might have been an inconvenient witness for him, had recently died. But apparently he had some color of justice on his side. For, after the matter had been submitted to an arbitrator, Phormio says that he "made a present" to Apollodorus of half a talent and took another formal release. For a young man with the tastes and some of the ambitions of an Alcibiades the opportunities to spend money in Athens must have been quite great even after the disastrous close of the Peloponnesian War, for when Apollodorus made this claim he seems already to have received from Pasion's estate some forty talents of income. He had also retained, we are told, more than half of twenty talents of debts to the estate that had been collected by his efforts and had borrowed beside 15,600 drachmas from the bank. The management of the factory was apparently proving irksome to him, for he joined presently with Pasicles in leasing it and the bank, that is "the deposits and the profits from them," to Zeno and Company. Pasicles, it would seem, now became associated with Phormio in his independent banking venture.

Archippe, successively the wife of Pasion and of Phormio, had a considerable independent estate. She owned a house inventoried at 10,000 drachmas and had other investments amounting to 12,000, beside slaves and jewelry. She had had two children by each marriage and to each child she left 2,000 drachmas. Apollodorus had claimed, among other things, a full quarter of her estate, some 3,000 drachmas more, and it is of just this sum that Phormio's "present" consisted. It was not till eighteen years later that Apollodorus set up a claim against Phormio based on the eleven talents of mortgage money to which Pasion had kept the title when he gave Phormio his note. This note would in normal course have been cancelled as the mortgages were discharged, but Apollodorus said the note was for bank stock which Phormio had fraudulently appropriated after Pasion's death. He may possibly have believed it, for his step-father was antipathetic to him and he had been soured by bitter experiences in public life. In any case Phormio thought it worth while to retain Demosthenes, and the orator wrote for him so telling a defence that Apollodorus himself says the jurors would not even listen to his plea, and as he did not get a sixth part of their

votes, he was, by Athenian law, liable for a sixth part of what he had claimed, in this case 20,000 drachmas. But this does not imply that he paid it. A litigant was not so soon brought to the end of his resources of evasion and delay.

The speech of Demosthenes to which reference has just been made gives some interesting glimpses of Athenian business methods in the early fourth century. Apollodorus had, it seems, made the stock accusation that Pasion's papers had been destroyed. He had said this was done by Archippe at Phormio's instigation. But, replies Demosthenes, "Who would have partitioned his property without leaving schedules to fix the amount of the estate?" Indeed it was on these very papers that Apollodorus had based repeated suits for "money owed to my father at his death, as appears by my father's papers.' Demosthenes further entrenches his client behind a five years' statute of limitations, said to date from Solon. Incidentally we learn that investing depositors' money in mortgages and other not readily liquidable investments had the same results then as now. To lose this suit might, it is said, cost Phormio his whole estate by causing a run on his bank. That had been the experience of other bankers. "When they had to pay what they owed they lost all their property." The lack of paper money, or of some currently acceptable tokens of exchange, not only seriously hampered the development of trade but exposed bankers to peculiar dangers in the use of their funds. Indeed it is stated, possibly with an advocate's exaggeration, that "all the other bankers, though paying no rental and working on their own account, have failed," while Phormio, more cautious, had acquired such credit that in time of public emergency, he had been able to advance to the State more money than he, or anyone else at Athens, possessed. "His credit doubles, and more than doubles his resources," observes Demosthenes, the most distinguished statesman of his time, thus frankly declaring the value of bankers to the State. The Athenian public had recognized his services by a grant of full citizenship in 361, the year before Archippe's death, and only two years after, on Pasicles coming of age, he had set up an independent bank.

The recklessness of personal abuse, that was a blemish alike

of the Athenian bar and platform, is curiously illustrated in a speech by Apollodorus against a certain Stephanus, whom he accuses of perjury in this connection. Apollodorus now claims to have been outraged from the first by Phormio's conduct and his marriage. He had sought to withdraw his capital from the bank, and Phormio in consequence had forged both lease and will. As for the quit-claim he was said to have given Phormio, "Who," he says, "would be so witless as to give a release before witnesses so as to make the clearance secure for the man with whom he left on deposit the agreements, will, and all the rest about which he gave the release?"—a curious illustration of the mutual and often all too justifiable distrust that was the canker of Greek commercial life. The accused witness was a distant connection by marriage, and there is a tacit assumption that under other conditions his perjury might be expected and condoned. Stephanus, if one may trust his opponent, had long made his living by helping bankers in dubious affairs. He had "hovered around" Aristolochus until he failed, and then, currying favor with Phormio, had sailed in his interest to Byzantium to plead against certain Carthaginians for the release of some of Phormio's ships that were detained there. Athenian jurors, urges Apollodorus, should not let such a man escape. In making his money out of banking he evades taxation and stated public services. Let them punish in him the tax-dodgers and the exploiters of distress. Stephanus, says Apollodorus, deserves no mercy, for he has shown none to debtors, and even drove his own mother out of house and home. As for Pasicles, now a witness against him, Apollodorus professes to believe that he is but half his brother and a son of Phormio, who is himself a compendium of all the vices, and as an aggravation of his offences, speaks bad Greek. It does not trouble the speaker that he had on other occasions highly commended Phormio and had claimed to have enjoyed his mother's peculiar affection.

