Against Lacritus

This fellow Lacritus, men of the jury, has not come into court relying on the justice of his case, but realizing perfectly what he and his brothers have done in the matter of this loan; and because he considers that he is clever and will easily provide arguments to defend evil practices,[*](The close parallel between this passage and the portrayal of the school of Socrates in Aristoph. Cl. will hardly escape the reader.) he thinks he will lead you astray just as he pleases. For it is precisely in these matters that he professes himself to be clever, and he asks money, and collects pupils, promising to instruct them in these very things.

In the first place, he instructed his own brothers in this art, which you, men of the jury, see to be evil and unjust—the art of borrowing on your exchange money for a maritime adventure, and then defrauding the lenders, and refusing to pay them. How could there be men baser than the one who teaches such an art, or than those who learn of him? Since, then, he is so clever, and trusts in his power of speaking and in the one thousand drachmae which he has paid to his teacher,

bid him show you, either that they did not borrow the money from us, or that, having borrowed it, they have paid it back; or that agreements for overseas trade ought not to be binding; or that it is right for people to use money for some other purpose than that for which they received it under agreement. Let him prove to you whatever one of these propositions he chooses. If he can so prove it to you who sit to decide cases of mercantile contracts, I certainly concede that he is the cleverest of men. But I know well that he would not be able to prove it to you or induce you to believe any one of them.

But apart from all this, suppose, by heaven, men of the jury, that the case were reversed,—that it was not this man’s dead brother who owed me the money, but that I owed his brother a talent, or eighty minae, or more or less; do you fancy that this fellow, Lacritus, would employ the same language that he now so lavishly uses? Or would say that he is not the heir and has nothing to do with his brother’s affairs? Or that he would not exact payment from me mercilessly, as he has from the others who owed anything to the deceased, whether in Phaselis or anywhere else?

And, if any one of us, being defendant in a suit brought by him, had dared to enter a special plea declaring that the action was not one that could be brought into court, I know well that he would have waxed indignant, and would have protested to you, declaring that he was suffering treatment that was outrageous and contrary to law, if anyone voted that his action, being a mercantile one, was not one that could be brought. Then, Lacritus, if you consider this just for yourself, why should it not be just for me? Do not the same laws stand written for us all? And have we not all the same rights in regard to mercantile suits?

But he is a man so vile, so surpassing all human kind in baseness, that he seeks to induce you to vote that this mercantile action cannot be brought when you are now sitting to judge mercantile suits.

What is it you would have, Lacritus? Is it not enough that we should be robbed of the money we lent you but should we also be given over to prison by you, if we do not pay the costs adjudged against us?

Would it not be outrageous, and cruel, and shameful, for you, men of the jury, if those who have lent money in your port for an adventure overseas, and have been defrauded of it, should be led off to prison by those who borrowed and are seeking to evade payment? Is it this, Lacritus, that you would have these gentlemen sanction? But, men of the jury, where are we to obtain justice in the matter of commercial contracts? Before what magistrates, or at what time? Before the Eleven[*](A board of police commissioners, having jurisdiction in the case of capital crimes, and charged with the custody of those convicted.)? But they bring into court burglars and thieves and other evil-doers who are charged with capital crimes. Before the Archon[*](The archon (ἐπώνυμος) had the duty of passing judgement upon complaints of parents, orphans, and unmarried girls who had inherited property. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 56. 6-7.)?

But it is for heiresses, and orphans, and parents that the Archon is appointed to care. Then before the King-archon[*](The functions of the King-archon were largely religious, and the gymnesiarchs, or superintendents of the festal games, were under his control. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 57.)? But we are not gymnesiarchs, nor are we indicting anyone for impiety. Or will the Polemarch[*](The third archon, originally minister of war, presided over the court in which cases regarding the rights of aliens were settled. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 58.) bring us into court? Yes, for disregard of a patron, or for having no patron.[*](A resident alien was required to be enrolled under some citizen as patron.) Well then, the Generals[*](Ten Generals were appointed annually, one of whom had judicial functions connected with the appointment of trierarchs. See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 61.1.) are left. But they appoint the trierarchs; they bring no mercantile suits into court.