« EelmineJätka »
When the cause was near coming on for trial, they begged me to refer it to some one; and we referred to Theodotus, a denizen,1 under articles of submission. And Lampis after that, thinking it would be safe for him to give any evidence that he pleased before an arbitrator, having divided my money with the defendant Phormio, stated in evidence the very contrary of what he had said before. For it is not the same thing, men of Athens, to give false testimony face to face with a jury, and to do so before an arbitrator. With a jury there is severe displeasure and punishment in reserve for those who bear false witness; but before the arbitrator they give what testimony they please without risk or shame. Upon my expressing strong indignation at the audacity of Lampis, and producing to the arbitrator the same evidence which I now produce to you, men of Athens, that of the person who originally went to him with me, when he said that he had not received the cash from Phormio, and that Phormio had not shipped any goods-Lampis, when so overwhelming a case of perjury and roguery was made out against him, confessed to the arbitrator that he had made this statement, but said he was out of his senses when he made it. Please to read this deposition.
Theodotus, 2 O Athenians, having heard us several times, and believing that Lampis gave false testimony, did not dismiss the suit, but referred us to the court of justice; for he did not like to decide against Phormio the defendant, on account of his intimacy with him, as we afterwards heard, and he was afraid to dismiss the suit, lest he should himself commit perjury.
Consider now in your own minds, men of the jury, looking at the facts of the case, what means the defendant was likely
to have to pay the money. He sailed from hence without
1 See Volume III. Appendix iii. page 253.
2 Here, according to Libanius, commences the address of the second speaker. Schäfer, however, thinks it more probable that the second speech commenced with the words ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ πράγματος, which occur seven lines below (the next paragraph in this translation). Thus, he observes, the main facts of the case, with the evidence bearing upon them, are stated by Chrysippus; the circumstantial proofs and arguments are dealt with by his partner.
having shipped the amount of my loan, and having no equivalent security; in fact, he had obtained further loans upon the credit of mine. In Bosporus he found no market for his cargo, and with difficulty got rid of the creditors who had lent on the outward voyage. And Chrysippus lent him two thousand drachms on the voyage out and home, on the terms that he should receive at Athens two thousand six hundred drachms; but Phormio says that he paid to Lampis in Bosporus a hundred and twenty Cyzicene staters, (pray attend to this!) having borrowed them at interest on real security. Now, interest on real security was sixteen and two-thirds per cent.,2 and the Cyzicene stater was equivalent there to twentyeight Attic drachms. You should be informed how large a sum he says he has paid. A hundred and twenty staters make three thousand three hundred and sixty drachms, and the sixteen and two-thirds per cent. land-interest upon thirty-three minas sixty drachms is five hundred and sixty drachms, and the whole sum is the amount of the two.3 Now, men of the jury, is there or ever will there be a man in the world, who, instead of two thousand six hundred drachms, would prefer to pay thirty-three minas sixty drachms, and interest on his loan, five hundred and sixty drachms, which sums Phormio says he has paid to Lampis, amounting in the whole to three thousand nine hundred and twenty drachms? -And when he was at liberty to pay the money at Athens, it having been lent upon the voyage out and home, has he paid it in Bosporus, augmented by thirteen minas?-And to the creditors who lent on the voyage out you could scarcely pay their principal, though they were at sea with you and continually pressing you; yet to this man, who was not present, you not only returned his principal and interest, but paid also the penalties of the agreement, when you were under no necessity!And you did not fear those persons, to whom হ
1 The stater was a gold coin. The ordinary stater was equal in value to twenty Attic drachms.
2 EPEKTOS TÓKOS, one-sixth of the principal, or 163 per cent. All this subject is explained by Böckh, in his Public Economy of Athens, page 123, &c. Ed. II. And a compendium will be found, under title Fenus, in the Archæological Dictionary.
3 I. e. 39 minas 20 drachms; which he says (not with strict correctness) Phormio pretended to have paid Lampis: including in the amount the interest on the money which he borrowed to pay him.
