Against Dionysodorus

But hear what he says in reply to this. He alleges that the ship was disabled on the voyage from Egypt, and that for this reason he was obliged to touch at Rhodes and unlade the grain there. And as a proof of this he states that he chartered ships from Rhodes and shipped some of his goods to Athens. This is one part of his defence, and here is another.

He claims that some other creditors of his have agreed to accept from him interest as far as Rhodes, and that it would be hard indeed if we should not make the same concession that they have made. And thirdly, besides all this, he declares that the agreement requires him to pay the money if the ship arrives safely, but that the ship has not arrived safely in the Peiraeus. To each of these arguments, men of the jury, hear the just answer that we make.

In the first place, when he says that the ship was disabled, I think it is plain to you all that he is lying. For if his ship had met with this mishap, she would neither have got safely to Rhodes nor have been fit for sailing afterwards. But in fact it is plain that she did get safe to Rhodes and was sent back from thence to Egypt, and that at the present time she is still sailing everywhere except to Athens. And yet is it not outrageous that, when he has to bring his ship back to the port of Athens, he says she was disabled, but when he wants to unlade his grain at Rhodes, then that same ship is seen to be seaworthy?

Why, then, he says, did I charter other ships and tranship my cargo and despatch it here to Athens? Because, men of Athens, neither the defendant nor his partner was owner of the entire cargo, but, I fancy, the supercargoes who were on board despatched their own goods hither, in other bottoms necessarily, seeing that these men had cut short the voyage before the ship reached her destination. As for the goods, however, which were their own, they did not ship these in their entirety to Athens, but sought out what ones had advanced in price.

For why, pray, was it that, when you had hired other bottoms, as you say, you did not tranship the entire cargo of your vessel, but left the grain there in Rhodes? Because, men of the jury, it was to their interest to sell the grain in Rhodes; for they heard that the price had fallen here in Athens, but they shipped to you the other goods, from which they hoped to make a profit. When, then, Dionysodorus, you talk about the chartering of the vessels, you give proof, not that your ship was disabled, but that it was to your advantage to do so.

Concerning these matters, then, what I have said is sufficient, but in regard to the creditors, who, they say, consented to accept from them the interest as far as Rhodes, this has nothing to do with us. If any man has remitted to you any part of what was due him, no wrong is suffered by either party to the arrangement. But we have not remitted anything to you, nor have we consented to your voyage to Rhodes, nor in our judgement is anything more binding than the agreement.

Now what does the agreement say, and to what port does it require you to sail? From Athens to Egypt and from Egypt to Athens; and in default of your so doing, it requires you to pay double the amount. If you have done this, you have committed no wrong; but if you have not done it, and have not brought your ship back to Athens, it is proper that you should suffer the penalty provided by the agreement; for this requirement was imposed upon you, not by some other person, but by yourself. Show, then, to the jury one or the other of two things—that our agreement is not valid, or that you are not required to do everything in accordance with it.

If certain people have remitted anything in your favor, and have been induced on one ground or another to accept interest only as far as Rhodes, does it follow that you are doing no wrong to us, your agreement with whom you have broken in having your ship put into Rhodes? I do not think so. For this jury is not now deciding upon concessions made to you by others, but upon an agreement entered into by you yourself with us. For that the remission of the interest, supposing that it actually took place, as these men allege, was to the advantage of the creditors, is plain to every one of you.

For those who lent their money to these men for the outward voyage from Egypt to Athens, when they reached Rhodes and this man put into that port, suffered no loss, I take it, by remitting the interest and receiving the amount of their loan at Rhodes, and then putting the money to work again for a voyage to Egypt. No; this was more to their advantage than to continue the voyage to this port.

For voyaging from Rhodes to Egypt is uninterrupted, and they could put the same money to work two or three times, whereas here they would have had to pass the winter and to await the season for sailing. These creditors therefore have reaped an additional profit, and have not remitted anything to these men. With us, however, it is not a question of the interest merely, but we are unable to recover even our principal.

