Against Lacritus

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.