by Demosthenes
In proof that my words are true, take, please, the deposition and the law.” Deposition ““ Law “ [38]
Phormio, then, with the help of this fellow as his accomplice and witness, thinks proper to rob us of our money — us, who have continually brought grain to your market, and who in three crises which have come upon the state, during which you put to the test those who were of service to the people, have not once been found wanting. Nay, when Alexander entered Thebes, we made you a free gift of a talent in cash; [39] and when grain earlier advanced in price and reached sixteen drachmae, we imported more than ten thousand medimni of wheat, and measured it out to you at the normal price of five drachmae a medimnus, and you all know that you had this measured out to you in the Pompeium. And last year my brother and I made a free gift of a talent to buy grain for the people.
Read, please, the depositions which establish these facts.” Depositions “ [40]
Surely, if any inference may be based upon these facts, it is not likely that we should freely give such large sums in order to win a good name among you, and then should bring a false accusation against Phormio in order to throw away even the reputation for honorable dealing which we had won. It is right, therefore, that you should come to our aid, men of the jury. I have shown you that Phormio in the first place did not put on board the vessel goods to the value of all the loans which he had secured at Athens, and that with the proceeds from the goods sold in Bosporus he with difficulty satisfied his creditors who had lent money for the outward voyage; [41] further, that he was not well off, and not so foolish as to pay thirty-nine minae instead of twenty-six hundred drachmae; and besides all this, that when, as he says, he paid the money to Lampis he summoned neither my slave nor my partner, who was at the time in Bosporus, as a witness. Again, Lampis himself is shown to have testified to me, before he was corrupted by Phormio, that he had not received the money. [42] Yet, if Phormio were thus to prove his case point by point, I do not see what better defence he could have made. But that the action is admissible the law itself solemnly declares, when it maintains that mercantile actions are those for contracts made at Athens or for the Athenian market, and not only those made at Athens, but all that are made for the purpose of a voyage to Athens.
Please take the laws.” Laws “ [43]
That the contract has been entered into between Phormio and myself at Athens even our opponents themselves do not deny, but they enter a special plea alleging that the action is not admissible. But to what tribunal shall we come, men of the jury, if not to you, since it was here in Athens that we made our contract? It would be hard indeed that, if a wrong had been done me in connection with a voyage to Athens, I should be able to get satisfaction from Phormio in your court, but, when the contract has been made in your market, these men should say that they will not be tried before you. [44] When we referred the case to Theodotus for arbitration, they admitted that my action against them was admissible; but now they say what is the direct opposite of what they have themselves before admitted; as if, forsooth, it were proper that they should be tried before Theodotus, the privileged alien, without a special plea, but, when we enter the Athenian court, the action should no longer be admissible. [45] I for my part am trying to conceive what in the world he would have written in the special plea, if Theodotus had dismissed the suit, when now, after Theodotus has decreed that we should go into court, he declares that the action is not one that can be brought before you, to whom Theodotus bade us go. Surely I should suffer most cruel treatment if, when the laws declare that suits growing out of contracts made at Athens shall be brought before the Thesmothetae, you, who have sworn to decide according to the laws, should dismiss the suit. [46]
That we lent the money is attested by the agreement, and by Phormio himself; that it has been repaid is attested by no one except Lampis, who is an accomplice in the crime. Phormio claims to prove the payment on the testimony of Lampis alone, but I adduce Lampis and those who heard him declare that he had not received the money. Further, Phormio is in a position to bring my witnesses to trial, if he maintains that their testimony is false, but I have no means of dealing with his witnesses, who say they know that Lampis testified that he had received the money. If Lampis’s own deposition had been put into court, these men would perhaps have said that I ought to prosecute him for giving false testimony; but, as it is, I have not this deposition, and Phormio thinks he should get off unscathed, since he has left no valid security for the verdict which he urges you to pronounce. [47] Would it not indeed be absurd if, when Phormio admits that he borrowed, but alleges that he has made payment, you should make of none effect that which he himself admits and by your vote give effect to what is under dispute? And if, when Lampis, on whose testimony my opponent relies, after at first denying that he had received the money, now testifies to the contrary, you should determine that he has received it, although there are no witnesses to support the fact? [48] And if you refuse to admit as proofs all that he truthfully stated, and should count more worthy of belief the lies which he told after he had been corrupted? Verily, men of Athens, it is far more just to draw conclusions from statements made in the first instance than from those subsequently fabricated; for the former he made truthfully, and not with ulterior purpose, while the later ones are lies designed to further his interests. [49]
Remember, men of Athens, that even Lampis himself never denied saying that he had not received the money; he admitted that he so stated, but declared he was not in his right mind at the time. But would it not be absurd for you to accept as worthy of credit that part of his testimony which favors the defrauding party, and to discredit that which favors the party defrauded? [50] Nay, men of the jury, I beg you, do not do this. You are the same persons who punished with death, when he had been impeached before the assembly, a man who obtained large additional loans on your exchange, and did not deliver to his creditors their securities, though he was a citizen and the son of a man who had been general. [51] For you hold that such people not only wrong those who do business with them, but also do a public injury to your mart; and you are right in holding this view. For the resources required by those who engage in trade come not from those who borrow, but from those who lend; and neither ship nor shipowner nor passenger can put to sea, if you take away the part contributed by those who lend. [52] In the laws there are many excellent provisions for their protection. It is your duty to show that you aid the laws in righting abuses, and that you make no concession to wrongdoers, in order that you may derive the greatest possible benefit from your market. You will do so, if you protect those who risk their money, and do not allow them to be defrauded by monsters such as these.
