Against Dionysodorus
I am a sharer in
this loan, men of the jury. We, who have engaged in the business of overseas
trade and put our money in the hands of others, have come to know one thing very
clearly: that in all respects the borrower has the best of us. He received the
money in cash which was duly acknowledged, and has left us on a scrap of
paper
1
which he bought for a couple of coppers, his agreement to do the right thing. We
on our part do not promise to give the money, we give it outright to the
borrower.
[
2]
What, then, do we rely upon, and what
security do we get when we risk our money? We rely upon you, men of the jury,
and upon your laws, which ordain that all agreements into which a man
voluntarily enters with another shall be valid. But in my opinion there is no
use in your laws or in any contract, if the one who receives the money is not
thoroughly upright in character, and does not either fear you
2 or regard the
rights of the one making the loan.
[
3]
Now
Dionysodorus here does neither the one nor the other, but has come to such a
pitch of audacity, that although he borrowed from us three thousand drachmae
upon his ship on the condition that it should sail back to
Athens, and although we ought to have got
back our money in the harvest-season of last year, he took his ship to
Rhodes and there unladed his cargo
and sold it in defiance of the contract and of your laws
3; and from
Rhodes again he despatched his ship
to
Egypt, and from thence back to
Rhodes, and to us who lent our
money at
Athens he has up to this
day neither paid back our money nor produced to us our security.
[
4]
Nay, for two years now he has been using our money for
his profit, keeping the loan and the trade and the ship that was mortgaged to
us, and notwithstanding this he has come into your court, intending plainly to
get us fined with the sixth part of the damages,
4 and to put us in prison,
5 besides robbing us of our
money. We therefore, men of
Athens,
beg and implore you one and all to come to our aid, if you find that we are
being wronged. But first I want to explain to you how the loan was contracted;
for thus it will be easiest for you also to follow the case.
[
5]
This Dionysodorus, men of
Athens, and his partner
Parmeniscus came to us last year in the month Metageitnion,
6 and said that they desired to
borrow money on their ship on the terms that she should sail to
Egypt and from
Egypt to
Rhodes or
Athens, and they agreed to pay
the interest for the voyage to either one of these ports.
[
6]
We answered, men of the jury, that we would not lend money
for a voyage to any other port than
Athens, and so they agreed to return here, and with this
understanding they borrowed from us three thousand drachmae on the security of
their ship for the voyage out and home; and they entered into a written
agreement to these terms. In the contract Pamphilus here was named the lender;
but I, although not mentioned, was a sharer in the loan.
And first the clerk shall read to you the agreement.“
Agreement
”
[
7]
In accordance
with this agreement, men of the jury, Dionysodorus here and his partner
Parmeniscus, when they had got the money from us, despatched their ship from
Athens to
Egypt. Parmeniscus sailed in charge of the
ship; Dionysodorus remained at
Athens. All these men, I would have you know, men of the jury,
were underlings and confederates of Cleomenes, the former ruler of
Egypt,
7 who from the time he received the
government did no small harm to your state, or rather to the rest of the Greeks
as well, by buying up grain for resale and fixing its price, and in this he had
these men as his confederates.
[
8]
Some of them
would despatch the stuff from
Egypt,
others would sail in charge of the shipments, while still others would remain
here in
Athens and dispose of the
consignments. Then those who remained here would send letters to those abroad
advising them of the prevailing prices, so that if grain were dear in your
market, they might bring it here, and if the price should fall, they might put
in to some other port. This was the chief reason, men of the jury, why the price
of grain advanced; it was due to such letters and conspiracies.
[
9]
Well then, when these men despatched their ship from
Athens, they left the price of
grain here pretty high, and for this reason they submitted to have the clause
written in the agreement binding them to sail to
Athens and to no other port. Afterwards, however, men of the
jury, when the ships from
Sicily had
arrived, and the prices of grain here were falling, and their ship had reached
Egypt, the defendant straightway
sent a man to
Rhodes to inform his
partner Parmeniscus of the state of things here, well knowing that his ship
would be forced to touch at
Rhodes.
[
10]
The outcome was that Parmeniscus, the
defendant's partner, when he had received the letter sent by him and had learned
the price of grain prevailing here, discharged his cargo of grain at
Rhodes and sold it there in defiance of the
agreement, men of the jury, and of the penalties to which they had of their own
will bound themselves, in case they should commit any breach of the agreement,
and in contempt also of your laws which ordain that shipowners and supercargoes
shall sail to the port to which they have agreed to sail or else be liable to
the severest penalties.
