼ οὐκ ἐκώλυεν παρακαλεῖν, οὐδὲ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀποδοῦναι.
"For the agreement," he says, "ordered me to pay back the gold to the shipmaster." But it certainly did not forbid you to call witnesses, nor to deliver the letters.
καὶ οἵδε μὲν πρὸς σὲ δύο συγγραφὰς ἐποιήσαντο ὑπὲρ τοῦ συμβολαίου, ὡς ἂν οἱ μάλιστʼ ἀπιστοῦντες· σὺ δὲ μόνος μόνῳ φὴς δοῦναι τῷ ναυκλήρῳ τὸ χρυσίον, εἰδὼς κατὰ σοῦ κειμένην Ἀθήνησι συγγραφὴν πρὸς τοῦτον.
And these men made two copies of the agreement with you concerning the contract, like men who were extremely distrustful; yet you claim to have given the gold to the shipmaster alone, face to face, though you knew that the agreement was deposited at Athens against you with this man.
§33λέγει δὲ ὡς ἡ συγγραφὴ σωθείσης τῆς νεὼς αὐτὸν ἀποδοῦναι κελεύει τὰ χρήματα.
And he says that the agreement orders him to pay back the money if the ship is saved.
καὶ γὰρ ἐνθέσθαι τἀγοράσματα εἰς τὴν ναῦν κελεύει σε, εἰ δὲ μή, πεντακισχιλίας δραχμὰς ἀποτίνειν.
Yes, for it also orders you to load the purchased goods onto the ship, or, if not, to pay a penalty of five thousand drachmae.
σὺ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν τῆς συγγραφῆς οὐ λαμβάνεις, παραβεβηκὼς δʼ εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ τὰ χρήματα οὐκ ἐνθέμενος ἀμφισβητεῖς πρὸς ἓν ῥῆμα τῶν ἐν τῇ συγγραφῇ, καὶ τοῦτʼ ἀνῃρηκὼς αὐτός.
But you do not adopt this part of the agreement; rather, having violated it from the very beginning by not loading the goods, you dispute on the basis of a single phrase in the agreement, and one which you yourself have made void.
ὁπότε γὰρ ἐν τῷ Βοσπόρῳ φὴς μὴ τὰ χρήματα ἐνθέσθαι εἰς τὴν ναῦν, ἀλλὰ τὸ χρυσίον τῷ ναυκλήρῳ ἀποδοῦναι, τί ἔτι περὶ τῆς νεὼς διαλέγει;
For when you claim that in Bosporus you did not load the goods onto the ship, but paid back the gold to the shipmaster, why do you still talk about the ship?
οὐ γὰρ μετέσχηκας τοῦ κινδύνου διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἐνθέσθαι.
For you have taken no part in its danger, since you loaded nothing on it.
§34καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὥρμησεν ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν σκῆψιν, ὡς ἐντεθειμένος τὰ χρήματα εἰς τὴν ναῦν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῦτο ἐκ πολλῶν ἔμελλεν ἐλεγχθήσεσθαι ψευδόμενος, ἔκ τε τῆς ἀπογραφῆς τῆς ἐν Βοσπόρῳ παρὰ τοῖς ἐλλιμενισταῖς καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐμπορίῳ ἐπιδημούντων κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον, τηνικαῦτα μεταβαλόμενος συνίσταται μετὰ τοῦ Λάμπιδος καί φησιν ἐκείνῳ τὸ χρυσίον ἀποδεδωκέναι, §35ἐφόδιον μὲν λαβὼν τὸ τὴν συγγραφὴν κελεύειν, οὐκ ἂν ἡγούμενος δʼ ἡμᾶς εὐπόρως ἐξελέγξαι ὅσα μόνοι πρὸς αὑτοὺς αὐτοὶ πράξειαν.
And at first, men of the jury, he rushed to this pretext, claiming that he had loaded the goods onto the ship; but when this was going to be proved false by many evidences, both from the register of the harbor officials in Bosporus and by those who were residing in the trade port at the same time, he then changed his ground, combined with Lampis, and claimed to have paid back the gold to him, taking as a resource the fact that the agreement ordered it, and thinking that we would not easily expose what they did solely between themselves.
καὶ ὁ Λάμπις, ὅσα μὲν εἶπεν πρὸς ἐμὲ πρὶν ὑπὸ τούτου διαφθαρῆναι, οὐκ ἐντὸς ὢν αὑτοῦ φησιν εἰπεῖν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ χρυσίον τοὐμὸν ἐμερίσατο, τότʼ ἐντὸς εἶναί φησιν αὑτοῦ καὶ πάντʼ ἀκριβῶς μνημονεύειν.
And Lampis says that what he told me before he was corrupted by this man was said when he was not in his right mind; but since he shared my gold, he says he is now in his right mind and remembers everything accurately.
§36εἰ μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐμοῦ μόνου κατεφρόνει Λάμπις, οὐδὲν ἂν ἦν θαυμαστόν· νῦν δὲ πολλῷ δεινότερα τούτου πέπρακται αὐτῷ πρὸς πάντας ὑμᾶς.
Now if, men of the jury, Lampis had only despised me, it would not have been surprising; but as it is, he has committed far worse outrages than this against all of you.
κήρυγμα γὰρ ποιησαμένου Παιρισάδου ἐν Βοσπόρῳ, ἐάν τις βούληται Ἀθήναζε εἰς τὸ Ἀττικὸν ἐμπόριον σιτηγεῖν, ἀτελῆ τὸν σῖτον ἐξάγειν, ἐπιδημῶν ἐν τῷ Βοσπόρῳ ὁ Λάμπις ἔλαβε τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν τοῦ σίτου καὶ τὴν ἀτέλειαν ἐπὶ τῷ τῆς πόλεως ὀνόματι, γεμίσας δὲ ναῦν μεγάλην σίτου ἐκόμισεν εἰς Ἄκανθον κἀκεῖ διέθετο ὁ προσκοινωνήσας τούτῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων χρημάτων.
For when Pairisades made a proclamation in Bosporus that anyone who wished to carry grain to Athens to the Attic market-place might export the grain duty-free, Lampis, residing in Bosporus, obtained the export permit and the exemption in the name of your city, but having loaded a large ship with grain, he carried it to Akanthos and sold it there, where his partner in this business had joined him, using your money.
§37καὶ ταῦτʼ ἔπραξεν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, οἰκῶν μὲν Ἀθήνησιν, οὔσης δʼ αὐτῷ γυναικὸς ἐνθάδε καὶ παίδων, τῶν δὲ νόμων τὰ ἔσχατα ἐπιτίμια προτεθηκότων, εἴ τις οἰκῶν Ἀθήνησιν ἄλλοσέ ποι σιτηγήσειεν ἢ εἰς τὸ Ἀττικὸν ἐμπόριον, ἔτι δʼ ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμῶν οἱ μὲν ἐν τῷ ἄστει οἰκοῦντες διεμετροῦντο τὰ ἄλφιτα ἐν τῷ ᾠδείῳ, οἱ δʼ ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ ἐν τῷ νεωρίῳ ἐλάμβανον κατʼ ὀβολὸν τοὺς ἄρτους καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς μακρᾶς στοᾶς τὰ ἄλφιτα, καθʼ ἡμίεκτον μετρούμενοι καὶ καταπατούμενοι.
And he did this, men of the jury, though he resided in Athens and had a wife and children here, and though the laws had prescribed the extreme penalties if anyone residing in Athens should carry grain to any other place than to the Attic market-place, and that too at such a crisis, when some of you who lived in the city were measuring out barley-meal in the Odeion, while others in the Peiraeus were receiving bread at an obol a loaf in the dockyard, and barley-meal on the Long Portico, being measured out by the half-hekteus and being trodden underfoot.
καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τήν τε μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὸν νόμον.
And to show that I speak the truth, take the deposition and the law.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. ΝΟΜΟΣ.
¦DEPOSITION. LAW.¦

