by Demosthenes
Well, I think that what I have said is by itself a sufficient answer to their shameless claims; but that you may be assured, men of Athens, on other grounds as well that my father committed no wrong in walling in the land, and that these men have uttered nothing but falsehoods, I shall try to explain to you even more clearly. [9] That the land is our private property is admitted by these men themselves, and this being the case, men of Athens, if you could see the place, you would know at once that their suit is groundless. For this reason I wanted to refer the case to impartial persons who know the locality, but these men refused, although they now try to maintain that they wished it. This, too, will be made clear to you all in a moment; but give close heed, men of Athens, I beg you in the name of Zeus and the gods! [10] For the space between my property and theirs is a road, and as a hilly country encircles them, unluckily for the farms, the water that flows down runs, as it happens, partly into the road, and partly on to the farms. And in particular, that which pours into the road, whenever it has free course, flows down along the road, but when there is any stoppage, then it of necessity overflows upon the farms. [11] Now this particular piece of land, as it happened, was inundated after a heavy downpour had occurred. As a result of neglect, when my father was not yet in possession of the land, but a man held it who utterly disliked the neighborhood, and preferred to live in the city, the water overflowed two or three times, wrought damage to the land, and was more and more making itself a path. For this reason my father, when he saw it （so I am informed by those acquainted with the circumstances）, inasmuch as the neighbors also began to encroach upon the property and walk across it, built around it this enclosing wall. [12] To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, I shall bring before you as witnesses those who know the facts, and circumstantial evidence, men of Athens, far stronger than any testimony. Callicles says that I am doing him an injury by having walled off the watercourse; but I shall show that this is private land and no watercourse. [13] If it were not admitted to be our private property, we should perhaps be guilty of this wrongdoing, if we had fenced off a piece of public land; but as it is, they do not dispute this, and on the land there are trees planted, vines and figs. Yet who would think of planting these in a watercourse? Nobody, surely. Again, who would think of burying his own ancestors there? No one, I think, would do this either. [14] Well, both these things have been done. For not only were the trees planted before my father built the wall, but the tombs are old, and were built before we acquired the property. Yet, since this is the case, what stronger argument could there be, men of Athens? The facts afford manifest proof.
Now please take all these depositions, and read them.” Depositions “ [15]
Men of Athens, you hear the depositions. Do they not appear to you to testify expressly that it is a place full of trees, and that it contains some tombs and other things which are to be found in most private pieces of land? Do they not prove also that the land was walled in during the lifetime of their father without opposition being made by these men or any other of the neighbors? [16]
It is worth your while, men of the jury, to hear some remarks also about the other statements made by Callicles. And first, consider whether any one of you has ever seen or heard of a watercourse existing by the side of a road. I think that in the whole country there is not a single one. For what could induce any man to make a channel through his private lands for water which would otherwise have gone rushing down a public road? [17] And what one of you, whether in the country or the city would allow water passing along the highway to flow into his farm or his house? On the contrary, when it forces its way in, is it not our habit to dam or wall it off? But the plaintiff demands of me that I let the water from the road flow into my land, and, when it has passed beyond his, turn it back again into the road. Well then, the neighbor who farms the land next to his will make complaint; for it is plain that they too will have the same right to protest that the plaintiff has. [18] But surely, if I am afraid to divert the water into the road, I should be a rash man indeed, if I were to turn it into land. For when I am being sued for penalty because the water flowing from the road spread over the plaintiff’s land, what treatment in heaven’s name must I expect to meet at the hands of those who suffer damage from the water overflowing from my own land? But if, once I have got the water on my property, I am not to be allowed to drain it off either into the road or onto private land, men of the jury, what course in the name of the gods remains for me? I take it, Callicles will not force me to drink it all up! [19] Well then, after suffering these annoyances at their hands and many other grievous ones as well, I must be content, not indeed to win my suit, but to escape paying a further penalty! If, men of the jury, there had been a watercourse below me to receive the water, I should perhaps have been wrong in not letting it in on my land, just as on certain other farms there are recognized watercourses in which the first landowners let the water flow （as they do the gutter-drains from the houses）, and others again receive it from them in like manner. But on the land in question no one gives the water over to me or receives it from me. How, then, can it be a watercourse? [20] An overflow of water has ere now, I imagine, often done damage to many who have not guarded against it, just as it has in this case to the plaintiff. But this is the thing that is most outrageous of all, that Callicles, when the water overflows on his land, brings up huge stones and walls it off, but has brought suit for damages against me on the ground that my father was guilty of wrongdoing, because when the same thing happened to his land, he built an enclosing wall. And yet, if all those who have suffered loss because water has flooded their lands in this region are to bring suit against me, my fortune, even if multiplied many times, would not meet the costs. [21] But these men are so different from the others, that, although they have suffered no damage, as I shall presently make clear to you, while many others have suffered damage in many grievous ways, they alone have had the effrontery to sue me. Yet anyone else would have had better reason to do this than they have; for even if they have suffered damage, it has been through their own fault, though they bring a malicious suit against me; whereas the others, not to speak of anything else, are open to no such imputation.
