by Demosthenes
Such are the rascalities of these men. But after this it stands written in the agreement, men of the jury, that when they should have sold in Pontus the goods which they brought thither, they should purchase with the proceeds other goods as a return cargo, and should bring this return cargo back to Athens; and that when they should have reached Athens, they should within twenty days repay us in certified coin; and that pending the payment we should have control of the goods, and that they should deliver them to us in their entirety until we should get back our money. [25] These terms stand written thus precisely in the agreement. But these people, men of the jury, have here shown most strikingly their own insolence and shamelessness, and that they paid not the slightest heed to the terms written in the agreement; but regarded the agreement as mere trash and nonsense. For they neither purchased any other goods in Pontus nor took on board any return cargo to be conveyed to Athens; and we who had lent the money, when these men themselves returned from Pontus, had nothing which we could lay hold of or keep in possession until we should recover our money; for these men brought nothing whatsoever into your harbor. Nay, we have suffered the most unheard-of treatment, men of the jury. [26] In our own city, without ourselves having committed any wrong, or having had judgement rendered against us in their favor, we have been robbed of our own possessions by these men who are Phaselites, just as if rights of reprisal had been given to Phaselites against Athenians. For when they refuse to pay back what they received, what other name can one give to such people, than that they take by force the goods of others? For my own part, I have never heard of a more abominable act than that which these men have committed in relation to us, and that, too, while admitting that they received the money from us. [27] For whereas all clauses in contracts which are open to dispute require a judicial decision, men of the jury, those on the contrary which are admitted by both the contracting parties, and concerning which there exist maritime agreements, are held by all men to be final; and the parties are bound to abide by what is written. That these men, however, have fulfilled not a single one of the provisions of the agreement, but that from the very first they meditated fraud and purposed dishonest action has been thus clearly proven against them by the depositions of witnesses and by themselves. [28]
You must now hear the most outrageous thing which this fellow Lacritus has done; for it was he who managed the whole affair. When they arrived here they did not put into your port, but came to anchor in Thieves’ Harbor, which is outside of the signs marking your port; and to anchor in Thieves’ Harbor is the same as if one were to anchor in Aegina or Megara; for anyone can sail forth from that harbor to whatever point he wishes and at any moment he pleases. [29] Well, their vessel lay at anchor there for more than twenty-five days, and these men walked about in your sample-market. We on our part talked to them and bade them see to it that we received our money back as soon as possible; and they agreed, and said they were trying to arrange that very thing. While we thus approached them, we at the same time kept an eye on them to see whether they disembarked anything from the ship, or paid any harbor-dues. [30] But when they had been in town a good many days, and we found that nothing had been disembarked from the ship, nor had any harbor-dues been paid in their name, we began from then on to press them more and more with our demands. And when we made ourselves burdensome to them, this fellow Lacritus, the brother of Artemo, answered that they would be unable to pay us, for all their goods were lost; and Lacritus declared he could make out a good case in the matter. [31] We, men of the jury, were indignant at these words, but we gained nothing by our indignation, for these men cared not a fig for it. Nevertheless we asked them in what way the goods had been lost. This man, Lacritus, said that the ship had been wrecked while sailing along the coast from Panticapaeum to Theodosia, and that in the wreck of the vessel the goods of his brothers which were at the time on board were lost; there was on board salt fish, Coan wine, and sundry other things; this, they said, had been put on board as a return cargo, and they had intended to bring it to Athens, had it not been lost in the ship. [32] That is what he said; but it is worth your while to learn the abominable wickedness of these men, and their mendacity. Concerning the vessel which was wrecked they had no contract, but it was another man who had lent from Athens upon the freight to Pontus, and on the vessel itself. （Antipater was the lender’s name; he was a Citian by birth.） The Coan wine （eighty jars of wine that had turned sour） and the salt fish were being transported in the vessel for a certain farmer from Panticapaeum to Theodosia for the use of the laborers on his farm. Why, then, do they keep alleging these excuses? It is in no wise fitting. [33]
Now please take the deposition first that of Apollonides, showing that it was Antipater who lent money upon the vessel, and that these men were in no wise affected by the shipwreck; and then that of Erasicles and that of Hippias, showing that only eighty jars were being transported in the vessel.”Depositions
Apollonides of Halicarnassus deposes that to his knowledge Antipater, a Citian by birth, lent money to Hyblesius for a voyage to Pontus on the ship of which Hyblesius was in command, and on the freight to Pontus, and that he was himself part-owner of the ship with Hyblesius; that slaves of his own were passengers on the ship; and that, when the ship was wrecked, his servants were present and reported the fact to him, and also the further fact that the ship, having no cargo, was wrecked while sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum.” [34]”
Erasicles deposes that he sailed with Hyblesius as pilot of the ship to Pontus, and when the ship was sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum he knows that the ship had no cargo; and that Apollodorus, the very man who is now defendant in this suit, had no wine on board the vessel, but that about eighty jars of Coan wine were being conveyed for a certain man of Theodosia.
