has denied that he succeeded to any property, that he had any assets (as we should say). The plaintiff asserts that he actually took possession of his brother's estate, and administered it, and only pretended to renounce the inheritance when a demand was made on him by creditors. But of this important fact, on which, perhaps, the whole case turned, no proof is offered. The guaranty also rests upon loose assertion. The speech is altogether rather abusive than argumentative. It has been surmised that Demosthenes may have been severe upon Lacritus because he was an orator and pupil of Isocrates. He is probably the same person whom Plutarch mentions in the Life of Demosthenes, as having been the instructor of that Archias who was employed by Antipater to capture the Athenian orators. I have taken it for granted that Nausicrates, the joint-creditor mentioned in the agreement, was not a co-plaintiff with Androcles, as it is nowhere stated that he was so; and I think it by no means clear that the joint-debtor Apollodorus was sued with Lacritus, notwithstanding one passage in the oration which seems to indicate the contrary. If the reader should think this strange, let him remember that by the terms of the agreement it appears that the contract between the parties was joint and several; it was competent for either or both of the lenders to take legal proceedings against either or both of the borrowers; and therefore it may be inferred that either or both of the lenders might sue the surety of the borrowers, or the heirs of either. A full explanation of the agreement will be found in Böckh's Public Economy of Athens, and a compendium, taken from Böckh, in the Archæological Dictionary, title Fenus. Some information illustrative of the subject will be found in Appendix V.

From this and the foregoing cases the reader may perceive what risk was run by the Athenian capitalist who lent his money on maritime speculations, and how little dependence could be placed on such persons as Protus, Phormio, Artemo, and Apollodorus, who traded on borrowed money, with little or no property of their own to fall back upon.

THE Phaselites are doing nothing new, men of Athens, but only what they are in the habit of doing. They are famous people for borrowing money on your exchange, but, when they have got it and drawn up a maritime contract, they immediately forget both their contract and the laws, and also that it is their duty to repay what they have had, and consider that, if they pay their debts, it is like losing something of their own, and, instead of paying, they invent artifices and pleadings and excuses, and are the greatest rogues and rascals in the world. Here is the proof. Out of the multitude of persons, Greeks and barbarians, who frequent your exchange, the Phaselites alone have more lawsuits year after year than all the rest put together. So much for their

character. I, men of the jury, having lent money to Artemo, the defendant's brother, according to the commercial laws, on an adventure from Athens to Pontus and back, as he died without having repaid me the money, have brought the present action, according to those same laws under which I entered into the contract, against the defendant, as being brother of Artemo and having possession of all his property, both what he left here and what he had at Phaselis, and as being heir to his whole estate; and because the defendant can show no law which enables him to keep possession of his brother's property and to have administered it as he pleased, and yet to refuse payment of what is due to other persons, and to say now that he is not heir but renounces the inheritance. Such is the base conduct of Lacritus the defendant. I entreat you, men of the jury, to give me a fair hearing upon this matter; and, if I prove that he has wronged us his creditors and you as well, to give us the redress that we are entitled to.

I myself, men of the jury, had not the least knowledge of these men; but Thrasymedes, the son of Diophantus, the Sphettian, and Melanopus, his brother, are friends of mine, and we are as intimate as it is possible to be: they came to me with Lacritus, the defendant, having become acquainted with him some way or other (I don't know how), and asked me to lend a sum of money upon an adventure to Pontus to Artemo, the defendant's brother, and Apollodorus, so that they might be profitably employed; Thrasymedes, men of the jury, knowing nothing of the roguery of these persons, but thinking that they were honest men and what they pretended and professed to be, and supposing that they would do all that Lacritus, the defendant, promised and undertook that they should do. He was completely deceived, and had no idea with what monsters he was associating. I, by the persuasion of Thrasymedes and his brother, and, upon an undertaking being given to me by the defendant Lacritus, that his brothers would do all that was right, in conjunction with a certain friend of mine, a Carystian, lent thirty minas money. I wish you, men of the jury, first to hear the agreement, which contains the terms on which we lent the money, and the witnesses who were present when it was lent; after that, I will proceed to the other parts of the case,

in

and

show you the outrageous tricks which they have played in the affair of the loan. Read the agreement, and after that the depositions.

THE AGREEMENT.

"Androcles of Sphettus and Nausicrates of Carystus have lent to Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, three thousand drachms in silver from Athens to Mende or Scione, and thence to Bosporus, or, if they please, on the left coast as far as the Borysthenes, and back to Athens, at interest of two hundred and twenty-five for the thousand; but, in case they should sail out of Pontus to Hierum after the rising of Arcturus,1 at interest of three hundred for the thousand, on the security of three thousand casks of Mendæan wine, which shall be conveyed from Mende or Scione in the twenty-oared vessel of which Hyblesius is the owner. They hypothecate these goods, not owing upon them any money to any other

The following note is taken from Penrose :

