and put him in possession of my works, although I forbade him to do so.'

Stop. All this likewise will be shown by the facts of the case to be a fabrication. He has declared that I placed the servant and he forbade me. This is impossible, when I was not in the country. Neither did I place any one, when I was in Pontus, nor did he forbid me, when I was not in the country. It is impossible. What drove him then to the necessity of thus declaring? I imagine that Euergus, when he was committing those trespasses for which he has given satisfaction, being on friendly and intimate terms with me, took my servant from my house, and placed him at his own works to keep guard. If then the plaintiff had inserted the truth in his plaint, it would have been ridiculous; for how do I wrong you because Euergus placed the servant there? To avoid this difficulty, he has been compelled to declare in such a way, in order that his charge may be against me. Read what follows.

THE PLAINT.

"For that he persuaded my servants to sit in the foundry1 to my prejudice."

1 The term Keуxpewv has given rise to some discussion. Pabst renders it-"in der Hütte wo die Metallkörner gesäubert werden." Reiske in his index calls it "taberna vel officina metallica, ubi metalla liquata granulantur, h. e. in minutos globulos contunduntur." Böckh discusses the whole matter in his Dissertation on the Silver Mines, from which the subjoined is an abbreviated extract:

"Upon the art of smelting in the foundries of Laurium nothing de finite is known. That the Athenians made use of the bellows and of charcoal, is not improbable; the latter may be inferred from the account of the charcoal-burners of Acharnae. The art of smelting among the ancients was so imperfect, that even in the time of Strabo there was no profit to be gained by extracting silver from lead-ore with which it was mixed in small proportions; and the early Athenians had so slight a knowledge of the working of ore, that not only was that which had been thrown away as useless stone subsequently used, but the old scoriae were again employed for the purpose of extracting silver. According to Pliny, the ancients could not smelt any silver without some mixture of lead; he appears however only to mean ore in which the silver was combined with some other metal to which it has a less powerful affinity than to lead. At Laurium it was not necessary in general to add any lead, it being already present in the ores. Pliny states the manner in which argentiferous lead-ores were treated, and there can be no doubt this was the method adopted in Attica. The ore was first melted down to stannum, a composition of pure silver

27.

Stop. This really is downright impudence. The falsehood of it is manifest, not only from my challenging him to deliver up those servants and his refusal to deliver them, but from every circumstance in the case. For what purpose did I persuade them? Perhaps, that I might get them into my own service. But, when the option was given me either to have them or to receive back my own money, I preferred to receive

and lead; then this material was brought to the refining oven, where the silver was separated, and the lead appeared half glazed in the form of litharge, which, as well as grey lead, the ancients called galena and molybdaena: this last substance was afterwards cooled, and the lead was produced."

*

*

*

"The expressions kéyxpos and keyXpeŵv are obscure. The latter is a term used for a foundry in the Laurian silver mines without any account of its nature. Photius and the Rhetorical Lexicon state that it was a place where the ἀργυρῖτις κέγχρος and the sand from the mines were purified. It might then mean the impure substance from which the comminuted ore was washed. In this case it would have been called Keyxpos, or millet, from having been first bruised or washed down to the size of a grain of millet, in the same manner as it is said that in the Egyptian foundries the gold ore was ground down to the size of a vetch."

This supposition, however, the author refutes. After referring to the statement of Pollux, that the slacks of iron were called okopía, the Hower of gold ἀδάμας, and the impurity of silver κέγχρος—and to that of Harpocration, that Keyxрew meant the purifying place, where the KEYXpos from the metal was cooled-he comes to the same conclusion with Salmasius, that Kéyxpos and spuma argenti, or lithargyrus, are identical.

"The expression "—says he-" receives some light from what is said of the flower of copper. For, when copper has been smelted, and the last impurity separated from it, it is again fused, and cooled in water; by this means an efflorescence is formed upon the surface of the metallic cake, which was called the flower of copper. This process is the same in reference to copper as that of which Harpocration speaks in reference to silver; and the réyxpos produced in the silver foundries must have been an efflorescence, in shape like the pod of a vegetable, arising from the cake of silver. In the last stage of the refining of copper, particularly of the inferior kinds, something similar is formed according to the process now in use. It is probable therefore that this KEYXрev at Laurium was the foundry where the silver which had been already fused was refined: the impurity detached in this stage was called Keyxpos, and perhaps consisted chiefly of glazed lead; and here the silver was again cooled with water. That Harpocration should state that the keyxpos and not the metal itself was cooled, is natural enough in a grammarian of considerable authority on other subjects, but ignorant of metallurgy."

back my money, and that has been proved in evidence. However, read the challenge.

[The Challenge.]

Instead of accepting this challenge, he declined it; and yet see the charge which he makes immediately afterwards. Read the next clause.

THE PLAINT.

"And for that he refined the silver earth 1 which my servants had obtained from the works, and he retains in his possession the silver from that silver earth."

Stop. How is it possible again for these things to have been done by me, who was not in the country-these things for which you obtained a judgment against Euergus? Go on with the plaint.

