Against Lacritus

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.