[
11]
We on our part, as soon as we learned what had taken place, were
greatly dismayed at his action, and went to this man, who was the prime mover in
the whole plot, complaining angrily, as was natural, that although we had
expressedly stipulated in the agreement that the ship should sail to no other
port than to
Athens, and had lent
our money on this condition, he had left us open to suspicion with people who
might wish to accuse and say that we also had been partners to the conveyance of
the grain to
Rhodes; and complaining
also that he and his partner, despite their agreement to do so, had not brought
the ship back to your port.
[
12]
When, however, we
made no headway in talking about the agreement and our rights, we demanded that
he at any rate pay us back the amount loaned with the interest as originally
agreed upon. But the fellow treated us with such insolence as to declare that he
would not pay the interest stipulated in the agreement. “If,
however,” he said, “you are willing to accept the interest
calculated in proportion to the voyage completed, I will give you,”
said he, “the interest as far as
Rhodes; but more I will not give.” Thus he made a law
for himself and refused to comply with the just terms of the agreement.
[
13]
When we
said that we could not acquiesce in anything like this, considering that, were
we to do so, it would be an admission that we too had been engaged in conveying
grain to
Rhodes, he became even more
insistent, and came up to us, bringing a host of witnesses, asserting that he
was ready to pay us the principal with interest as far as
Rhodes; not that he had any more intention to
pay, men of the jury, but suspecting that we should be unwilling to accept the
money on account of the charges to which our action might give rise. The result
made this clear.
[
14]
For when some of your
citizens, men of Athens, who chanced to be present advised to accept what was
offered and to sue for the amount under dispute, but not to admit the reckoning
of the interest to
Rhodes until the
case should be settled we agreed to this. We were not unaware, men of the jury,
of our rights under the agreement, but we thought it better to suffer some loss
and to make a concession, so as not to appear litigious. But when the fellow saw
that we were on the point of accepting his offer, he said, “Well,
then, cancel the agreement.” “We cancel the agreement?
[
15]
Indeed we will not. However, as far as
concerns any money you may pay we will in the presence of the banker agree to
annul the agreement; but cancel it in its entirety we will not, until we get a
verdict on the matters under dispute. For what just plea shall we have, or on
what can we rely when we come to a contest at law, whether we have to appear
before an arbitrator or before a court, if we have cancelled the agreement on
which we rely for the recovery of our rights?”
[
16]
Such was our answer to him, men of the jury, and we demanded
of this fellow Dionysodorus that he should not disturb or annul the agreement
which these men themselves admitted to be binding, but that in regard to the
amount he should pay us what he himself acknowledged to be due and to leave the
settlement of the sum under dispute (with the understanding that the
money was available) to the decision of one or more arbitrators, as he
might prefer, to be chosen from among the merchants of this port. Dionysodorus,
however, would not listen to anything of this sort, but because we refused to
accept what he agreed to pay and cancel the agreement altogether, he has for two
years kept and made use of our capital;
[
17]
and
what is the most outrageous thing of all, men of the jury, the fellow himself
gets maritime interest
8 from other people from our money,
lending it, not at
Athens or for a
voyage to
Athens, but for voyages to
Rhodes and
Egypt, while to us who lent him money for a
voyage to your port he thinks he need do nothing that justice demands
To prove that I am speaking the truth, the clerk shall
read you the challenge which I gave Dionysodorus concerning these matters.“
Challenge
”
[
18]
This challenge,
then, we tendered to this Dionysodorus again and again, and we exposed the
challenge to public view over a period of many days. He, however, declared that
we must be absolute simpletons, if we supposed him to be senseless enough to go
before an arbitrator—who would most certainly condemn him to pay the
debt—when he might come into court bringing the money with him, and
then, if he could hoodwink you he would go back keeping possession of what was
another's, and if he could not, he would then pay the money. Thus he showed that
he had no confidence in the justice of his case, but that he wished to make
trial of you.
[
19]
You have heard, then, men of the jury, what Dionysodorus has done; and as you
have heard I fancy you have long been amazed at his audacity, and have wondered
upon what in the world he relies in coming into court. For is it not the height
of audacity, when a man who has borrowed money from the port of
Athens,
[
20]
and has expressly agreed in writing that his ship shall return to your port,
or that, if she does not, he shall pay double the amount, has not brought the
ship to the Peiraeus and does not pay his debt to the lenders; and as for the
grain, has unladed that and sold it at
Rhodes, and then despite all this dares to look into your
faces?
[
21]
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.
[
22]
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.
[
23]
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?
[
24]
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.
[
25]
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.
[
26]
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.
[
27]
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.
[
28]
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.
[
29]
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.
[
30]
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.
[
31]
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.
[
32]
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?
[
33]
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.
[
34]
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.
[
35]
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.
