without risk, whereas the bank is a business yielding a precarious revenue from other people's money.

It might in many ways be clearly shown, that this claim of the plaintiff's to a sum of banking stock is false and fraudulent. The strongest proof of all, that Phormio received no banking stock when he took to the business, is this, I take it; that Pasion has been set down in the lease as debtor to the bank, not as having given banking stock to the defendant. The second proof is, that the plaintiff does not appear to have made any demand at the time of the partition. The third, that, when afterwards he let 1 the same establishment to other persons for the same sum, he will be shown not to have let any private fund of his own with it. Surely, however, if he was deprived by the defendant of a fund which his father bequeathed, he ought himself to have provided it from some other source, and delivered it to the lessees.

Το prove the truth of these statements-and that he afterwards let the bank to Xeno and Euphræus and Euphron and Callistratus, and that they also had no private banking stock delivered to them, but took a lease only of the deposits and the profits arising from them—please to take the deposition proving these matters; and also that he chose the shieldmanufactory.

[The Deposition.]

It has been proved to you in evidence, men of Athens, that they granted a lease to these persons also, and did not deliver to them any private banking stock, and that they gave them a complete discharge, as if they had received great benefits from them, and did not go to law either with them or with Phormio at that time. As long indeed as his mother lived, who was perfectly acquainted with all these particulars, Apollodorus never made any complaint against Phormio the defendant; but after her death he claimed three thousand drachms in money, besides two thousand which she had given to his children, and a certain tunic and maid-servant, and for this false claim he went to law. Even here, as will be shown, he made no mention of the demand which he now

1 "Non potest hoc nisi de Apollodoro intelligi. Qui autem factum sit, ut quod initio solius Pasiclis fuerat ejus elocandi jus postea etiam ad Apollodorum pertineret, quis hodie pro certo dicat." Schäfer.

P

K

makes. Upon his referring the matter to the father of his wife and the husband of his wife's sister and Lysinus and Andromenes, they persuaded the defendant Phormio to make him a present of the three thousand drachms and the additional articles, and to make a friend of the plaintiff rather than be at enmity with him on such an account: the plaintiff then received in the whole five thousand drachms, went to the temple of Pallas, and a second time released Phormio from all demands. Notwithstanding this, he sues him, as you see, again, getting up all kinds of accusations, and raking from the whole history of the past charges (this is the worst of all) which he never made before.

Το prove the truth of these statements, please to take the award that was made in the Acropolis, and the deposition of the persons who were present, when Apollodorus upon the receipt of this money gave a release of all his claims.

[The Award. The Deposition.]

You hear the award, men of the jury, which was given by Dinias, whose daughter the plaintiff has married, and Nicias, who has married his wife's sister. Notwithstanding that he has received this money and given a release from all claims, he dares to bring an action for so many talents, just as if all these persons were dead, or as if the truth would not be disclosed.

All the dealings and transactions between Phormio and Apollodorus you have heard, men of Athens, from the beginning. I imagine that Apollodorus the plaintiff, having nothing to urge in support of his claim, will say what he ventured to assert before the arbitrator, that his mother has made away with the papers at the defendant's instigation, and that, these being lost, he has no means of proving his case strictly. As to this statement and the charge which it involves, see how plainly he may be convicted of falsehood. In the first place, men of Athens, who would have made a partition of his patrimony, without having documents to ascertain the amount of the property left? No man surely. Well; it is eighteen years, Apollodorus, since you made the partition, and you cannot show that you ever complained about the papers being lost. In the next place, when Pasicles had come to man's estate and was receiving from his guar

dians their trust account, what man, if he scrupled with his own mouth to accuse his mother of having destroyed papers, would not have disclosed the thing to his brother, so that by his assistance it might have been brought to light?1 Thirdly, from what papers did you get the materials for the actions that you brought? You must know that the plaintiff has brought actions against many of our citizens, and recovered large sums of money, inserting in his plaints-"Such a party has injured me by not paying me the money, which he owed to my father at his death, as appears by my father's papers." But, if the papers had been made away with, from what paper did you commence your actions?

In proof of these statements of mine, you have heard the partition which he made, and the evidence which proves it. He shall now read you the depositions verifying the plaints. Please to take the depositions.

[The Depositions.]

You see, in these plaints he has confessed having received his father's papers; for of course he would not say that he made false charges or sued those parties for what they did

not owe.