'After the rising of the star Arcturus, which in Hesiod's time took place sixty days after the solstice (Opera et Dies, 566). According to Ptolemy it was on the second of September. The discrepancy is thus explained by Captain Smyth :-'The difference in the rising of Arcturus is the effect of the precession of the equinoxes-544′′ annually, and from Hesiod's mention of when it took place in his time, the important chronological point of his age is gained. The star, however, though fine, was reckoned ungenial in its influences; and the change between the summer and autumnal Etesian winds being precursed by eight or ten days of squally weather, the prodromi of old, was ascribed to the direct power of Arcturus, instead of the alternation consequent upon the solar march. The times of the periodical changes of the Etesia are still objects of concern.' Gibbon, Vol. I. c. x., says, referring to Voyages de Chardin, Tom. I. p. 45, 'To navigate the Euxine before the month of May, or after that of September, is esteemed by the modern Turks the most unquestionable instance of rashness and folly.' -Compare

Præterea tam sunt Arcturi sidera nobis

Hædorumque dies servandi, et lucidus Anguis,

Quam quibus in patriam ventosa per æquora vectis

Pontus et ostriferi fauces tentantur Abydi.-Virg. Georg. I. 204. "The same caution seems to have prevailed in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. Compare Acts xxvii. 9, where, the vessel being on the coast of Crete, it is said, καὶ ὄντος ἤδη ἐπισφαλοῦς τοῦ πλοὺς, διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν νηστείαν ἤδη παρεληλυθέναι, that is, the day of Atonement, on the tenth day of the Jewish month Tisri, which fell in that year, according to Burton, on the 19th of September."

1

person, nor will they borrow anything further upon them. And they shall bring back to Athens in the same vessel all the goods which they purchase in Pontus for the return-cargo. And, if the goods are brought safe to Athens, the borrowers shall pay to the lenders the money accruing due according to the agreement within twenty days after their arrival at Athens, without any abatement, except for jettison, which the passengers have made by common resolution, or for payments made to enemies, but no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any other loss; and they shall deliver the security entire to the lenders, to be under their absolute control until they have paid the sum due under the agreement. And, if they do not pay it in the stipulated time, it shall be lawful for the lenders to pledge or to sell the security for such price as can be obtained; and, if there is any deficiency in the money which is due to the lenders under the agreement, it shall be lawful for the lenders, both or either of them, to levy the amount by execution against Artemo and Apollodorus, and against all their property, whether on land or sea, wheresoever they may be, in the same manner as if a judgment had been recovered against them and they had committed default in payment. And if they do not enter Pontus, but stay ten days after the rising of the dog-star in the Hellespont, and discharge their cargo in some place where the Athenians have no right of reprisals, and thence return home to Athens, they shall pay the interest inserted for the previous year 5 in the agreement. And, if the ship in which the goods are conveyed should meet with any irretrievable disaster, the security shall be saved, if possible, and whatever is recovered shall be

2

1 See Appendix V.

2 This provision is like our warrant of attorney to confess judgment. 3 According to Ptolemy, the Dog-star rises July 28; according to modern observation, July 3.

4 Commissions to make reprisals were granted much in the same way that letters of marque and reprisal are granted in modern times. See title Syla in the Archæological Dictionary.

5 I.e. the lower rate of interest, "because by the time this condition would come into force it would be another year, the year beginning with Hecatombeon." So Penrose, citing Böckh. I can see no better explanation; but it would be clearer if we had πρŵтоv instead of πέρυσι.

6 I.e. for the benefit of the lenders. As the clause stands, I understand it to mean this: “Though the ship be lost, the lenders shall

the joint property of the creditors. And touching these matters nothing shall have greater effect than the agreement. "Witnesses, Phormio of Piraeus, Cephisodotus, a Boeotian, Heliodorus of Pithus."

Now read the depositions.

THE DEPOSITIONS.

"Archenomides, son of Archedamas, of Anagyrus, deposes that Androcles of Sphettus, Nausicrates of Carystus, Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, deposited articles of agreement with him, and that the agreement is still remaining in his custody."

Now read the deposition of the persons who were present.

THE DEPOSITION.

"Theodotus, denizen, Charinus, son of Epichares, of Leuconium, Phormio, son of Cephisophon, of Piræus, Cephisodotus, a Boeotian, Heliodorus of Pithus, depose-that they were present when Androcles lent to Apollodorus and Artemo three thousand drachms in silver, and know that they deposited the agreement with Archenomides of Anagyrus.'

On the terms of this agreement, men of the jury, I lent the money to Artemo, the defendant's brother, at the defendant's request, and upon his guaranteeing that I should have everything that I was entitled to under the contract of loan; and the defendant himself drew up the agreement, and joined in sealing it after it was drawn. For this man's brothers were younger than he was, and quite striplings: he was Lacritus the Phaselite, a great personage, a pupil of Isocrates; it was he who transacted all the business; and he still have their security, viz., the hypothecated cargo, if it can be saved;" (this harmonises with the previous clause oweévтWV TWV χρημάτων ̓Αθήναζε ἀποδώσουσιν, &c.) — and whatever is recovered from the wreck shall be divided rateably among the creditors"-meaning not only the creditors under the agreement, but those who had lent money to carry home the cargo, or had a claim for salvage. If Toîs daveloaow is confined to the parties to the agreement, I see no force in κοινά.

Schäfer thinks the text as it stands in Bekker corrupt, and would adopt the reading which is found in one respectable manuscript, owrnpla δ ̓ ἔσται τῶν ὑποκειμένων, τὰ περιγενόμενα, &c.

Pabst renders it "so muss das Pfand gerettet werden. und was erhalten und gerettet wird gehört den Darleihern gemeinschaftlich.”