I have said all that it was in my power to say. But I am ready to call another of my friends, if you so bid.
AGAINST LACRITUS
Translated by A. T. Murray
The Phaselites, men of the jury, are up to no new tricks; they are merely doing what it is their wont to do. For they are the cleverest people at borrowing money on your exchange; but, as soon as they get it and have drawn up a maritime contract, they straightway forget the contract and the laws, and that they are under obligation to pay back what they have received. [2] They consider that, if they pay their debts, it is like having lost something of their own private property, and, instead of paying, they invent sophisms, and special pleas, and pretexts; and are the most unprincipled and dishonest of men. Here is a proof of this. Out of the hosts of people, both Greeks and barbarians, who frequent your exchange, the Phaselites alone have more lawsuits, whenever the courts sit, than all others put together. That is the sort of people they are. [3] But I, men of the jury, lent money to Artemo, this fellow’s brother, in accordance with the commercial laws for a voyage to Pontus and back. As he died before having repaid me the money I have brought this suit against Lacritus here in accordance with the same laws under which I made the contract, [4] since he is the brother of Artemo and has possession of all his property, both all that he left here
and all that he had at Phaselis, and is the heir to his whole estate; and since he can show no law which gives him the right to hold his brother’s property and to have administered it as he pleased, and yet to refuse to pay back money which belongs to others and to say now that he is not the. heir, but has nothing to do with the dead man’s affairs. [5] Such is the rascality of this fellow, Lacritus; but I beg of you, men of the jury, to give me a favorable hearing in regard to this matter and, if I prove to you that he has wronged us, who lent the money, and you as well, to render us the aid that is our due. [6]
I myself, men of the jury, had not the slightest acquaintance with these men; but Thrasymedes the son of Diophantus, that well-known Sphettian, and Melanopus, his brother, are friends of mine, and we are on the most intimate terms possible. These men came up to me with Lacritus here, whose acquaintance they had made in some way or other — how, I do not know, — [7] and asked me to lend money to Artemo, this man’s brother, and to Apollodorus for a voyage to Pontus, that they might be engaged in a trading enterprise. Thrasymedes like myself knew nothing of the rascality of these people, but supposed them to be honorable men and such as they pretended and declared themselves to be; and that they would do all that they promised and that this fellow Lacritus undertook that they should do. [8] He was utterly deceived, and had no idea what monsters these men were with whom he was associating. I allowed myself to be persuaded by Thrasymedes and his brother, and upon the assurance given me by this Lacritus, that his brothers would do everything that was right, I, with the help of a Carystian, who was a friend of mine, lent thirty minae in silver. [9] I wish you first, men of the jury, to hear the agreement in accordance with which we lent the money, and the witnesses who were present when the loan was made; after that I shall take up the remaining features of the case, and show you how like burglars they acted in the matter of this loan.
Read the agreement, and then the depositions. [10] “Agreement
Androcles of Sphettus and Nausicrates of Carystus lent to Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, three thousand drachmae in silver for a voyage from Athens to Mendê or Scionê, and thence to Bosporus — or if they so choose, for a voyage to the left parts of the Pontus as far as the Borysthenes, and thence back to Athens, on interest at the rate of two hundred and twenty-five drachmae on the thousand; but, if they should sail out from Pontus to Hieron after the rising of Arcturus, at three hundred on the thousand, on the security of three thousand jars of wine of Mendê, which shall be conveyed from Mendê or Scionê in the twenty-oared ship of which Hyblesius is owner.” [11] “They give these goods as security, owing no money upon them to any other person, nor will they make any additional loan upon this security; and they agree to bring back to Athens in the same vessel all the goods put on board in Pontus as a return cargo; and, if the goods are brought safe to Athens, the borrowers are to pay to the lenders the money due in accordance with the agreement within twenty days after they shall have arrived at Athens, without deduction save for such jettison as the passengers shall have made by common agreement, or for money paid to enemies; but without deduction for any other loss. And they shall deliver to the lenders in their entirety the goods offered as security to be under their absolute control until such time as they shall themselves have paid the money due in accordance with the agreement.” [12] “And, if they shall not pay it within the time agreed upon, it shall be lawful for the lenders to pledge the goods or even to sell them for such price as they can get; and if the proceeds fall short of the sum which the lenders should receive in accordance with the agreement, it shall be lawful for the lenders, whether severally or jointly, to collect the amount by proceeding against Artemo and Apollodorus, and against all their property whether on land or sea, wheresoever it may be, precisely as if judgement had been rendered against them and they had defaulted in payment.” [13] “And, if they do not enter Pontus, but remain in the Hellespont ten days after the rising of the dogstar, and disembark their goods at a port where the Athenians have no right of reprisals, and from thence complete their voyage to Athens, let them pay the interest written into the contract the year before. And if the vessel in which the goods shall be conveyed suffers aught beyond repair, but the security is saved, let whatever is saved be the joint property of the lenders. And in regard to these matters nothing shall have greater effect than the agreement.