[
36]
Please read the agreement
again.“
AgreementFrom
Athens to
Egypt and from
Egypt to
Athens.”
You hear, men
of
Athens. It says “From
Athens to
Egypt and from
Egypt to
Athens.”
Read the
rest.“
AgreementAnd if the ship arrives safe at Peiraeus . . .”
[
37]
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.
[
38]
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.“
StatementAnd 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.”
[
39]
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?
[
40]
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?
[
41]
No; you are
so bold or rather so impudent, that, while under the agreement you owe us double
the amount of our loan, you do not see fit to pay us even the accrued interest,
but bid us accept interest as far as
Rhodes, as if your command ought to prove of more force than
the agreement; and you have the insolence to declare that the vessel did not
arrive safe at the Peiraeus; for which you might with justice be condemned to
death by the jurors.
[
42]
For who other than this
fellow is to blame, men of the jury, if the ship did not arrive safe at the
Peiraeus? Are we to blame, who lent our money expressly for a voyage to
Egypt and to
Athens, or is it the fault of this fellow
and his partner, who after borrowing money on these terms, that the vessel
should return to
Athens, then took
her to
Rhodes? And that they did this
of their own will and not of necessity is clear on many grounds.
[
43]
For if what occurred took place against their will,
and the ship was really disabled, afterwards, when they had repaired the ship,
they would surely not have let her for a voyage to other ports, but would have
despatched her to
Athens to make
amends for the involuntary accident. As it is, however, they have not only made
no amends, but to their original wrongdoings they have added others greater far,
and have come here to contest the suit as it were in a spirit of mockery,
assuming that it will rest with them, if you give judgement against them, merely
to pay the principal and interest.
[
44]
Do not you,
then, men of
Athens, suffer men of
this stamp to have their own way, nor allow them to ride on two anchors, with
the hope that, if they are successful, they will retain what belongs to others,
and if they are not able to hoodwink you, they will merely pay the bare amount
which they owe; but inflict upon them the penalties provided in the agreement.
For it would be an outrageous thing, when these men have themselves in writing
imposed upon themselves a penalty of double the amount, if they commit any
breach of the agreement, that you should be more lenient toward them; especially
when you have yourselves been wronged no less than we.
[
45]
Our claims in the matter,
therefore, are few and easy to be remembered. We lent this fellow Dionysodorus
and his partner three thousand drachmae for a voyage from
Athens to
Egypt and from
Egypt
to
Athens; we have not received
either principal or interest, but they have kept our money and had the use of it
for two years; they have not even to this day brought the ship back to your
port, nor produced it plain to see. The agreement, however, declares, that if
they fail to deliver up the ship plain to see they shall pay double the amount,
and that the money may be recovered from either one or both of them.
[
46]
These are the just claims with which we have come
before you demanding to recover our money through your help, since we cannot get
it from these men themselves. Such is the statement of our case. These men,
however, while they admit that they borrowed the money and have not paid it
back, contend that they are not bound to pay the interest stipulated in the
agreement, but the interest as far as
Rhodes only, which they made no part of their contract, and to
which we have not consented.
[
47]
Perhaps, men of
Athens, if we were trying the
case in a Rhodian court, these men might get the better of us, seeing that they
have taken grain to
Rhodes and sailed
in their ship into that port; as it is, however, since we have come before
Athenians and our contract called for a voyage to your port, we hold it right
that you should give no advantage to men who have wronged you as well as
ourselves.
[
48]
Besides this, men of
Athens, you
must not forget that, while you are today deciding one case alone you are fixing
a law for the whole port, and that many of those engaged in overseas trade are
standing here and watching you to see how you decide this question. For if you
hold that contracts and agreements made between man and man are to be binding,
and show no leniency towards those who transgress them, lenders will be more
ready to risk their money, and the business of your port will be increased.
[
49]
But if shipowners, after engaging in
written contracts to sail to
Athens,
are to be permitted to put their ships into other ports, giving out that they
have been disabled, or advancing other pretexts such as these of which
Dionysodorus has availed himself, and to reduce the interest in proportion to
the length of the voyage which they say they have made instead of paying it
according to the agreement, there will be nothing to prevent the voiding of all
contracts.
[
50]
For who is going to be willing to
risk his money, when he sees that written agreements are of no force, but that
arguments such as these prevail and that the claims of wrongdoers take
precedence over what is right? Do not permit this, men of the jury, for it is
not to the interest of the mass of your people any more than of those engaged in
trade, who are a body of men most useful to your public at large and to the
individuals who have dealings with them. For this reason you should be careful
of their interests.
I, for my part, have said all
that I could; but I desire also to have one of my friends speak in my
behalf.
Come forward, Demosthenes.