Hippias, son of Athenippus, of Halicarnassus, deposes that he sailed with Hyblesius as supercargo of the ship, and that when the ship was sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum, Apollodorus put on board the ship one or two hampers of wool, eleven or twelve jars of salt fish, and goat-skins — two or three bundles — and nothing else.
In addition to these, written affidavits were submitted by Euphiletus, son of Damotimus, of Aphidnae, Hippias, son of Timoxenus, of Thymaetadae, Sostratus, son of Philip, of Histiaea, Archenomides, son of Strato, of Thria. and Philtiades, son of Ctesicles, of Xypetê.” [35]
Such is the shamelessness of these men. Now, men of the jury, take thought in your own minds, whether you ever knew or heard of any people importing wine by way of trade from Pontus to Athens, and especially Coan wine. The very opposite is, of course, the case. Wine is carried to Pontus from places around us, from Peparethus, and Cos, and Thasos and Mendê, and from all sorts of other places; whereas the things imported here from Pontus are quite different. [36]
When we refused to let them off, and questioned them as to whether any of the goods were saved in Pontus, the defendant, Lacritus, answered that one hundred Cyzicene staters were saved; and that his brother had lent this sum in gold in Pontus to a certain shipowner of Phaselis, a fellow-countryman and friend of his; and that he was unable to get it back, so that this also was as good as lost. [37] This is what was said by this fellow, Lacritus; but the agreement, men of the jury, does not say this. It bids these men to take on board a return cargo, and bring it back to Athens; not to lend our property without our consent to whomsoever in Pontus they pleased, but to deliver it in its entirety to us at Athens, until we should recover all the money which we had lent.
Now, please read the agreement again.” Agreement “ [38]
Does the agreement, men of the jury, bid these men lend our money, and that to a man whom we do not know, and have never seen? Or does it bid them put on board their ship a return cargo and convey it to Athens, and there display it to us, and deliver it to us in its entirety? [39] The agreement does not permit anything to have greater effect than the terms contained in it, nor that anyone should bring forward
any law or decree or anything else whatever to contravene its provisions; yet these men from the very outset paid no heed to this agreement, but made use of our money as if it had been their very own; so rascally are they as sophists and dishonest as men. [40] For my own part, I swear by Zeus the king and by all the gods, I never made it a matter of reproach to anyone, men of the jury, nor blamed him, if he chose to be a sophist and to pay money to Isocrates; I should be mad if I concerned myself about anything of that sort. But, by Zeus, I do not think it right that men, because they look down on people and think themselves clever, should covet the property of others and seek to defraud them, trusting in their power of speech. That is the part of a rascally sophist, who should be made to suffer for it. [41] This fellow Lacritus, men of the jury, has not come into court relying on the justice of his case, but realizing perfectly what he and his brothers have done in the matter of this loan; and because he considers that he is clever and will easily provide arguments to defend evil practices, he thinks he will lead you astray just as he pleases. For it is precisely in these matters that he professes himself to be clever, and he asks money, and collects pupils, promising to instruct them in these very things. [42] In the first place, he instructed his own brothers in this art, which you, men of the jury, see to be evil and unjust — the art of borrowing on your exchange money for a maritime adventure, and then defrauding the lenders, and refusing to pay them. How could there be men baser than the one who teaches such an art, or than those who learn of him? Since, then, he is so clever, and trusts in his power of speaking and in the one thousand drachmae which he has paid to his teacher, [43] bid him show you, either that they did not borrow the money from us, or that, having borrowed it, they have paid it back; or that agreements for overseas trade ought not to be binding; or that it is right for people to use money for some other purpose than that for which they received it under agreement. Let him prove to you whatever one of these propositions he chooses. If he can so prove it to you who sit to decide cases of mercantile contracts, I certainly concede that he is the cleverest of men. But I know well that he would not be able to prove it to you or induce you to believe any one of them. [44]
But apart from all this, suppose, by heaven, men of the jury, that the case were reversed, — that it was not this man’s dead brother who owed me the money, but that I owed his brother a talent, or eighty minae, or more or less; do you fancy that this fellow, Lacritus, would employ the same language that he now so lavishly uses? Or would say that he is not the heir and has nothing to do with his brother’s affairs? Or that he would not exact payment from me mercilessly, as he has from the others who owed anything to the deceased, whether in Phaselis or anywhere else? [45] And, if any one of us, being defendant in a suit brought by him, had dared to enter a special plea declaring that the action was not one that could be brought into court, I know well that he would have waxed indignant, and would have protested to you, declaring that he was suffering treatment that was outrageous and contrary to law, if anyone voted that his action, being a mercantile one, was not one that could be brought. Then, Lacritus, if you consider this just for yourself, why should it not be just for me? Do not the same laws stand written for us all? And have we not all the same rights in regard to mercantile suits? [46] But he is a man so vile, so surpassing all human kind in baseness, that he seeks to induce you to vote that this mercantile action cannot be brought when you are now sitting to judge mercantile suits.