If we knew of Pasion's elder son only what the speeches that grew out of this "strike" suit against his step-father reveal, we should get a very unpleasant and probably not wholly just impression of one whose life seems full of strange contradictions. Happily we have record of him also in connection with five

other law suits as his father's heir, and in six more of a semipublic character arising in part out of his services to the State as a naval commander and in part out of political animosities and his sympathy with the policies of Demosthenes. Eight speeches, written and presumably delivered by him, are preserved among the orations of Demosthenes. The earliest dates from 369, the year following his father's death, the last cannot have been spoken before 343, and may well be considerably later. These speeches, read in order, show, says the German critic Schæfer, "a well-educated son, falling into ever deepening decay, not of fortune alone, but of mind and heart." This is perhaps too severe; certainly it does not take account of important extenuating circumstances. The naval duties to which he was called in 368, and again in 362, brought out many engaging qualities. It was his eagerness to excel in public services that involved him in the pecuniary embarrassments that brought out the baser side of his nature and possibly of his heredity. Pasion's manners may not have been ingratiating. Apollodorus knew well that his own were not. "In face, gait, voice," he tells one jury, "I do not reckon myself among the happily endowed by nature, for in matters where I may offend others with no gain to myself I am often lacking, but in so far as I am moderate in outlay for personal gratification men must find my manner of life much more respectable than that of Phormio and his kind." This was said in 350, ten years after Archippe's death. Pasicles was then again associated in business with Phormio.

The financial troubles of Apollodorus began with his first term of naval service. He had been allotted in 368 a trierarchy, that is, the duty of fitting out and manning a ship of war for a specified service, and had borrowed money on chattel mortgage for that occasion. From 362 to 360 he was similarly engaged, and his difficulties were due by no means solely or chiefly to faults of his own. He showed himself in these years a man of restless energy and patriotic ambition, a typically generousspirited young Athenian, careless in spending the money he had inherited, if only he could buy with it distinction, and chafing under the ineptitudes of a democratic naval regime. Athens had always been a prominent and, for long periods, the chief

naval power in that part of the world, but the financing of its naval affairs had been ever haphazard and wasteful, though it was popular because it seemed to relieve the middle and lower classes of their reasonable share in a national burden.

When Apollodorus had been selected a trierarch in 362, he had taken nothing from the common stock for his ship, but had fitted it out wholly at his own expense, and had made it one of the best equipped in the fleet. The State had voted him a crew, but the few that presented themselves were as a rule incapable. So, in his zeal for the service, he had dismissed these, hypothecated his estate, and by gifts and advances of pay had secured choice men for his crew. He had hired the best rowers, too, and had not got from his fellow-wardsmen, who should have shared the burden, the help that was his due. It was the part of the State to pay the crew, who provided their own food. But his troops received no pay for eight months. So he had to feed them, and as his ship proved the fastest he had also to bear the incidental expenses of a dispatch carrier. He had even to hire a new crew, and had further mortgaged his property on that account. His exertions in the common cause had been recognized at a public dinner. But the term of his service expired, and no pay came for his men or a successor for the command. Then the second crew began to desert, seeing, he says, "my lack of funds, the neglect of the city, the failure of the allies, the faithlessness of the generals." So he borrowed yet a third time and sent his captain to Lampsacus to hire sailors, with letters to former correspondents of his father there. He was, however, still detained on pretexts, and, when the successor at last arrived, was mocked for his pains. His account of advances was not accepted. He had been too extravagant, it was said, and had demoralized the crew. His successor had brought subtle influences to bear on the commander-in-chief, so he got no help in that quarter, but rather was, as he thought, deliberately detailed for dangerous service. It is hardly possible to imagine conditions more directly inviting disaster, discontent, and mutiny than those that prevailed in this and other Athenian fleets, with sailors unpaid and unfed and officers exploiting or exploited. "Our complaints are private, the injuries are public," Apollo