Witnesses: Phormio of Peiraeus, Cephisodotus of Boeotia, Heliodorus of Pitthus.” [14]
Now read the depositions.”Deposition
Archenomides, son of Archedamas, of Anagyrus, deposes that Androcles of Sphettus, Nausicrates of Carystus, and Artemo and Apollodorus, both of Phaselis, deposited articles of agreement with him, and that the agreement is still in custody in his hands.”
Read also the deposition of those who were present.”Deposition
Theodotus, privileged alien, Charinus, son of Epichares, of Leuconium, Phormio, son of Ctephisophon, of Peiraeus, Cephisodotus of Boeotia and Heliodorus of Pitthus depose that they were present when Androcles lent to Artemo three thousand drachmae in silver, and that they know they deposited the agreement with Archenomides of Anagyrus.” [15]
In accordance with this agreement, men of the jury, I lent the money to Artemo, this man’s brother, at the request of Lacritus, and upon his engaging that I should receive everything that was my due in accordance with the agreement under which the loan was made. Lacritus himself drew up the agreement and joined in sealing it after it was written; for his brothers were still youngish, in fact mere boys, but he was Lacritus, of Phaselis, a personage of note, a pupil of Isocrates. [16] It was he who managed the whole matter, and he bade me look to him; for he declared that he would himself do everything that was right for me, and that he would stay in Athens, while his brother Artemo would sail in charge of the goods. At that time, men of the jury, when he wanted to get the money from us, he declared that he was both the brother and the partner of Artemo, and spoke with wondrous persuasiveness; [17] but, as soon as they got possession of the money, they divided it, and used it as they pleased; while as for the maritime agreement on the terms of which they secured the money, in no matter great or small did they carry out its provisions, as the facts themselves make clear. And in all these things this fellow Lacritus was the prime mover. I shall take up the clauses of the contract one by one, and shall show that in no single instance have these men done what was right. [18]
In the first place it stands written that they borrowed from us thirty minae on three thousand jars of wine, giving out that they possessed security for thirty minae more, so that the price of the wine would amount to a talent of money, including the expenses to be incurred in the stowage of the wine; and that these three thousand jars were to be conveyed to Pontus in the twenty-oared ship, of which Hyblesius was owner. [19] These provisions, men of the jury, stand written in the agreement which you have heard. But instead of three thousand jars, these men did not put even five hundred on board the boat; and instead of having bought the quantity of wine which they should have, they used the money in whatever way they pleased; as for those three thousand jars which the agreement called for, they never meant nor intended to put them on board.
To prove that these statements of mine are true, take the deposition of those who sailed with them in the same ship. [20] “Deposition
Erasicles deposes that he was pilot of the ship of which Hyblesius was owner, and that to his knowledge Apollodorus was conveying in the ship four hundred and fifty jars of Mendaean wine, and no more; and that Apollodorus conveyed no other cargo in the ship to Pontus.
Hippias, son of Athenippus, of Halicarnassus, deposes that he too sailed in the ship of Hyblesius as supercargo of the vessel and that to his knowledge Apollodorus of Phaselis was conveying in the ship from Mendê to Pontus four hundred and fifty jars of Mendaean wine, and no other cargo.
In addition to these, written affidavits were submitted by Archiades, son of Mnesonidas,of Acharnae, Sostratus, son of Philip, of Histiaea, Eumarichus, son o
f Euboeus, of Histiaea, Philtiades, son of Ctesias, of Xypetê, and Dionysius, son of Democratides, of Cholleidae.” [21]
In regard, then, to the quantity of wine which it was their duty to put on board the ship that was what they contrived to do; and from this point they began from its very first clause to violate the agreement and to fail to perform what it required. The next clause that stands written in the agreement states that they pledge these goods free from all encumbrances; that they owe nothing to anyone upon them; and that they will not secure further loans upon them from anyone. [22] This is expressly stated, men of the jury. But what have these men done? Disregarding the terms of the agreement they borrow money from a certain youth, whom they deceived by stating that they owed nothing to anybody. Thus they cheated us, and without our knowledge borrowed money upon our security, and they also deceived that young man who lent them the money by alleging that the goods upon which they borrowed from him were unencumbered. Such are the rascalities of these men, and they are all clever devisings of this man Lacritus.
To prove that I am speaking the truth and that they did borrow additional sums contrary to the agreement, the clerk shall read you the deposition of the man himself who made the additional loan. [23]
Read the deposition.”Deposition
Aratus of Halicarnassus deposes that he lent to Apollodorus eleven minae in silver on the merchandise which he was conveying in the ship of Hyblesius to Pontus, and on the goods purchased there as a return cargo; and that he was unaware that the defendant had borrowed money from Androcles; for otherwise he would not himself have lent the money to Apollodorus.” [24]