What is it you would have, Lacritus? Is it not enough that we should be robbed of the money we lent you but should we also be given over to prison by you, if we do not pay the costs adjudged against us? [47] Would it not be outrageous, and cruel, and shameful, for you, men of the jury, if those who have lent money in your port for an adventure overseas, and have been defrauded of it, should be led off to prison by those who borrowed and are seeking to evade payment? Is it this, Lacritus, that you would have these gentlemen sanction? But, men of the jury, where are we to obtain justice in the matter of commercial contracts? Before what magistrates, or at what time? Before the Eleven? But they bring into court burglars and thieves and other evil-doers who are charged with capital crimes. Before the Archon? [48] But it is for heiresses, and orphans, and parents that the Archon is appointed to care. Then before the King-archon? But we are not gymnesiarchs, nor are we indicting anyone for impiety. Or will the Polemarch bring us into court? Yes, for disregard of a patron, or for having no patron. Well then, the Generals are left. But they appoint the trierarchs; they bring no mercantile suits into court. [49] I, however, am a merchant, and you are the brother and heir of a merchant, who got from me money for a mercantile venture. Before whom, then, should this suit be entered? Tell me, Lacritus; only say what is just and according to law. But there lives no man clever enough to be able to say anything that is just in connection with a case like yours. [50]
It is not in these matters only, men of the jury, that I have suffered outrageous wrongs at the hands of this man Lacritus; for, besides being defrauded of my money, I should have been brought into the gravest danger, so far as his power went, if the agreement made with these men had not come to my aid by bearing witness that I lent the money for a voyage to Pontus and back to Athens. For you know, men of the jury, how severe the law is, if any Athenian transports corn to any other port than the port of Athens, or lends money for use in any market save that of Athens; you know what penalties there are in such cases, and how severe and to be dreaded they are. [51]
However, read them the law itself, that they may have more exact information.”Law
It shall be unlawful for any Athenian or any alien residing at Athens or for any person over whom they have control, to lend money on any vessel which is not going to bring to Athens grain or the other articles specifically mentioned. And if any man lends out money contrary to this decree, information and an account of the money shall be laid before the harbor-masters in the same manner as is provided in regard to the ship and the grain. And he shall have no right to bring action for the money which he has lent for a voyage to any other place than to Athens, and no magistrate shall bring any such suit to trial.” [52]
The law, men of the jury, is thus severe. But these men, the most abominable of humankind, although it stands expressly written in the agreement that the money should come back to Athens, allowed what they borrowed from us at Athens to be conveyed to Chios. For when the Phaselite shipowner wanted to borrow other money in Pontus from a certain Chian, and the Chian declared he would not lend it unless he should receive as security all the goods which the shipowner had on board or in his keeping, and unless those who had made the former loan should consent to this, these men nevertheless permitted these goods of ours to become security for the Chian, and put them all into his control. [53] On these terms they sailed back from Pontus with the Phaselite shipowner and the Chian who had made the loan, and put into Thieves’ Harbor, without anchoring in your port. And now, men of the jury, money which was lent for a voyage from Athens to Pontus and back again from Pontus to Athens has been brought to Chios by these men. [54] It is, therefore, just as I assumed at the beginning of my speech — you are wronged no less than we who lent the money. Consider, men of the jury, how the wrong touches you also. When a man seeks to set himself above your laws, and makes of no effect nautical agreements, but does away with them, and has sent away to Chios money lent here on our exchange, is it not clear that such a man wrongs you as well as us [55]
My words, men of the jury, are addressed to these people only, for it was to them that I lent the money. It will remain for them to deal with that Phaselite shipowner, their own countryman, to whom they say they lent the money unknown to us and contrary to the agreement. For we do not know what transactions were entered into by them with their countryman; but they know themselves. [56] This we hold to be a just course; and we beg you, men of the jury, to come to the aid of us who are being wronged, and to punish those who devise evil and resort to sophistries, as these men do. If you do thi
s, you will be found to have decided in accordance with your own interests, and will rid yourselves of all the rascalities of unprincipled men, which certain ones of them are employing in regard to maritime contracts.
FOR PHORMIO
Translated by A. T. Murray
Phormio’s inexperience in speaking, and his utter helplessness, you all see for yourselves, men of Athens. It is necessary for us, his friends, to state and set forth for you the facts, which we know full well from having heard him often relate them; in order that, when you have duly learned from us and have come to know the rights of the case, you may give a verdict that is both just and in harmony with your oaths. [2] We have put in a special plea in bar of action, not that we may evade the issue and waste time, but that, if the defendant shows that he has committed no wrong whatsoever, he may win in your court an acquittal which will be final. For all that in the minds of other people brings about a firm and lasting settlement without engaging in a trial before you — [3] all this Phormio here has done; he has done many kindnesses to this man Apollodorus; he has duly paid and delivered up to the plaintiff everything belonging to him of which he had been left in control, and has since received a discharge from all further claims; nevertheless, as you see, because Phormio can no longer submit to his demands, Apollodorus has instituted this vexatious and baseless suit for twenty talents. From the beginning, therefore, I shall try to set forth for you as briefly as possible all the transactions Phormio has had with Pasio and Apollodorus. From these, I am sure, the malicious conduct of the plaintiff will become clear to you, and at the same time, having heard this recital, you will determine that the action is not maintainable. [4]