Greek Texts & Translations

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. ^note But you must hear and understand how it was that Pasio came to owe the eleven talents to the bank. 36.5He owed that amount, not because of poverty, but because of his thrift. ^note 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 ^note out at interest. Among these were eleven talents of the bank's deposits, profitably invested. 36.6When, 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.

36.7In 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.Will
Challenge
Depositions

36.8When 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. ^note 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. 36.9And 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. 36.10For in that case, when Pasicles came of age and Phormio relinquished the lease, you ^note 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.Deposition

36.11As 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, ^note 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, ^note 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.

36.12Many 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.