But that I may not speak confusedly of all matters at once, take, please, the depositions of the neighbors.” Depositions “ [22]
Is it not, then, an outrageous thing, men of the jury, that, while these people have made no complaint against me, although they suffered such heavy damages, nor has anyone else of those who suffered misfortune, but they have accepted their lot, this man should bring a malicious suit? But that he is himself at fault, first in that he made the road narrower by extending his wall beyond the property line, in order to enclose the trees of the road, and, secondly, in that he threw the rubbish into it, from which actions it resulted that he made the road higher as well as narrower — of this you will presently gain clearer knowledge from the depositions. [23] But I shall now endeavor to show you that he has brought a suit for such heavy damages against me without having suffered any loss or damage worthy of mention. Before they undertook this malicious action against me, my mother and theirs were intimate friends and used to visit one another, as was natural, since both lived in the country and were neighbors, and since, furthermore, their husbands had been friends while they lived. [24] Well, my mother went to see theirs, and the latter told her with weeping what had happened, and showed her the effects; this, men of the jury, is the way in which I learned all the facts. And I am telling you just what I heard from my mother; — as I speak the truth, so may many blessings be mine; if I am lying, may the opposite befall me. She averred that she saw, and heard from their mother, that some of the barley got wet （she saw them drying it）, but not so much as three medimni, and about half a medimnus of wheat flour; also, she said, a jar of olive oil had tilted over, but had not been damaged. [25] So trivial, men of the jury, was the loss that befell them, yet for this I am made defendant in a suit with damages fixed at a thousand drachma
e! If he repaired an old wall, this surely ought not to be charged against me — a wall moreover which neither fell down nor suffered any damage. So, if I were to concede that I was to blame for everything that occurred, the things that got wet were these. [26] But since in the beginning my father was within his rights in enclosing the land and these people never made any complaint during the lapse of so long a time, and the others who were severely damaged make no complaint any more than they; and since it is the custom of all of you to drain the water from your houses and lands into the road, and not, heaven knows, to let it flow in from the road, what need is there to say more? These facts of themselves make it clear that the suit against me is a baseless and malicious one, since I am guilty of no wrong, and they have not suffered the damage they allege. [27]
However, to prove to you that they have thrown the rubbish into the road, and by advancing the wall have made the road narrower; and furthermore that I tendered an oath to their mother, and challenged them to have my mother swear in the same terms. Take, please, the depositions and the challenge” Depositions ““ Challenge “ [28]
Could there, then, be people more shameless than these, or more plainly malicious pettifoggers — men who, after advancing their own wall and raising the level of the road, are suing others for damages, and that too for a fixed sum of a thousand drachmae, when they have themselves lost fifty at most? And yet consider, men of the jury, how many people in the farm-lands have suffered from floods in Eleusis and in other places. But, good heavens, I take it each one of these is not going to claim the right to recover damages from his neighbors. [29] And I, who might well be angry at their having made the road narrower and raised its level, keep quiet, while these men have such superabundance of audacity, it seems, that they even bring malicious suits against those whom they have injured! But surely, Callicles, if you have the right to enclose your land, we too had the right to enclose ours. And if my father wronged you by enclosing his, you are now wronging me by thus enclosing yours. [30] For it is evident that, since you have built your obstructing wall with large stones, the water will flow back upon my land, and when it so chances, may with an unlooked-for rush throw down my wall. However, I do not on this account claim damages from these men, but I shall submit to the misfortune, and shall try to protect my own property. For I think the plaintiff is acting wisely in walling in his land, but when he brings suit against me, I hold that he is the basest of men and that some ailment has impaired his wits. [31]
Do not be surprised, men of the jury, at the eagerness of the plaintiff or even at his having dared to bring a false charge against me now. For in a previous instance also, when he induced his cousin to lay claim to my land, he produced an agreement which had never been made. And now he has obtained an award against me for default in a similar suit, entering in the indictment the name of Callarus, one of my slaves. For in addition to their other pieces of rascality they have devised this scheme as well — they bring this same suit against Callarus. [32] And yet what slave would wall in his master’s land without orders from his master? But having no other charge to bring against Callarus, they lodge suit against him regarding the wall which my father built more than fifteen years before his death. And if I give up my property, either by selling it to these men or by exchanging it for other land, Callarus is guilty of no wrong, but if I do not choose to give it up to them, then they are being wronged by Callarus in all manner of grievous ways, and they look out for an arbitrator who will adjudge the property to them, or for some sort of compromise by which they will get possession of it! [33]
Now, men of the jury, if those who lay plots against others and bring baseless suits are to have the best of it, all that I have said would prove of no avail; but if you abominate people of that sort, and vote as justice demands, then, as Callicles has suffered no loss and has in no way been wronged either by Callarus or by my father, I do not see what need there is of my saying more. [34]
To prove to you, however, that previously in his designs upon my property he got the help of his cousin, and that he has in his own person obtained an award against Callarus in another such suit — looking upon me with despite because I value the man highly, — and that he has again brought another suit against Callarus, — to prove all these things the clerk shall read you the depositions.” Depositions “ [35]
Do not, then, men of the jury, I beg you in the name of Zeus and the gods, leave me as the prey of these men, when I have done no wrong. I do not care so much about the penalty, hard as that is on persons of small means; but they are absolutely driving me out of the deme by their persecution and baseless charges. To prove that I have done no wrong, I was ready to submit the matter for settlement to fair and impartial men who knew the facts, and I was ready to swear the customary oath; for I thought that would be the strongest proof I could bring before you, who are yourselves upon oath.
