Against Lacritus

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.

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.

Read the deposition.

The 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.

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[*](Certified, that is, as to weight and fineness. Tampering with gold and silver coins seems not to be a merely modern device.); 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.

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.

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.[*](On the right of reprisal, cf. Dem. 35.13 above, and see Smith, Dictionary of Antiquities, art. Sylae.) 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.

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.

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,[*](Some small inlet, which cannot be identified with certainty, used by thieves and smugglers. See Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 450.) 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.

Well, their vessel lay at anchor there for more than twenty-five days, and these men walked about in your sample-market.[*](A place in the market where samples of goods could be displayed. Compare Dem. 50.24.) 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.[*](The books of the harbor-masters would show whether the tax of 2 percent had been collected, and thus whether any goods had been landed.)

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.[*](A sharp thrust at the sophist, ever ready to make the worse the better reason.)

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,[*](Panticapaeum is the modern Kertsch, and Theodosia the modern Kaffa in the Crimea.) 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.

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,[*](The speaker’s contention is that even if the ship was wrecked, that fact does not release Lacritus from his obligation; for the loan made by Androcles was secured not by the ship, which appears to have been mortgaged to Antipater, but upon the cargo of Mendaean wine and the return cargo which was to have been brought from Pontus. The wares lost (by jettison when the ship was damaged) were not, the speaker holds, the return cargo. That the ship was not actually lost seems a necessary inference from Dem. 35.28, where it is stated that she returned to Athens.) 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[*](Citium is a port in Cyprus.) 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.

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.

The 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,[*](No full cargo, that is; merely the salt fish and the Coan wine mentioned above.) was wrecked while sailing along the coast to Theodosia from Panticapaeum.

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,[*](If this clause is not an interpolation, we must assume that Apollodorus was being sued as co-defendant with Lacritus. But this whole inserted document may well be spurious.) 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[*](See note 17 above.) 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.[*](Aphidnae was a deme of the tribe Acantis; Thymaetadae, a deme of the tribe Hippothontis; Thria, a deme of the tribe Oeneïs; and Xypetê, a deme of the tribe Cecropis.)

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[*](Peparethus, Cos, and Thasos were all islands in the Aegean.) and Mendê, and from all sorts of other places; whereas the things imported here from Pontus are quite different.

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[*](See note 11 on Dem. 34.23.) 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.

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.

The Agreement is Read Again

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?

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.

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.