Greek Texts & Translations

Now in proof that Aristocles pretended that he had lost the document, hear the depositions.Depositions

33.19After this the arbitration was done away with, the articles of agreement having disappeared and the authority of the arbitrators being questioned. They did endeavor to draw up new articles about these matters, but could come to no agreement, as the plaintiff insisted on having Aristocles, and Parmeno the three to whom in the first instance the arbitration had been referred. Nevertheless, although no new articles had been drawn, and those originally drawn had been made away with, the man who had made away with them came to such a pitch of shamelessness that he declared he would in his own single person pronounce the award. Parmeno called witnesses to be present, and forbade Aristocles to pronounce an award against him, without his co-arbitrators, in defiance of the articles of agreement.

Hear the deposition of those in whose presence he thus forbade him.Deposition

33.20After this there befell Parmeno, men of the jury, a dire misfortune. He was dwelling in Ophrynium ^note because of his being an exile from home, when the earthquake in the Chersonese occurred; and in the collapse of his house his wife and children perished. Immediately on hearing of the disaster he departed by ship from Athens. Aristocles, although the man had adjured him in the presence of witnesses not to pronounce judgement against him without his co-arbitrators, when Parmeno had left the country because of the disaster, pronounced an award against him by default. 33.21Phocritus and I, who were named in the same articles, refused to participate in the award, because the plaintiff denied that in his view we were arbitrators; but Aristocles, whose authority was not only disputed, but who had expressly been forbidden to act, nevertheless made the declaration—a thing which not one of you and not one of all the other Athenians could have been induced to do.

33.22For all that Apaturius and the arbitrator did in connection with the disappearance of the articles and the pronouncing of the award, the man wronged, if ever he comes safely back to Athens, will obtain satisfaction from them. But since Apaturius has come to such a pitch of shamelessness as to bring suit against me also, charging that I undertook to pay any sum that might be awarded against Parmeno, and since he declares that my name was entered in the articles as surety, I shall free myself from such a charge in the proper way; I shall first bring forward witnesses to prove that it was not I who became surety for Parmeno, but Archippus of Myrrhinus; and I shall then undertake, men of the jury, to make my defence by circumstantial proofs.

33.23In the first place, I hold that the time is a witness for me to prove that the charge is groundless. For the agreement to arbitrate made by this fellow and Parmeno and the award of Aristocles took place two years ago; but merchants may bring action every month from Boëdromion to Munichion, ^note in order that they may obtain their rights without delay and put to sea. So, if I was in truth a surety for Parmeno, why did not Apaturius immediately after the award proceed to collect the sum guaranteed? 33.24It is not open to him to say that because of his friendship for me he was loth to incur my enmity, for he had himself in utter unfriendliness been forced by me to pay the one thousand drachmae due to Parmeno; and when he was trying to get his ship out of the port in his plot to sneak away and to defraud the bank of what was due, it was I who prevented him. So, if I had become a surety for Parmeno, he would not have waited until two years afterward to exact the sum guaranteed, but would have proceeded to do so at once.

33.25Ah, but he was well provided with funds, so that it was open to him to proceed against me later on, and at the moment he had no time, as he was about to put to sea! On the contrary, he was in such straits that he had lost all his effects, and had sold his ship. And, if there really had been anything to prevent his immediately bringing suit against me, why, when he was in town last year, did he not dare, I will not say to bring suit, but even to make a demand? It was surely the proper course for him, if judgement had been given against Parmeno in his favour, and if I was the latter's surety, to come to me himself accompanied by witnesses, and to demand the amount guaranteed, if not the year before last, at any rate in the year just past; and then, if I proffered payment, to take his money, and, if I did not, to bring suit. 33.26For in claims of this sort everyone makes demand before he brings suit. Well, there isn't a person living who will testify that he was present either last year or the year before, when this man either instituted proceedings against me or made any mention to me whatever of the claims for which he is now suing me.

To prove that he was in town last year when the courts were open, please take the deposition.Deposition