Many strong proofs are there, men of Athens, that Phormio the defendant is not liable; but I think this is the strongest of all, that Pasicles, though he is the brother of the plaintiff Apollodorus, has commenced no action, and makes none of the complaints which this man does. Surely it is not likely that he would have forborne to injure one who was left a minor by his father, and of whose property he had the control as testamentary guardian, and yet would have done an injury to you, who at your father's death were a man of fourand-twenty, and who, if any wrong had been done you, would speedily and without difficulty have obtained justice. That is a thing impossible.

To prove the truth of these statements, and that Pasicles makes no complaint, please to take the deposition which proves it.

"Redeunt ad Pasiclem."-Reiske.

1 τούτῳ τούτου. Apollodorum."-Schäfer.

"Immo ad

I agree with Reiske. The suggestion is, that Apollodorus would have got Pasicles to investigate the matter when his guardians were passing their account.

[The Deposition.]

There are points which you have now to consider in relation to my plea in bar of the action; please to recall these to your minds from what has already been stated. We, men of Athens-there having been a statement of accounts and a discharge from the lease of the bank and the shield-manufactory-there having also been an award, and again a release of all demands-as the laws do not allow people to bring actions for demands which they have once released, and as the plaintiff was making a vexatious claim and suing contrary to the laws-we, under these circumstances, put in a special plea in bar of his action. Now then, that you may understand the point on which you have to pronounce your verdict, he shall read you this statute and the depositions, one after the other, of the persons who were present when Apollodorus discharged Phormio from the lease and from all other claims. Please to take these depositions and the law.

[The Depositions. The Law.]

You hear the law, men of Athens, mentioning, among other matters for which there shall be no right of action, those of which a man has given a release or discharge. And with reason. For if it is just, that people shall not bring fresh actions for causes which have once been tried, it is far juster that there shall be no action for claims which have been released. For a man who has lost his cause by your verdict may possibly say that you were deceived; but when a man has plainly decided against himself, and given a release and discharge, what complaint can he prefer against himself to entitle him to sue over again for the same matter? None surely. Therefore the framer of the statute, among the cases in which there is to be no right of action, first mentions those, in which a man has given a release or discharge: both of which have been given by this man, for he has released and discharged the defendant. That my statement is true, men of Athens, has already been proved to you in evidence. Now please to take the statute of limitations.

[The Law.]

The law, men of Athens, has thus clearly prescribed the time. Yet the plaintiff Apollodorus, after a lapse of more

He con

than twenty years, calls upon you to pay more respect to his calumnious charges than to the laws, according to which you are sworn to give judgment. You are bound to pay regard to all the laws, but especially to this, men of Athens. For, as it seems to me, Solon framed it for no other purpose but to prevent your being harassed with false claims. sidered that five years was a sufficient time for injured parties to recover what was due to them; and he thought that length of time would be the plainest proof against those who came with false stories. And knowing also, that it was impossible for the contracting parties and their witnesses to live for ever, he put the law in their place, that it might be a witness of truth in favour of the destitute.

I wonder, men of the jury, what arguments Apollodorus, the plaintiff, can possibly urge in reply to these. He can hardly suppose that you, without finding him to have sustained any pecuniary injury, will be indignant at Phormio's having married his mother. For he is not ignorant of this—it is no secret to him or to a good many of you that Socrates the banker, having got his freedom from his masters, did what the plaintiff's father did, gave his wife to Satyrus, who formerly belonged to him. Socles, another banker, gave his wife to Timodemus, who is yet alive and in being, and formerly belonged to him. And it is not here only, men of Athens, that people in this line of business so act; but in Ægina Strymodorus gave his wife to Hermæus, his own slave, and again, upon her death, he gave him his daughter. And many

such examples could be quoted, and no wonder. For, although to you, men of Athens, who are citizens by birth, it would be disgraceful to prefer wealth, however great, to honourable descent, yet those persons who have obtained citizenship as a gift either from you or from others, and who owed that honour originally to their good fortune, to their having prospered in business and made more money than their neighbours, are obliged to preserve these advantages. Therefore it was that your father Pasion did what he has done he was not the first nor the only person that ever did such a thing: he did it not to disgrace himself or you his sons; but seeing that the only way to keep up his business was to attach this man to you by a binding connexion, for that reason he gave his own wife, your mother, to him in