Androcles Against Lacritus (41-45)

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,[*] 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?