Please take the challenge and the remaining depositions.” Challenge ““ Depositions”
AGAINST DIONYSODORUS
Translated by Norman W. DeWitt
I am a sharer in this loan, men of the jury. We, who have engaged in the business of overseas trade and put our money in the hands of others, have come to know one thing very clearly: that in all respects the borrower has the best of us. He received the money in cash which was duly acknowledged, and has left us on a scrap of paper which he bought for a couple of coppers, his agreement to do the right thing. We on our part do not promise to give the money, we give it outright to the borrower. [2] What, then, do we rely upon, and what security do we get when we risk our money? We rely upon you, men of the jury, and upon your laws, which ordain that all agreements into which a man voluntarily enters with another shall be valid. But in my opinion there is no use in your laws or in any contract, if the one who receives the money is not thoroughly upright in character, and does not either fear you or regard the rights of the one making the loan. [3] Now Dionysodorus here does neither the one nor the other, but has come to such a pitch of audacity, that although he borrowed from us three thousand drachmae upon his ship on the condition that it should sail back to Athens, and although we ought to have got back our money in the harvest-season of last year, he took his ship to Rhodes and there unladed his cargo and sold it in defiance of the contract and of your laws; and from Rhodes again he despatched his ship to Egypt, and from thence back to Rhodes, and to us who lent our money at Athens he has up to this day neither paid back our money nor produced to us our security. [4] Nay, for two years now he has been using our money for his profit, keeping the loan and the trade and the ship that was mortgaged to us, and notwithstanding this he has come into your court, intending plainly to get us fined with the sixth part of the damages, and to put us in prison, besides robbing us of our money. We therefore, men of Athens, beg and implore you one and all to come to our aid, if you find that we are being wronged. But first I want to explain to you how the loan was contracted; for thus it will be easiest for you also to follow the case. [5]
This Dionysodorus, men of Athens, and his partner Parmeniscus came to us last year in the month Metageitnion, and said that they desired to borrow money on their ship on the terms that she should sail to Egypt and from Egypt to Rhodes or Athens, and they agreed to pay the interest for the voyage to either one of these ports. [6] We answered, men of the jury, that we would not lend money for a voyage to any other port than Athens, and so they agreed to return here, and with this understanding they borrowed from us three thousand drachmae on the security of their ship for the voyage out and home; and they entered into a written agreement to these terms. In the contract Pamphilus here was named the lender; but I, although not mentioned, was a sharer in the loan.
And first the clerk shall read to you the agreement.” Agreement “ [7]
In accordance with this agreement, men of the jury, Dionysodorus here and his partner Parmeniscus, when they had got the money from us, despatched their ship from Athens to Egypt. Parmeniscus sailed in charge of the ship; Dionysodorus
remained at Athens. All these men, I would have you know, men of the jury, were underlings and confederates of Cleomenes, the former ruler of Egypt, who from the time he received the government did no small harm to your state, or rather to the rest of the Greeks as well, by buying up grain for resale and fixing its price, and in this he had these men as his confederates. [8] Some of them would despatch the stuff from Egypt, others would sail in charge of the shipments, while still others would remain here in Athens and dispose of the consignments. Then those who remained here would send letters to those abroad advising them of the prevailing prices, so that if grain were dear in your market, they might bring it here, and if the price should fall, they might put in to some other port. This was the chief reason, men of the jury, why the price of grain advanced; it was due to such letters and conspiracies. [9] Well then, when these men despatched their ship from Athens, they left the price of grain here pretty high, and for this reason they submitted to have the clause written in the agreement binding them to sail to Athens and to no other port. Afterwards, however, men of the jury, when the ships from Sicily had arrived, and the prices of grain here were falling, and their ship had reached Egypt, the defendant straightway sent a man to Rhodes to inform his partner Parmeniscus of the state of things here, well knowing that his ship would be forced to touch at Rhodes. [10] The outcome was that Parmeniscus, the defendant’s partner, when he had received the letter sent by him and had learned the price of grain prevailing here, discharged his cargo of grain at Rhodes and sold it there in defiance of the agreement, men of the jury, and of the penalties to which they had of their own will bound themselves, in case they should commit any breach of the agreement, and in contempt also of your laws which ordain that shipowners and supercargoes shall sail to the port to which they have agreed to sail or else be liable to the severest penalties. [11]