Page images

were about eighty casks of Coan wine consigned to a certain person of Theudosia."

"Hippias, son of Athenippus, of Halicarnassus, deposes, that he sailed with Hyblesius as supercargo of the ship, and, when the ship was coasting to Theudosia from Panticapæum, Apollodorus put on board one or two vessels of wool, and eleven or twelve casks of salt fish, and some goat-skins, two or three bundles, and nothing else.'


"In addition to these witnesses, Euphiletus, son of Damotimus, of Aphidna, Hippias, son of Timoxenus, of Thymetadæ, Sostratus, son of Philip, of Histiæa, Archenomides, son of Strato, of Thria, Philtiades, son of Ctesicles, of Xypete, have given absent testimony."

Such is the impudence of these men. I beg you, men of the jury, to think in your minds, whether you ever knew or heard of any people importing wine from Pontus to Athens, and especially Coan wine. Surely it's just the reverse: wine is carried to Pontus from the places about us, from Peparethus and Cos and Thasus and Mende, and from a variety of other countries; and quite different things are imported here from Pontus.

I still pressed them, and asked if any of the effects in Pontus were saved. Lacritus the defendant replied, that a hundred Cyzicene staters were saved, and that his brother had lent the gold in Pontus to a certain ship-owner of Phaselis, a fellow-countryman and friend of his own, and was not able to recover it, in fact, that this also might be considered as lost. These statements were made by Lacritus the defendant but the agreement, men of the jury, says something different; it requires these men to ship a return cargo and bring it to Athens; not to lend our property without our consent to whom they please in Pontus, but to deliver it entire to us at Athens, till we have received back the whole sum that we lent. Please to read the agreement


[The agreement is read again by the officer of the court.]

rather inclined to suspect that instead of αὐτοῦ we should read ἀδελφοῦ. We know that by the terms of the agreement the plaintiff already possessed power to seize the property of Apollodorus; and there could have been no great advantage in bringing an action against him, except, perhaps, for the purpose of holding him to bail.

Does the agreement, men of the jury, require these men to lend our property, and lend it to a man whom we don't know and have never seen, or does it require them to ship a return cargo and bring it to Athens, and produce it to us, and deliver it to us entire? The agreement declares that nothing shall have more force than the terms contained in it, and that neither law nor decree nor anything else shall be admitted to supersede the agreement; yet these men, from the very beginning, never troubled themselves about the agreement, but made use of our money as if it had been their own; such mischievous sophists are they and dishonest men. For my own part, I swear by Jupiter the king and all the Gods, I never had a grudge and never uttered a reproach against any one, men of the jury, because he wished to be a sophist and pay money to Isocrates; I should be mad, if anything of the sort gave me concern. At the same time I don't think that men who have an overweening opinion of their own cleverness ought to covet the property of other people, or seek to plunder them, relying upon their eloquence; that is the part of a good-for-nothing sophist, who should be made to smart for it. Lacritus, the defendant, men of the jury, has not come into court relying on the justice of his case, but knowing perfectly well what has been done by himself and his brothers in the matter of this loan, and, considering that he is clever at speaking and can easily provide arguments for a bad cause, he imagines he can mislead you as he pleases. This is the talent which he professes, and he asks money and collects pupils, engaging to instruct them in these very things. And he has begun by instructing his own brothers in an art, which you, men of the jury, feel to be wicked and dishonest-the art of borrowing money on the exchange upon a maritime adventure, and cheating the credi tors instead of paying them. Can any men be baser than

either the teacher or the learners of such an art as this? However, since he is so clever, and relies upon his power of speaking and upon the thousand drachms which he has given to his preceptor, bid him show you either that they never obtained the money from us, or that they have paid what they borrowed, or that maritime agreements ought not to be

1 This oath was probably one which the speaker was in the habit of using, as Libanius remarks.

binding, or that people ought to employ the money for some other purpose than that for which they obtained it under the agreement. Let him convince you of the truth of any of these propositions. And if he can so convince you, who are sitting in judgment upon commercial contracts, I concede that he is preeminently clever. But I am quite sure that he will not be able to satisfy or convince you upon any of these points. But, apart from these considerations-suppose, by heavens, men of the jury, that the reverse had happened, and that it was not this man's deceased brother who owed me the money, but I who owed the brother a talent, or eighty minas, or more or less; do you think, men of the jury, that Lacritus the defendant would use the same language which he has now been dinning in our ears,1 or would say that he is not heir, and renounce his brother's inheritance, and would not exact the debt from me with the utmost severity, as he has exacted from other persons what was owing to the deceased either in Phaselis or in other places? And if any one of us, being sued by the defendant, had dared to plead a special plea suggesting that the action was not maintainable, I am sure he would have been indignant and complained bitterly to you, and called it scandalous and unlawful usage of him, if any one voted that his action, being a mercantile one, was not maintainable. Then, Lacritus, if you consider this just for yourself, why should it not be just for me? Are not the same laws enacted for all? Have not all the same rights in regard to mercantile actions? Is there any one so odious, so surpassing all mankind in baseness, as to advise you to decide that this mercantile action does not lie, when you are sitting now in judgment upon mercantile causes?


