by Demosthenes
When anyone asks him, “What valid charges will you be able to make against Nicobulus?” he says, “The Athenians hate money-lenders; Nicobulus is an odious fellow; he walks fast, he talks loud, and he carries a cane; and （he says） all these things count in my favor.” He is not ashamed to talk in this way, and also fancies that his hearers do not understand that this is the reasoning, not of one who has suffered wrong, but of a malicious pettifogger. [53] I, for my part, do not regard a money-lender as a wrongdoer, although certain of the class may justly be detested by you, seeing that they make a trade of it, and have no thought of pity or of anything else, except gain. Since I have myself often borrowed money, and not merely lent it to the plaintiff, I know these people well; and I do not like them, either but, by Zeus, I do not defraud them, nor bring malicious charges against them. [54] But if a man has done business as I have, going to sea on perilous journeys, and from his small profits has made these loans, wishing not only to confer favors, but to prevent his money from slipping through his fingers without his knowing it, why should one set him down in that class? — unless you mean this, that anyone who lends money to you ought to be detested by the public.
Read me, please, the depositions, to show what manner of man I am to those who lend money, and to those who need my help.” Depositions “ [55]
Such am I, Pantaenetus, the fast walker, and such are you, who walk slowly. However, regarding my gait and my manner of speech, I will tell you the whole truth, men of the jury, with all frankness. I am perfectly aware — I am not blind to the fact — that I am not one of those favored by nature in these respects, nor of those who are an advantage to themselves. For if in matters in which I reap no profit, I annoy others, surely I am to this extent unfortunate. [56] But what is to come of it? If I lend money to so-and-so, am I for this reason also to lose my suit? Surely not. The plaintiff cannot point out any baseness or villainy attaching to me, nor does a single one among you, many as you are, know any such thing against me. As to these other qualities, each one of us, I take it, is as nature happened to make him; and to fight against nature, when one has these characteristics, is no easy task （for otherwise we should not differ from one another）; though to recognize them in looking on another and to criticize them is easy. [57] But which one of these qualities has any bearing on my dispute with you, Pantaenetus? You have suffered many grievous wrongs? Well, you have had satisfaction. Not from me? No; for you were not wronged in any way by me. Otherwise you would never have given me the release, nor, when you were making up your mind to bring suit against Evergus, would you have passed me by; nor would you have demanded that one who had done you many grievous wrongs should undertake to be vendor of the property. Besides, how could I have wronged you, when I was not present or even in the country? [58] Well then, suppose one should grant that Pantaenetus has suffered the greatest possible wrongs, and that everything which he will now allege about these matters is true, this, at least, I presume, you would all admit: that it has happened to others ere now to have suffered many wrongs more serious than pecuniary wrongs. For involuntary homicides, outrages on what is sacred, and many other such crimes are committed; yet in all these cases the fact that they have yielded to persuasion and given a release is appointed for the parties wronged as a limit and settlement of the dispute. [59] And this just principle is so binding among all men, that if anyone having convicted another of involuntary homicide, and clearly shown him to be polluted, subsequently takes pity on him and releases him, he has no longer the right to have the same person driven into exile. Again, if the victim himself before his death releases the murderer from bloodguiltiness, it is not lawful for any of the remaining kinsmen to prosecute; but those whom the laws sentence to banishment and exile and death, upon conviction, if they are once released, are by that word freed from all evil consequences. [60] If, then, when life and all that is most precious are at stake, a release has this power and validity, shall it be without effect when money is at stake, or claims of lesser importance? Surely not. For the thing most to be feared is, not that I should fail to obtain justice in your court, but that you should now in our day do away with a just practice, established from the beginning of time.
AGAINST NAUSIMACHUS AND XENOPEITHES
Translated by A. T. Murray
Inasmuch as the laws, men of the jury, have granted that a special plea may be entered in cases where a man, after giving a release and discharge, nevertheless brings suit, and as both of these have been given to our father by Nausimachus and Xenopeithes who have commenced suit against us, we have pleaded, as you have just now heard, that their suit is not admissible. [2] I shall make of you all a just and reasonable request: first, that you listen to my words with goodwill, and, secondly, that if you think that I am being wronged and made defendant in a suit which has no valid basis, you render me the succor which is my due. The damages claimed in the action are, as you have heard, thirty minae; but the sum for which we are really being sued is four talents. For there are two of them, and they have entered four suits against us, all for a like amount, each for three thousand drachmae damages; and now on a complaint for thirty minae we are brought to trial for so large a sum. [3] The malicious actions of these men, and the guile with which they have proceeded against us, you will come to know from the facts themselves. But first the clerk shall read to you the depositions which show that they released our father from the charges which they made on the matter of his guardianship; for it is on this ground that we entered our plea that the action is not maintainable.
