desired me to look particularly to him, for he said that he himself would do everything that was right for me, and that he should stay at Athens, while his brother Artemo would go to sea to look after the goods. And at that time, men of the jury, when he wished to get the money from us, he said he was both the brother and the partner of Artemo, and used wonderfully persuasive language; but, as soon as they had got the money into their hands, that they divided, and converted it to what use they pleased; but not in any point, great or small, did they execute the articles of the maritime contract, under which they obtained the money, as the facts themselves prove. Lacritus, the defendant, was their adviser in all their proceedings. I will take the terms of the agreement, one by one, and show you that they have done nothing in fulfilment of them.

1

First it is written, that they borrowed the thirty minas from us upon three thousand casks 1 of wine, as if they possessed security for another thirty minas, so that the price of the wine would amount to a talent in money, including the expenses which had to be incurred for the vesselling and stowage of the wine; 2 and these three thousand casks were to be conveyed to Pontus in the twenty-oared ship of which Hyblesius was owner. Such, men of the jury, are the terms contained in the agreement which you have heard. These men however, instead of three thousand casks, put less even than five hundred on board the ship; instead of having bought the quantity of wine which they were bound to do, they made what use of the money they pleased; in fact, they never meant or intended to ship the three thousand casks according to the agreement. In proof of my statements, take the deposition of the fellow-passengers in the ship.

THE DEPOSITION.

"Erasicles deposes, that he was pilot of the ship of which Hyblesius was owner, and he knows that Apollodorus carried in the ship four hundred and fifty six-gallon casks of Mendæan wine, and no more; and that Apollodorus carried no other merchandise in the vessel to Pontus."

1 Six-gallon casks. The кepáμov contained 5 gallons 6·08 pints. 2 Pabst: "Mit den Unkosten, welche die Aufbewahrung und Füllung des Weines verursachte."

"Hippias, son of Athenippus, of Halicarnassus, deposes, that he sailed on the same voyage in the ship of Hyblesius as supercargo1 of the ship, and he knows that Apollodorus, the Phaselite, carried in the vessel from Mende to Pontus four hundred and fifty six-gallon casks of Mendæan wine, and no other cargo."

"In addition to these witnesses, Archades, son of Mnesonidas, of Acharnæ, Sostratus, son of Philip, of Histiæa, Philtiades, son of Ctesias, of Xypete, Dionysius, son of Democratidas, of Chollidæ, have given absent 2 testimony."

With respect to the quantity of the wine which they were bound to put on board, such has been their conduct; and they began from this, the very first clause in the agreement, to violate and commit a breach of its terms. The next condition of the agreement is, "that they pledge these goods free from incumbrances, and owing nothing upon them to any one; and that they will not borrow further sums of money upon them from any one.' This is expressly provided, men of the jury. But what have these persons done? Disregarding the terms of the contract, they borrow money from a certain young man, under a false pretence that they were not indebted to any one; so that they not only cheated us and borrowed money upon our security, unknown to us, but they deceived also that young man who lent them the further sum, leading him to suppose that the property on which they borrowed his money was unencumbered. Such are the tricks of these men, and they are all the clever contrivances of Lacritus the defendant. To prove the truth of my statements, and that they obtained another loan contrary to the agreement, he shall read you a deposition of the creditor himself who advanced that loan. Read the deposition.

THE DEPOSITION.

"Aratus of Halicarnassus deposes, that he lent to Apollodorus eleven minas in silver upon the merchandise which 1 A supercargo is defined to be "a person employed by merchants to go a voyage and oversee their cargo, and dispose of it to the best advantage.'

2 The statement of a witness, who, by reason of absence abroad or illness, was unable to attend in court, was taken down in writing, in the presence of persons expressly appointed to receive it, and afterwards, upon their verifying it by oath, read as evidence in the cause. Such deposition was called exμaρrupía. See that title in the Archæological Dictionary.

VOL. IV.

244

he was carrying in the ship of Hyblesius to Pontus, and upon the goods purchased there as a return cargo, and he did not know that he had borrowed money from Androcles, or he should not himself have lent the money to Apollodorus."

