Greek Texts & Translations

Read, please, the depositions which establish these facts.Depositions

34.40Surely, 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; 34.41further, 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. 34.42Yet, ^note 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

34.43That 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. 34.44When 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. 34.45I 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. ^note 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.

34.46That 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, ^note 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. ^note 34.47Would 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?