Humanitext Reader

Demosthenes · For Phormion §16-23

Prior Settlement and the Silence of Pasicles

Passage 3 of 8 · Greek

Summary

The speaker points out the contradiction in Apollodorus bringing a lawsuit despite a prior settlement, refutes his excuse of lost documents by showing his other lawsuits based on them, and argues Phormio's innocence by noting that Pasicles, the younger brother, made no such claims.

§16πάλιν, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, δικάζεται, πάσας αἰτίας συμπλάσας καὶ ἐγκλήματʼ ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου τοῦ πρὸ τούτου (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν μέγιστον ἁπάντων), ἃ οὐδεπώποτʼ ᾐτιάσατο.
Again, as you see, he is bringing a lawsuit, having fabricated all sorts of pretexts and charges from the whole of the time before this (for this is the greatest point of all), charges which he had never once made before.
ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτʼ ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὴν γνῶσιν τὴν γενομένην ἐν ἀκροπόλει, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν παραγενομένων, ὅτʼ ἀφίει τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἁπάντων Ἀπολλόδωρος, λαμβάνων τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον. ΓΝΩΣΙΣ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
To prove, therefore, that I am speaking the truth, take for me the decision made on the Acropolis, and the deposition of those who were present when Apollodorus released him from all claims upon receiving this money. ΓΝΩΣΙΣ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
§17ἀκούετε τῆς γνώσεως, ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἣν ἔγνω Δεινίας, οὗ τὴν θυγατέρʼ οὗτος ἔχει, καὶ Νικίας ὁ τὴν ἀδελφὴν τῆς τούτου γυναικὸς ἔχων.
You hear the decision, gentlemen of the jury, which was rendered by Deinias, whose daughter this man has as his wife, and Nicias, who has the sister of this man's wife.
ταῦτα τοίνυν λαβὼν καὶ ἀφεὶς ἁπάντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ὥσπερ ἢ πάντων τεθνεώτων τούτων ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ γενησομένης φανερᾶς, δίκην τοσούτων ταλάντων λαχὼν τολμᾷ δικάζεσθαι.
Although he received this money and released him from all claims, yet, as if all these men were dead or the truth would never be made manifest, he has the audacity to bring a lawsuit and sue for so many talents.
§18τὰ μὲν οὖν πεπραγμένα καὶ γεγενημένα Φορμίωνι πρὸς Ἀπολλόδωρον ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἅπαντʼ ἀκηκόατʼ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι.
The transactions and events between Phormio and Apollodorus from the beginning you have now heard in full, men of Athens.
οἶμαι δʼ Ἀπολλόδωρον τουτονί, οὐδὲν ἔχοντα δίκαιον εἰπεῖν περὶ ὧν ἐγκαλεῖ, ἅπερ παρὰ τῷ διαιτητῇ λέγειν ἐτόλμα, ταῦτʼ ἐρεῖν, ὡς τὰ γράμμαθʼ ἡ μήτηρ ἠφάνικε πεισθεῖσʼ ὑπὸ τούτου, καὶ τούτων ἀπολωλότων οὐκ ἔχει τίνα χρὴ τρόπον ταῦτʼ ἐξελέγχειν ἀκριβῶς.
But I think this Apollodorus, having nothing just to say regarding his claims, will say the very things he dared to say before the arbitrator: namely, that his mother, persuaded by this man, destroyed the documents, and that since these are lost, he has no way of proving his claims accurately.
§19περὶ δὴ τούτων καὶ ταύτης τῆς αἰτίας σκέψασθʼ ἡλίκʼ ἄν τις ἔχοι τεκμήριʼ εἰπεῖν ὅτι ψεύδεται.
Consider, regarding this matter and this accusation, how great are the proofs one could state to show that he is lying.
πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τίς ἂν ἐνείματο τὰ πατρῷα μὴ λαβὼν γράμματα, ἐξ ὧν ἔμελλεν εἴσεσθαι τὴν καταλειφθεῖσαν οὐσίαν;
For first, men of Athens, who would divide his patrimony without receiving the documents from which he was to know the estate that had been left?
οὐδὲ εἷς δήπου.
Not a single person, surely.
καίτοι δυοῖν δέοντʼ εἴκοσιν ἔτη ἐστὶν ἐξ ὅτου ἐνείμω, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἔχοις ἐπιδεῖξαι, ὡς ἐνεκάλεσας πώποθʼ ὑπὲρ τῶν γραμμάτων.
And yet it is eighteen years since you made the division, and you cannot show that you ever made any complaint about the documents.
§20δεύτερον δέ, τίς οὐκ ἄν, ἡνίχʼ ὁ Πασικλῆς ἀνὴρ γεγονὼς ἐκομίζετο τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς, εἰ διʼ αὑτοῦ τὰ γράμματʼ ὤκνει τὴν μητέρʼ αἰτιᾶσθαι διεφθαρκέναι, τούτῳ ταῦτʼ ἐδήλωσεν, ὅπως διὰ τούτου ταῦτʼ ἠλέγχθη;
Secondly, when Pasicles, having become a man, was receiving the account of the guardianship, if Apollodorus himself shrank from accusing his mother of having destroyed the documents, why did he not disclose this to him, so that the matter might be investigated through him?
τρίτον δʼ, ἐκ ποίων γραμμάτων τὰς δίκας ἐλάγχανες;
Thirdly, from what documents did you bring your lawsuits?
οὗτος γὰρ πολλοῖς τῶν πολιτῶν δίκας λαγχάνων πολλὰ χρήματʼ εἰσπέπρακται, γράφων εἰς τὰ ἐγκλήματα ἔβλαψέ με ὁ δεῖνα οὐκ ἀποδιδοὺς ἐμοὶ τὸ ἀργύριον, ὃ κατέλιπεν ὁ πατὴρ ὀφείλοντα αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς γράμμασιν . §21καίτοι εἰ ἠφάνιστο τὰ γράμματα, ἐκ ποίων γραμμάτων τὰς δίκας ἐλάγχανεν;
For this man, by bringing suits against many citizens, has collected large sums of money, writing in the charges: "So-and-so damaged me by not paying back to me the money which my father left him owing in the documents." And yet, if the documents had been destroyed, from what documents was he bringing these suits?
ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι ταῦτʼ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τὴν μὲν νομὴν ἀκηκόαθʼ ἣν ἐνείματο, καὶ μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν· τῶν δὲ λήξεων τούτων ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν τὰς μαρτυρίας.
But to show that I am speaking the truth, you have heard about the division which he made, and it has been testified to you; and as for these suits, he will read you the depositions.
λαβὲ τὰς μαρτυρίας μοι. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ. οὐκοῦν ἐν ταύταις ταῖς λήξεσιν ὡμολόγηκεν ἀπειληφέναι τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς γράμματα·
Take the depositions for me, please. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
οὐ γὰρ δὴ συκοφαντεῖν γε, οὐδʼ ὧν οὐκ ὤφειλον οὗτοι δικάζεσθαι φήσειεν ἄν.
Therefore, in these suits he has admitted that he received his father's documents; for surely he would not say that he was bringing malicious suits, or that he was suing these men for what they did not owe.
§22νομίζω τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μεγάλων καὶ πολλῶν ὄντων ἐξ ὧν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν οὐκ ἀδικοῦντα Φορμίωνα τουτονί, μέγιστον ἁπάντων εἶναι, ὅτι Πασικλῆς, ἀδελφὸς ὢν Ἀπολλοδώρου τουτουί, οὔτε δίκην εἴληχεν οὔτʼ ἄλλʼ οὐδὲν ὧν οὗτος ἐγκαλεῖ.
I think, therefore, men of Athens, that while there are many great indications from which one can see that Phormio here is doing no wrong, the greatest of all is that Pasicles, who is the brother of this Apollodorus, has neither brought a suit nor made any other complaint of the things which this man charges.
καίτοι οὐ δήπου τὸν μὲν παῖδʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καταλειφθέντα, καὶ οὗ τῶν ὄντων κύριος ἦν, ἐπίτροπος καταλελειμμένος, οὐκ ἂν ἠδίκει, σὲ δέ, ὃς ἀνὴρ κατελείφθης τέτταρα καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη γεγονώς, καὶ ὑπὲρ σαυτοῦ ῥᾳδίως ἂν τὰ δίκαιʼ ἐλάμβανες εὐθύς, εἴ τι ἠδικοῦ.
And yet, surely, he would not have refrained from wronging the child left by his father, over whose property he was the master as a designated guardian, while wronging you, who were left a man of twenty-four years of age, and who would easily have obtained justice for yourself immediately if you were being wronged in any way.
οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα.
This is impossible.
ὡς τοίνυν ταῦτʼ ἀληθῆ λέγω καὶ ὁ Πασικλῆς οὐδὲν ἐγκαλεῖ, λαβέ μοι τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
To prove, therefore, that I am speaking the truth and that Pasicles is making no complaint, please take his deposition. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
§23ἃ τοίνυν ἤδη περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μὴ εἰσαγώγιμον εἶναι τὴν δίκην δεῖ σκοπεῖν ὑμᾶς, ταῦτʼ ἀναμνήσθητʼ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων.
Now, as to the point that the suit is not admissible, which you must now consider, recall these things from what has been said.
ἡμεῖς γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, γεγενημένου μὲν διαλογισμοῦ καὶ ἀφέσεως τῆς τραπέζης καὶ τοῦ ἀσπιδοπηγείου τῆς μισθώσεως, γεγενημένης δὲ διαίτης καὶ πάλιν πάντων ἀφέσεως, οὐκ ἐώντων τῶν νόμων δίκας ὧν ἂν ἀφῇ τις ἅπαξ λαγχάνειν,
For we, men of Athens, since a settlement and release of the lease of the bank and the shield-manufactory has taken place, and since an arbitration and again a release of all claims has taken place, and since the laws do not allow anyone to bring a lawsuit for things from which he has once released a person,