1 The ore from which the silver was obtained is generally called silver earth (ἀργυρίτις γῆ or simply ἀργυρίτις); but, that by this we are not to understand soft earth, may be collected from an expression of Xenophon, who says that the enemy could make no more use of the ores from these mines than of stones. The word earth in Greek is of very general application, and may include ores even of solid stone; the Romans also applied the same term to silver ore. The quality of the ore in the mines of Laurium is nowhere expressly stated; it is possible however to throw some light upon the subject by a few incidental accounts. As the works of Laurium are always called silver-mines, and as neither lead, copper, nor any other mineral is ever mentioned, it is evident that in early times at least they must have afforded ores extremely abundant in silver, more particularly as the ancients, from their imperfect knowledge of chemistry, could not make use of ores in which the proportion of silver was inconsiderable. This is also proved by the fact of the ore being called silver earth, and not lead or copper earth. Mines of the precious metals are usually more productive near to the surface of the soil than at a greater depth, and the quantity of silver contained in many ores diminishes in proportion as they recede from the surface; therefore, when the mining penetrated farther into the interior of the mountain, it is not impossible that they met with ores of inferior quality; which partly explains the diminution in the profit already alluded to. The ore of these mines appears moreover to have occurred for the most part in thick layers, since otherwise the whole mountain would not have been so far excavated that nothing was left but supports for the purpose of safety; whereas ores, in which the silver composes the larger part of the substance, usually occur in veins. Other less distinct traces would seem to prove that a considerable part of the ore was lead-ore containing a portion of silver.

2

12

THE PLAINT.

"And for that he sold my mine-pit and servants contrary to the agreement which he entered into with me."

Stop. This far exceeds all the rest. In the first place, he says "contrary to the agreement which he entered into with me." What agreement is this? We let our works to the plaintiff at a rent equalling the interest of the loan; that was all. Mnesicles had been vendor to us in the plaintiff's presence and at his request. We afterwards sold to others in the same manner, upon the terms on which we purchased. not only at the request, but at the entreaty of the plaintiff; for no one was willing to accept him as vendor. What then has the agreement of lease to do with the question? Why did you insert that clause, you good-for-nothing fellow? To prove that we sold again at your request, and on the very terms on which we had ourselves purchased-read the deposition

[The Deposition.]

Even you then bear testimony; for, what we had purchased for a hundred and five minas, you afterwards sold for three talents and twenty-six minas. But who, having you for a vendor, would ever have given you a single drachm? To prove the truth of these statements, call me the witnesses who depose to them.

[Witnesses.]

Though he has had, as you see, the price which he agreed upon for his property-though he begged me at that time to become vendor for the sum which I had lent—this very man sues me for two talents besides. And the rest of the charges are still more shameful. Please to read now the rest of the plaint.

[The Plaint.]

Here he strings together a multitude of dreadful accusations against me: he charges assault and battery, outrage and rape, and injuries done to heiresses. But the actions for these several offences are distinct; they are not before the same magistrate, nor for the same penalties: assault and battery and charges of rape are tried before the Forty; cases of outrage before the Judges; injuries done to heiresses before

the Archon. And the laws allow exceptive pleas to those charges of which the magistrates to whom they were preferred have not cognizance. Read them this law.

[The Law.]

Although I had pleaded this with the other special pleas, and although the Judges have no cognizance of the matters for which Pantænetus brings his action, it has been struck out, and forms no part of the pleading. How this has occurred, it is for you to consider. To me it makes not the least difference, as long as I can produce the law itself; for he'll not be able to strike out of your minds the faculty of correct judgment and understanding.1

Now take the mining law. From this also I think I can show that the action is not maintainable, and that I am deserving of thanks rather than persecution. Read.

[The Law.]

This statute has clearly defined in what cases a mining action is the appropriate remedy. Let us see. The statute makes a man liable, who ejects another from his occupation: but I, so far from ejecting the plaintiff, put him in the possession and dominion of that, which another person was depriving him of, and I became the vendor of it at his request. Yes-says he-but actions lie in other cases where injuries are done concerning mines. Quite right, Pantænetus: but what are those cases? Where a man fills your pit with smoke 2-where he attacks you with arms in hand—where he perforates within your boundaries. These are the other

1 Auger-" on ne pourra effacer de vos esprits les idées de justice qui y sont gravées."

2 τύφῃ. "Si quis suffumiget; h. e. si quis in cuniculis fumum excitet, qui vicinos operantes expellat aut suffocet." Reiske. Other manuscripts give the reading of ipán, upon which Böckh remarks—

By arson, or under-burning, which is the exact meaning of the Greek word, we might either understand the burning of the wood used for supporting the mine, or the setting fire to the ores (a practice which was well known to the ancients) for the purpose of undermining the pillars which supported the overlying mass, after they had become infirm."

Schäfer would join both readings, ipán Túpn, observing—“ mireris enim fumum commemorari, taceri ignem aliquanto perniciosiorem." As to this, see what I have said in the Argument, page 221.