Such are the knaveries of these men. It is next written in the agreement, men of the jury, that, when they have sold in Pontus the goods which they bring there, they shall purchase other goods in lieu of them, and ship them as a return cargo, and bring such cargo to Athens; and, when they have arrived at Athens, they shall within twenty days pay us the money in current coin, and that, until they have paid, we shall hold the goods under our control, and they shall deliver them to us entire, until we have received all our money. Such are the terms, clearly so expressed in the agreement. Here, men of the jury, these persons have most signally displayed their outrageous impudence, and their utter disregard of the articles contained in the agreement, as if they looked upon the agreement as mere trash and nonsense. For they neither purchased any other goods in Pontus, nor shipped any return cargo to bring to Athens; and we who had lent the money, when these men had returned themselves from Pontus, had nothing which we could seize or keep possession of as security for our dues; for these men brought nothing whatever into your harbour. We have suffered the most unheard-of cruelty, men of the jury. In our own city, without having done any wrong, without their having recovered any judgment against us, we have been robbed of our property by these men who are Phaselites, as if reprisals had been given to Phaselites against Athenians. For, when they do not choose to pay what they have borrowed, what ɔther name can one give to such persons than that they commit a robbery upon other people? For my part, I have never heard of a more brutal act than what these men have done to us, even while they acknowledge having received our money. Those contracts which are disputed require a judicial decision, men of the jury; but those which are admitted by both the contracting parties, and concerning which there are subsisting nautical agreements, are considered by all to be binding, and it is the duty of parties to abide by what is written. That they have performed not a single article of the agreement, that from the very first beginning they meditated

fraud and intended to evade their obligations, is thus clearly proved against them both by witnesses and by themselves. The most scandalous thing which the defendant Lacritus has done I must now tell you; for it was Lacritus who managed the whole thing. When they arrived here, they do not land in your port, but put into Thieves' Harbour, which is without the limits of your commercial port; and to put into Thieves' Harbour is the same as if one was to land at Egina or Megara; for a man may sail away from that harbour where he likes and at what moment he pleases. And the vessel lay at anchor there more than five-and-twenty days, and these men continued to walk about on our exchange, and we went up and talked with them, and we requested them to provide for settling with us as soon as possible. They promised to do so, and said they were taking measures for that very purpose. While we thus addressed ourselves to them, we watched to see whether they unladed anything from the ship or paid any customs duty. When they had been several days in the city, and we found that they had not unshipped any goods, and that no duty had been paid in their name, we then became more urgent in our demand of payment; and at length, as we became very troublesome, the defendant Lacritus, the brother of Artemo, replied that they were unable to pay, for all their goods were lost; and Lacritus said that he could assign good ground of excuse. We, men of the jury, expressed indignation at this statement, but it did us no good to be indignant; for these men gave themselves no trouble about it: however, we asked them in what manner the goods had been lost. The defendant Lacritus said, that the vessel had been wrecked in coasting from Panticapæum to Theudosia, and that, the vessel being wrecked, the goods of his brothers which were on board were lost; there was on board some salt fish and Coan wine, and some other things; this they said was the return cargo, and they intended to bring it to Athens, had it not been lost in the vessel. Such was their statement. It is worth your while to learn the wickedness and the mendacity of these men. They had no contract in reference to the vessel which was wrecked,1 but it was another person who had lent from 1 Because their engagement depended not on the safety of the ship, but on the safety of the cargo. 0 2

[Schäfer

Athens upon the freight to Pontus and upon the vessel itself (Antipater was the name of the lender, a Citian1 by birth); and the Coan wine was eighty jars of wine that had turned sour, and the salt fish carried in the vessel from Panticapæum to Theudosia was consigned to a certain farmer for a supply of his farming labourers. Why then do they allege these excuses? It is not right to do so.

Please to take the depositions; first that of Apollonides, showing that it was Antipater who lent upon the vessel, and that these men had no concern whatever in the shipwreck; then that of Erasicles and that of Hippias, to show that only eighty casks of wine were carried in the vessel.

66

THE DEPOSITIONS.

Apollonides of Halicarnassus deposes, that he knows that Antipater, a Citian by birth, lent money to Hyblesius, to Pontus, on the ship of which Hyblesius was the owner, and on the freight to Pontus; and that he was partner in the ship with Hyblesius, and that his own servants were fellowpassengers in the ship, and that, when the ship was lost, his servants were present, and they reported it to him, and reported also that the ship was lost empty, as it was coasting to Theudosia from Panticapæum."

"Erasicles deposes, that he sailed with Hyblesius as pilot of the ship to Pontus, and, when the ship was coasting to Theudosia from Panticapæum, he knows that the ship was empty, and that Apollodorus, the person who is now defendant in the suit,2 had no wine in the vessel, but that there

Schäfer supposes that only one ship is spoken of, the ship, namely, of Hyblesius; which, after being wrecked on its passage to Theudosia, was repaired, and brought the Phaselite merchants home. The word diepodpn in the deposition is a little against his hypothesis. However it be, I agree with Penrose, that the tale is told very obscurely. 1 Citium is a port in Cyprus.

2 If the text here is correct, it would seem to show that Apollodorus was joint defendant with Lacritus, though doubtless he did not join in the Paragraphe, which it would have been impossible for him to maintain. This is the only passage where there is any distinct mention of Apollodorus as a party to the suit; for the expressions πρÒS TOUTOUS, AŬTOL OUTOL, &c. (pages 940-942) are ambiguous, as it is well known that friends and partisans are often thus designated as well as parties to the cause. It is difficult to suppose that the words rêv φεύγοντος τὴν δίκην can be used in a similar loose way. But I am