Notes

  1. 17ὥσπερ ἢ πάντων τεθνεώτων τούτων ἢ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ γενησομένης φανερᾶς — Two genitive absolute constructions (πάντων τεθνεώτων τούτων and τῆς ἀληθείας οὐ γενησομένης φανερᾶς) are introduced by the particle ὥσπερ and connected by ἢ...ἢ... ('either... or...'), expressing a subjective or hypothetical assumption by the speaker.
  2. 18οἶμαι δʼ Ἀπολλόδωρον τουτονί... ταῦτʼ ἐρεῖν, ὡς... — The core of this long sentence is an accusative and infinitive construction introduced by οἶμαι ('I think'), where Ἀπολλόδωρον τουτονί is the subject accusative and ἐρεῖν is the infinitive. The demonstrative pronoun ταῦτʼ, which is the direct object of ἐρεῖν, is further explained by the appositive ὡς clause (ὡς τὰ γράμμαθʼ...).
  3. 22τὸν μὲν παῖδʼ... οὐκ ἂν ἠδίκει, σὲ δέ... — In this antithetical μέν...δέ construction, the first part uses ἂν with the imperfect indicative (ἠδίκει) to form a past potential or counterfactual statement ('he would never have wronged the child'), while in the second part (σὲ δέ) the verb phrase ἠδίκει ἄν is elided, creating a powerful rhetorical contrast ('but [would he have wronged] you...?').

Cite this passage

Demosthenes, For Phormion §16-23. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0014.tlg036.humanitext-grc2:16-23

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.