Notes

  1. §31τῆς συγγραφῆς σοι κειμένης Ἀθήνησι καὶ πρὸς ἐμέ, καὶ ᾧ τὸ χρυσίον ἀπεδίδους ὄντος θνητοῦ — Both 'τῆς συγγραφῆς ... κειμένης' and 'ᾧ ... ὄντος ... μέλλοντος' are in the genitive absolute construction. They present parallel circumstances—that the contract was deposited at Athens with the plaintiff, and that the recipient of the money (Lampis) was a mortal who was about to undertake a long voyage—which should have prompted Phormio to call witnesses.
  2. §32ὡς ἂν οἱ μάλιστʼ ἀπιστοῦντες — The combination of ὡς ἄν with a participle (here agreeing with the substantivized 'οἱ μάλιστʼ ἀπιστοῦντες') denotes a conditional comparison implying potentiality. It means 'just as those who are extremely distrustful would do', where an optative verb (such as 'ποιοῖεν') is suppressed in the elliptical expression.
  3. §33σωθείσης τῆς νεὼς — A genitive absolute consisting of the noun 'τῆς νεὼς' and the aorist passive participle 'σωθείσης', expressing condition here ('if the ship is saved'). In the subsequent counter-argument, the plaintiff reasons that because Phormio loaded no cargo, he never shared in the maritime risk and thus cannot claim the benefit of this clause.
  4. §35ἐφόδιον μὲν λαβὼν τὸ τὴν συγγραφὴν κελεύειν — The articular infinitive clause 'τὸ ... κελεύειν' (the fact that the agreement ordered it) stands in apposition to 'ἐφόδιον' (resource, pretext), which is the object of the participle 'λαβών'. It is interpreted as 'having taken as a resource the fact that the agreement ordered (payment to the shipmaster)'.
  5. §35οὐκ ἐντὸς ὢν αὑτοῦ — An idiomatic expression consisting of the preposition 'ἐντός' and the genitive reflexive pronoun 'αὑτοῦ'. Literally meaning 'not being inside oneself', it means to be 'out of one's mind' or 'not in one's right mind'. It is placed in sharp contrast with the subsequent 'ἐντὸς εἶναί φησιν αὑτοῦ' (he claims to be in his right mind), satirizing Lampis's reversal of testimony after being bribed.

Cite this passage

Demosthenes, Against Phormio §31-37. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0014.tlg034.humanitext-grc2:31-37

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.