Do not, then, listen to him, when he seeks to hoodwink you, and brings before you his transactions with other creditors, but refer him to the agreement and to the rights growing out of it. It remains for me to interpret this matter for you, and the defendant insists upon this very thing, stating that the agreement requires him to repay the loan only if the ship arrives safe. We also maintain that this should be so.

But I should be glad to ask you yourself, Dionysodorus, whether you are speaking of the ship as having been lost, or as having arrived safe. For if the ship has been wrecked and is lost, why do you keep on disputing about the interest and demanding that we accept interest as far as Rhodes? For in that case we have not the right to recover either interest or principal. But if the ship is safe and has not been wrecked, why do you not pay us the money which you agreed to pay?

In what way, men of Athens, can you be most convincingly assured that the ship has reached port safe? In the first instance by the mere fact that she is now at sea, and less clearly by the statements made by these men themselves. For they ask us to accept payment of the principal and a certain portion of the interest, thus implying that the ship has reached port safe, but has not completed her entire voyage.

Now consider, men of Athens, whether it is we who are abiding by the requirements of the contract, or whether it is these men, who have sailed, not to the port agreed upon, but to Rhodes and Egypt, and who, when the ship has reached port safe and has not been lost, claim to be entitled to an abatement of the interest, although they have broken the agreement, and have themselves made a large profit by the carrying of grain to Rhodes, and by keeping and making use of our money for two years.

What they are doing is indeed an unheard-of thing. They offer to pay us the principal of our loan, thus implying that the ship has reached port safe, but they claim the right to rob us of our interest on the ground that she has been wrecked. The agreement, however, does not say one thing about the interest and another about the principal of the loan, but our rights are the same for both and our means of recovery the same.

(To the clerk.) Please read the agreement again.

The Agreement

From Athens to Egypt and from Egypt to Athens.

You hear, men of Athens. It says From Athens to Egypt and from Egypt to Athens.

(To the clerk.) Read the rest.

The Agreement

And if the ship arrives safe at Peiraeus ---

Men of Athens, it is a very simple thing for you to reach a decision in this suit, and there is no need of many words. That the ship has reached port safe, and is safe, is admitted by these men themselves; for otherwise they would not be offering to pay the principal of the loan and a portion of the interest. She has not, however, been brought back to the Peiraeus. It is for this reason that we, the creditors, claim that we have been wronged, and regarding this we are bringing suit, that, namely she did not make the return voyage to the port agreed upon.

Dionysodorus, however, claims that he is doing no wrong because of this very fact, since he is not bound to pay the interest in its entirety inasmuch as the ship did not complete her voyage to Peiraeus. But what does the agreement say? By Zeus it is not at all what you say, Dionysodorus. No; it declares that if you do not pay both the principal and interest, or if you fail to present the security, plain to see and unimpaired, or if in any other respect you violate the agreement, you are required to pay double the amount.

Read, please, that clause of the agreement.

The Statement

And if they shall not produce the security, plain to see and unimpaired, or if in any respect they shall violate the agreement, they shall pay double the amount.

Have you, then, at any place whatever produced the ship plain to see since the time you received the money from us? And yet you yourself admit that she is safe. Or have you ever since that time brought her back to the port of Athens, though the agreement expressly stipulates that you shall bring your ship back to the Peiraeus, and produce her plain to see before the lenders?

This is an important point, men of Athens. Just observe the extravagance of his statement. The ship was disabled, so he says, and for this reason he brought her into the port of Rhodes. Well, then, after that she was repaired and became fit for sea. Why, then, my good fellow, did you send her off to Egypt and to other ports, but have never up to this day sent her back to Athens, to us your creditors, to whom the agreement requires you to produce the ship, plain to see and unimpaired, and that too although we made demand upon you again and again and challenged you to do so?