Please read these depositions.” Depositions “ [4]
That they entered suit, men of the jury, regarding the guardianship; that they dropped those actions; and that they have in their possession the sums of money agreed upon, you hear from the witnesses. That the laws do not allow suit to be entered afresh regarding matters which have been thus settled, I presume you know, even if I say nothing about the matter; nevertheless I want to read you the law itself.
Read the law.” Law “ [5]
You hear the law, men of the jury, expressly stating the several cases in which there shall be no actions. One of them （and it is as binding as any of the others） is that suit may not be brought in matters for which anyone has given a release and discharge. Yet, although the release was thus given in the presence of numerous witnesses, and although the law manifestly absolves us, these men have come to such a pitch of shamelessness and audacity, [6] that, when fourteen years have elapsed from the time when they gave my father a release, and twenty-two years after they had first indicted him, when my father was now dead, with whom the settlement had been made and also the guardians who after his death had charge of our property, when their own mother, too, was dead, who was well-informed regarding all these matters, and the arbitrators, the witnesses, and almost everybody else, if I may so say, counting our inexperience and necessary ignorance a boon to themselves, they have instituted these suits against us, and have the audacity to make statements which are neither just nor reasonable. [7] They declare that they did not sell their father’s estate for the money which they received, nor did they give up the property, but that all that was left them — credits, furniture, and even money — still belongs to them. I, for my part, know by hearsay that Xenopeithes and Nausicrates left their entire property in outstanding debts, and possessed very little tangible property; and that when the debts had been collected and some furniture and slaves had been sold, their guardians purchased the farms and lodging-houses, which our opponents received from them. [8] If there had been no dispute about these matters before, and no suit had been entered charging maladministration of the property, it would have been another story; but since these men brought suit against our father in the matter of his general conduct as guardian and recovered damages, all these matters were at that time released. For our opponents, I take it, did not bring suit for the mere name “mal-administration in guardianship,” but for the money; nor did the guardians buy off this name with the mo
ney which they paid, but they bought off the claims. [9]
That, therefore, these men have no right of action against us for the debts which our father collected before the settlement, or, in general, for monies which he received by virtue of his guardianship, seeing that they have given a release for their claims, I think you have all adequately learned from the laws themselves and from the release. Moreover, that it is impossible that the collection of these funds should have been made subsequently （this is the story they are making up to lead you astray）, I wish to prove. [10] As for my father, they cannot charge that he received them; for he died three or four months after the settlement was made with them; and that Demaretus, whom our father left as our guardian, could not have received them either （for they have written his name also in their complaint）, this, too, I shall show. [11] These men are themselves our strongest witnesses; for they will be shown never to have brought suit against Demaretus in his lifetime; but, more than that, anyone who examines and studies the case itself will see, not only that he did not receive the money, but that it was impossible that he should have received it. For the debt was in Bosporus, a place which Demaretus never visited; how, then, could he have collected it? Ah, but, they will say, he sent someone to get the money. [12] But look at the matter in this way. Hermonax owed these men one hundred staters, which he had received from Nausicrates. Aristaechmus was for sixteen years the guardian and caretaker of these men. Therefore, the money which Hermonax paid in his own person after these men had come of age, he had not paid when they were minors; for he certainly did not pay the same debt twice. Now is there any man so silly as voluntarily to pay money to one not entitled to it, who demanded it by letter, when he had for so long a time evaded payment to the rightful owners? For my part, I think there is not. [13]
However, to prove that I am speaking the truth, — that our father died immediately after the settlement, that these men never brought suit against Demaretus for this money, and that he absolutely never went to sea, nor visited Bosporus, take the depositions.” Depositions “ [14]
Well then, that our father did not collect the money after the release; that no one would voluntarily have paid the money, if Demaretus had sent someone to get it; and that he himself neither put out to sea nor visited Bosporus, has been made clear to you from the dates and the depositions. I wish, then, to show you that their whole statement too of the case is absolute falsehood. They have written in the complaint which they are now prosecuting, that we owe the money, inasmuch as our father received it in payment, and passed it over to them as a debt due and payable in his account of his guardianship.
