hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Athens (Greece) 62 0 Browse Search
Bosporus (Turkey) 42 0 Browse Search
Athens (Greece) 14 0 Browse Search
Athens (Greece) 12 0 Browse Search
Sicily (Italy) 10 0 Browse Search
Marseilles (France) 4 0 Browse Search
Pontus 4 0 Browse Search
Byzantium (Turkey) 2 0 Browse Search
Chersonese (Ukraine) 2 0 Browse Search
Sicily (Italy) 2 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Demosthenes, Speeches 31-40.

Found 244 total hits in 67 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Phormio, then, with the help of this fellow as his accomplice and witness, thinks proper to rob us of our money—us, who have continually brought grain to your market, and who in three crises which have come upon the state, during which you put to the test those who were of service to the people, have not once been found wanting. Nay, when Alexander entered Thebes,In 355 B.C. we made you a free gift of a talent in cash
Zenothemis, who is here before you, being an underling of Hegestratus, the shipowner, who he himself in his complaint states to have been lost at sea (how, he does not add, but I will tell you), concocted with him the following fraud. Both of them borrowed money in Syracuse. Hegestratus admitted to those lending money to Zenothemis, if inquiries were made, that there was on board the ship a large amount of grain belonging to the latter; and the plaintiff admitted to those lending money to Hegestratus that the cargo of the ship was his. As one was the shipowner and the other a passenger, they were naturally believed in what they said of one anoth
The laws, however, in accordance with which you sit as jurors, do not use this language. They do indeed allow the production of a special plea when there has been no contract at all at Athens or for the Athenian market; but if a man admits that a contract was made, yet contends that he has done everything that the contract requires, they bid him to make a defence on the merits of the case, and not to make the plaintiff a defendant.As happened, of course, when a plea in bar of action was introduced. Not but that I hope to prove from the facts of the case itself that this suit of mine is admissible.
Marseilles (France) (search for this): speech 32, section 5
But immediately on getting the money, they sent it home to Massalia, and put nothing on board the ship. The agreement being, as is usual in all such cases, that the money was to be paid back if the ship reached port safely, they laid a plot to sink the ship, that so they might defraud their creditors. Hegestratus, accordingly, when they were two or three days' voyage from land, went down by night into the hold of the vessel, and began to cut a hole in the ship's bottom, while Zenothemis, as though knowing nothing about it, remained on deck with the rest of the passengers. When the noise was heard, those on the vessel saw that something wrong was going on in the hold, and rushed down to bear aid.
Byzantium (Turkey) (search for this): speech 33, section 5
As I have visited many places and spend my time in your exchange, I know most of those who are seafarers, and with these men from Byzantium I am on intimate terms through having myself spent much time there. My position, then, was such as I have described, when this fellow put into our port with a fellow-countryman of his, named Parmeno, a Byzantine by birth, who was an exile from his country.
And I beg you, men of Athens, to consider what is admitted by these men, and what is disputed; for in this way you will best sift the question. They admit that they borrowed the money, and that they had contracts made to secure the loan; but they claim that they have paid the money to Lampis, the servant of Dio, in Bosporus. We, on our part, shall prove, not only that Phormio did not pay it, but that it was actually impossible for him to pay it. But I must recount to you a few of the things that happened at the outset.
Bosporus (Turkey) (search for this): speech 34, section 5
And I beg you, men of Athens, to consider what is admitted by these men, and what is disputed; for in this way you will best sift the question. They admit that they borrowed the money, and that they had contracts made to secure the loan; but they claim that they have paid the money to Lampis, the servant of Dio, in Bosporus. We, on our part, shall prove, not only that Phormio did not pay it, but that it was actually impossible for him to pay it. But I must recount to you a few of the things that happened at the outset.
I, men of Athens, lent to this man, Phormio, twenty minae for the double voyage to Pontus and back, on the security of goods of twice that value,Such seems the most probable meaning of the disputed phrase. and deposited a contract with Cittus the banker. But, although the contract required him to put on board the ship goods to the value of four thousand drachmae, he did the most outrageous thing possible. For while still in the Peiraeus he, without our knowledge, secured an additional loan of four thousand five hundred drachmae from Theodorus the Phoenician, and one of one thousand drachmae from Lampis the shipowner.
I, men of Athens, lent to this man, Phormio, twenty minae for the double voyage to Pontus and back, on the security of goods of twice that value,Such seems the most probable meaning of the disputed phrase. and deposited a contract with Cittus the banker. But, although the contract required him to put on board the ship goods to the value of four thousand drachmae, he did the most outrageous thing possible. For while still in the Peiraeus he, without our knowledge, secured an additional loan of four thousand five hundred drachmae from Theodorus the Phoenician, and one of one thousand drachmae from Lampis the shipowner.
When these transactions had been completed in the month of Elaphebolion in the archonship of Theophilus,That is, in March 347 B.C. I at once sailed away for Pontus, but the plaintiff and Evergus remained here. What transactions they had with one another while I was away, I cannot state, for they do not tell the same story, nor is the plaintiff always consistent with himself; sometimes he says that he was forcibly ousted from his leasehold by Evergus in violation of the agreement; sometimes that Evergus was the cause of his being inscribed as a debtor to the state;See note on Dem. 37.2 and the Introduction. sometimes anything else that he chooses to say.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7