What do you require, Lacritus? Are you not content that we are deprived of the money which we lent you, but would you have us also consigned to prison for non-payment of the penalty adjudged against us? Would it not be atrocious and cruel and disgraceful to you, men of the jury, if people who have lent money on a maritime adventure in your port, and who are defrauded of it, should be carried to prison by the fraudulent debtors? Is it this, Lacritus, which you

[blocks in formation]

Pabst:-" die er jetzt missbrauchsweise führt."

-"dont il abuse." 2 The ἐπωβελία.

would persuade the jury to sanction? Where are we to obtain justice, men of the jury, for commercial contracts? Before what magistrate, or at what time? Before the Eleven? They bring into court housebreakers and thieves, and other malefactors who are charged with capital crimes. Before the Archon? But the Archon is enjoined to take charge of heiresses and orphans and parents. Perhaps before the Kingarchon? But we are not gymnasiarchs, nor are we indicting any one for impiety. Or perhaps the Polemarch will bring us into court. Yes, for neglect of a patron, or residence without a patron. There remain the Generals. But they introduce and bring to trial the cases of the trierarchs; they bring no mercantile cause into court. I am a merchant, and you are the brother and heir of a merchant, who has obtained from me a mercantile loan. Before what tribunal then am I to take this action? Show me, Lacritus; but show it conformably to law and justice. That you can't do. can't do. No man (I don't care how clever he is) can say anything just upon a case like yours.

These are not the only wrongs, men of the jury, which I have suffered from the defendant Lacritus. Besides being deprived of my money, he would have brought me (as far as it lay in his power) into the utmost peril, had not the agreement with these men done me good service, testifying that I lent the money to Pontus and back to Athens. For of course you are aware, men of the jury, how severe the law is, if any Athenian carry corn to any other place than Athens, or lend money to any other port than that of Athens. You know what penalties there are for such offences, and how heavy and stringent they are. However, read them the law, that they may have more certain information.


"It shall not be lawful for any Athenian, or any alien residing at Athens, or any person under their control, to lend out money on a ship which is not commissioned to bring corn to Athens, or anything else which is particularly mentioned.1 And if any one lend out money contrary to this 1 Penrose writes in a note,

"These words are not part of the law itself, but are substituted by the orator, for the sake of brevity, for a long list of different sorts of merchandise, which were specified in the law.—Reiske. Schäfer says

enactment, there shall be a presentment and an account of the money laid before the Overseers of the emporium, in like manner as is provided with respect to the ship and the corn. And such person shall have no right of action for the money, which he has lent out to any other place than to Athens, and no magistrate shall bring any suit thereupon to trial.”

The law, men of the jury, is thus severe. Yet these rascally fellows, though it is expressly mentioned in the agreement that the money's worth shall come back to Athens, allowed the money which they borrowed from us at Athens to be carried to Chios. For when the shipowner of Phaselis wanted to borrow other money in Pontus from a certain Chian, and the Chian said he would not lend it, unless he received as security all that the shipowner had with him on board, and unless the previous lenders gave their assent, they allowed that which belonged to us to be given in pledge to the Chian, and put the whole of it at his disposal; then they sailed away from Pontus with the shipowner of Phaselis and the Chian creditor, and put into Thieves' Harbour, and never anchored their vessel in your port. And now, men of the jury, money which was lent from Athens to Pontus, and back from Pontus to Athens, has been carried to Chios by these It comes therefore to what I started with in the beginning you are injured fully as much as we who advanced the money. Only consider, men of the jury. Is it not plain that you are injured, when a man endeavours to place himself above your laws, and invalidates and annuls nautical agreements, and has sent off money lent in our port to Chios? Is it not plain that such a person injures you as well as us?


I, men of the jury, address myself to these persons only; for to them I advanced my money. They will have to deal with that shipowner of Phaselis, their own countryman, to whom they say they lent the money without our consent and that this cannot be, for Reiske forgets that this was not spoken by the party, but read by the clerk. But in this Schäfer forgets, that what the clerk read was not from any authenticated copy, but from extracts which had been taken and put into the echinus by the party; and so, if Androcles or Demosthenes had copied the law in this compendious form, the clerk would of course read it accordingly."

Pabst is not satisfied either with Reiske's view or with Schäfer's, but thinks the passage corrupt.

« EelmineJätka »