their agreements gave the right of demanding payment in Bosporus; yet pretend to have regarded the claims of this man, who alleges that you defrauded him in the very outset, by not shipping his money's worth of goods according to your agreement from Athens! And now that you are come to the port where the loan was advanced, you do not scruple to cheat the lender; yet you pretend that you did more than justice in Bosporus, where you were not likely to be punished! And other people who borrow on the voyage out and home, when they are about to sail from the port, get, witnesses to attend, and bid them take notice that the goods are shipped at the risk of the lenders; but you rely upon the single testimony of your accomplice in fraud; you did not have with you in Bosporus either my servant or my partner, nor did you deliver to them the letters which I gave you, and which contained a direction to watch all your proceedings! Why, men of Athens, what is a person not capable of doing, who has received papers and not delivered them in due and regular course? Or how can you avoid seeing this man's knavery from his actions? Surely (O earth and heaven!) it was his business, when he paid so large a sum, and more than he owed, to make it notorious on the Exchange, and call everybody to be present, especially this man's servant and his partner. For of course you are all aware, that people borrow with a few witnesses, but, when they pay, they procure many witnesses .to attend, in order that they may appear to be honest men in discharging their obligations. But when you, Phormio, were paying both the debt and the double interest, after having used the money on the single voyage, and were giving thirteen minas besides, were you not clearly bound to have many witnesses in attendance? Had you done so, no merchant would have been regarded with more admiration than you. As it is, however, instead of procuring many witnesses to the transaction, you endeavoured to hide yourself from all the world, as if you were doing something wrong. Again, had you been making payment to me your creditor in person, there was no occasion for witnesses, because you would have taken up the agreement and got rid of the obligation; but when you were paying not to me, but to another on my behalf, and not at Athens but in Bosporus, and when your agreement was deposited at Athens
and with me, and when the person to whom you paid the gold was mortal and about to navigate such a length of sea, do you mean to tell us that you brought no witness, neither slave nor freeman? Yes, he will say, because the agreement required me to pay the cash to the shipowner. Aye, but it did not prevent you from getting witnesses to attend, or from delivering the letters. And these parties drew up two agreements with you in respect of the loan, implying that they distrusted you to the utmost yet you assert that there was no one else present when you gave the gold to the shipowner, though you knew that there was an agreement deposited against you at Athens with this man. 33 He says, that the agreement requires him to pay the money if the ship is brought home safe. Yes, for it requires you also to put the goods which you have purchased on board, or, in default, to pay a penalty of five thousand drachms.3 You do not notice this part of the agreement, but after having violated its terms from the very beginning, and failed to ship the goods, you raise a question upon one expression in the agreement, though you have by your own
1 Wolf asks with astonishment, how, if this statement be correct, the money could have been lent on the voyage out and home, and answers his own question by suggesting that the statements of orators are never to be depended upon. I transcribe the concluding part of the note for the reader's amusement:-"Me sane (verum ut fatear) pœnitet tantum operæ in rhetorum mendaciis convertendis posuisse. Verum aliquam excusationem habeo vel ignorantiæ vel inopiæ. Nam quod ad meum ingenium attinet, hypocritas, sophistas, sycophantas, mendaces magos (adderem etiam tyrannos, nisi metus hos faceret amabiles,) omnes ex animo detestatus sum a teneris unguiculis; et nunc canis subolescentibus mihi quam minimum cum eis esse negotii cupio."
The present difficulty is solved by supposing that Phormio had the option of paying the money to Lampis, if he did not choose to ship any goods from Bosporus to Athens. See the Argument.
2 The agreement was made in duplicate, and a copy given to each of the plaintiffs.
3 This (as I understand it) was the penalty to which Phormio was bound, in case he neither shipped the goods at Bosporus nor paid the stipulated sum to Lampis. The penalty before mentioned was that which attached if the money was paid to Lampis. See the Argument.
4 The plaintiff supposes Phormio to be setting up that clause in the agreement which provided that the money should only be payable if the ship came home; and he replies: "This clause is not to be taken alone, but in connexion with the clause which required you to ship the
acts rendered it a nullity. For when you say that you did not ship the goods in Bosporus, but paid the gold to the shipowner, why do you talk any further about the ship? for you have not partaken of the risk, as you put nothing on board. And at first, men of Athens, he had recourse to this excuse, pretending that he had shipped the goods; but as the falsehood was likely to be established in many ways, as well by the entry of the Harbour-masters in Bosporus, as by the persons who were staying in the port at the same time, he changes his tack, enters into a conspiracy with Lampis, and asserts that he has paid him the money, taking advantage of the circumstance that the agreement required it, and thinking that we should not easily disprove a transaction which took place between themselves alone. And Lampis declares, that what he said to me1 before he was corrupted by the defendant was spoken in a fit of derangement; but since he has divided my money, he is no longer deranged, he says, but remembers everything perfectly.
If Lampis had shown contempt for me only, men of the jury, it would not have been at all surprising; but he has acted far more shamefully to all of you. For when Parisades had issued a proclamation in Bosporus, that whoever wished to carry corn to Athens and into the Athenian port might export the corn free of duty, Lampis, who was staying then in Bosporus, got the liberty to export corn and the exemption from duty in the name of your state, and having laden a large vessel with corn, carried it to Acanthus and there disposed of it, employing my money for the purpose in concert with the defendant. And this he did, men of the jury, though he was dwelling at Athens, and had a wife and children here, and though the laws have denounced the severest penalties against any person dwelling at Athens, who carries corn to any other place than to the Attic port; and he did it on an occasion when such of you as dwelt in the city were having meal measured out to them in the Odeum, and those who dwelt in Piræus were receiving loaves at an obol (one each) in the dockyard and in the long porch, and
return cargo. If you shipped no goods, there was no risk run, and the clause in question does not apply."
The speaker must have been with Chrysippus when Lampis made his first statement.