Take, and read me, please, the complaint itself.” Complaint “ [15]
You hear it stated in the complaint, “inasmuch as Aristaechmus passed the debt over to me in his account of his guardianship.” But, when they brought suit against my father in the matter of his guardianship, they wrote the very opposite of this; for they plainly charged him with not rendering an account.
Read, please, the complaint itself, which they then brought against my father.” Complaint “ [16]
In what account, pray, Xenopeithes and Nausimachus, do you now charge that he passed the debt over to you? For at one time you brought suit and demanded money on the ground that he rendered no account. But if it is to be permitted you to bring your malicious charge on both grounds, and at one time you collected money because he did not hand something over to you, and at another are suing him on the ground that he did hand it over, there is nothing to prevent your looking for some third ground after this, so as to commence proceedings afresh. But that is not what the laws state: they declare that suit may be brought once only against the same person for the same acts. [17]
Now, men of the jury, that you may know that they not only have suffered no wrong in the present case, but that they are bringing suit in defiance of all your laws, I wish to cite to you this statute also, which expressly states that, if five years have elapsed and they have brought no suit, it is no longer permitted to orphans to bring suit regarding claims connected with guardianship.
The clerk will read you this law.” Law “ [18]
You hear the law, men of the jury, flatly stating that if they do not bring suit within five years, they have no longer the right to sue. But we did bring suit, they may say. Yes, and you made a settlement, too; so you have no right to bring a fresh suit. Else it would be an outrageous thing, if for original wrongdoings the law does not allow suit to be brought by orphans after five years against guardians who have not been released, but now in the twentieth year you are to maintain an action against us, the children of your guardians, for matters concerning which you did give them a release. [19]
But I hear that they are going to shun arguments based upon the facts of the case and upon the laws, and are prepared to assert that a large estate was left them and that they were defrauded of it; and that they will advance as a proof of this the large sum asked as damages in their original suit, and they will wail over their orphanhood, and will go through the guardianship accounts. These and such-like points are the ones upon which they have fixed their trust, and by which they hope to beguile you. [20] For my own part, I think that the large sum asked as damages in the suits then brought is a stronger proof for us, that our father was the victim of a malicious action, than for them, that they were being defrauded of a large estate. For if he could prove his claims for eighty talents, no man in the world would have accepted three talents in settlement; whereas anyone, being defendant in a guardianship suit involving such large sums, would have paid three talents to buy off the risk and the advantages with which at that time nature supplied these men. They were orphans and young, and you were ignorant of their real characters; and everyone says that in your courts these things have more weight than strong arguments. [21]
Moreover, I think I can also prove that you might with good reason refuse to hear a word from them in regard to the guardianship. For suppose one should grant that they have suffered the greatest possible wrongs, and that everything which they will now allege about these matters is true, this, at least, I presume you would all admit: that it has happened to others ere now to have suffered many wrongs more serious than pecuniary wrongs. For involuntary homicides, outrages on what is sacred, and many other such crimes are committed; yet in all these cases the fact they have yielded to persuasion and given a release is appointed for the parties wronged as a limit and settlement of the dispute. [22] And this just principle is so binding among all men, that, if one, having convicted another of involuntary homicide, and clearly shown him to be polluted, subsequently takes pity upon him, and releases him, he has no longer the right to have the same person driven into exile. If, then, when life and all that is most precious are at stake, a release has this power and validity, shall it be without effect, when money is at stake, or claims of lesser importance? Surely not. For the thing most to be feared is, not that I should fail to obtain justice in your court, but that a just practice, established from the beginning of time, should now be done away with. [23]
“They did not let our property,” they will perhaps say. No; for your uncle Xenopeithes did not want it let, but, after Nicidas had denounced him for this, induced the jurors to allow him to administer it; and this everybody knows. “They robbed us of huge sums.” Well, for this you have received from them the damages upon which you agreed; and, I take it, you are not entitled to recover it again from me. [24] But, that you may not think there is anything in all this — it is of course not fair （how could it be?） after having come to a settlement with the guilty parties, to accuse persons who know nothing about the case — none the less, Xenopeithes and Nausimachus, if you have the idea that your claims are so marvellously valid, pay back three talents, and go on with your suit. After having exacted so large a sum for not pressing your charges, you are bound to keep silent until you have paid this back — not to make the charges and keep the money; that is the very extreme of unfair dealing. [25]