by Demosthenes
[10] ὡς δ᾽ ἤκουσα, τοῦτον μὲν ἀνοσιώτατον ἡγησάμην εἶναι τῷ ἐπιχειρήματι, ἐσκοπούμην δὲ ὅπως αὐτός τε ἀπολυθήσομαι τῆς ἐγγύης τῆς ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν, καὶ ὁ ξένος μὴ ἀπολεῖ ἃ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ τούτῳ ἐδάνεισεν. καταστήσας δὲ φύλακας τῆς νεὼς διηγησάμην τοῖς ἐγγυηταῖς τῆς τραπέζης τὴν πρᾶξιν, καὶ παρέδωκα τὸ ἐνέχυρον, εἰπὼν αὐτοῖς ὅτι δέκα μναῖ ἐνείησαν τῷ ξένῳ ἐν τῇ νηί. ταῦτα δὲ πράξας κατηγγύησα τοὺς παῖδας, ἵν᾽ εἴ τις ἔνδεια γίγνοιτο, τὰ ἐλλείποντα ἐκ τῶν παίδων εἴη.
[10] When I heard him, thinking this fellow a most impious wretch because of his attempt, I set about considering how I might myself get free from my guaranty to the bank, and how the foreigner might avoid the loss of the money he had lent this fellow through me. After stationing men to guard the ship I told the whole story to the sureties of the bank and turned the security over to them, telling them that the foreigner had a lien of ten minae on the ship. Having arranged this, I attached the slaves, in order that, if any shortage occurred, the deficiency might be made up by the proceeds of their sale.
[11] καὶ ἐγὼ μὲν ἐπειδὴ ἔλαβον τοῦτον ἀδικοῦντα, διωρθωσάμην ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ τοῦ ξένου: ὁ δ᾽ ὥσπερ ἀδικούμενος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀδικῶν ἐμέμφετό μοι, καὶ ἠρώτα εἰ οὐχ ἱκανόν μοι εἴη αὐτῷ ἀπολυθῆναι τῆς ἐγγύης τῆς πρὸς τὴν τράπεζαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀργυρίου τοῦ Παρμένοντος τὴν ναῦν κατεγγυῶ καὶ τοὺς παῖδας, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπου φυγάδος ἀπεχθανοίμην αὑτῷ.
[11] In this way, when I found that Apaturius was a rascal, I set matters right in my own interest and in the interest of the foreigner. But Apaturius, as though the wrong was on my side, and not on his, made complaint to me, and asked if it were not enough for me to be released from my guaranty to the bank, without also attaching the ship and the slaves to secure his money for Parmeno, and thus making an enemy of himself in the interest of one who was an exile.
[12] ἐγὼ δὲ τὸν πιστεύοντα ἐμαυτῷ τοσούτῳ ἔφην ἧττον ἂν περιιδεῖν, ὅσῳ φυγὰς ὢν καὶ ἀτυχῶν ἠδικεῖτο ὑπὸ τούτου. πάντα δὲ ποιήσας καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀπέχθειαν τούτῳ ἐλθών, μόλις εἰσέπραξα τὸ ἀργύριον, πραθείσης τῆς νεὼς τετταράκοντα μνῶν, ὅσουπερ ἡ θέσις ἦν. ἀποδοθεισῶν δὲ τῶν τριάκοντα μνῶν ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν καὶ τῶν δέκα μνῶν τῷ Παρμένοντι, ἐναντίον πολλῶν μαρτύρων τάς τε συγγραφὰς ἀνειλόμεθα, καθ᾽ ἃς ἐδανείσθη τὰ χρήματα, καὶ τῶν συναλλαγμάτων ἀφεῖμεν καὶ ἀπηλλάξαμεν ἀλλήλους, ὥστε μήτε τούτῳ πρὸς ἐμὲ μήτ᾽ ἐμοὶ πρὸς τοῦτον πρᾶγμα εἶναι μηδέν. καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀκούσατε τῶν μαρτυριῶν.”Μαρτυρίαι”
[12] I replied that, when a man had put his trust in me, I was all the less inclined to leave him in the lurch, because, while he was an exile and in misfortune, he was being wronged by the plaintiff; and after I had done everything possible, and had incurred the utmost enmity on the part of this fellow, I with difficulty secured the money, the ship being sold for forty minae, the precise amount for which she was mortgaged. The thirty minae then having been paid back to the bank, and the ten minae to Parmeno, in the presence of many witnesses, we cancelled the bond in accordance with which the money had been lent, and mutually released and discharged one another from our engagements so that the plaintiff had nothing more to do with me, nor I with him. In proof that my words are true, hear the depositions.” Depositions”
[13] μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτε ἔλαττον πρὸς αὐτὸν συμβόλαιον γέγονεν: ὁ δὲ Παρμένων ἐδικάζετο τούτῳ τῶν τε πληγῶν ὧν ἔλαβεν ὑπὸ τούτου, ὅτε τῶν παίδων ἐξαγομένων ἐπελάβετο, καὶ ὅτι τοῦ εἰς Σικελίαν πλοῦ διὰ τοῦτον κατεκωλύθη. ἐνεστηκυίας δὲ τῆς δίκης δίδωσιν ὁ Παρμένων ὅρκον τούτῳ περί τινων ἐγκλημάτων, καὶ οὗτος ἐδέξατο, ἐπιδιαθέμενος ἀργύριον, ἐὰν μὴ ὀμόσῃ τὸν ὅρκον. καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὴν μαρτυρίαν.”Μαρτυρία”
[13] Since then I have had no business transaction with the fellow, whether great or small, but Parmeno sued him for damages for the blows which he received from him when he laid hands on the slaves as they were being carried off, and because he had been prevented by him from making the voyage to Sicily. When the action had been instituted, Parmeno tendered an oath to Apaturius regarding some of his charges, and he accepted it, and furthermore made a deposit to be forfeited if he did not swear the oath.
In proof that my words are true, take the deposition.” Deposition”
[14] δεξάμενος τοίνυν τὸν ὅρκον, εἰδὼς ὅτι πολλοὶ αὑτῷ συνείσονται ἐπιορκήσαντι, ἐπὶ μὲν τὸ ὀμόσαι οὐκ ἀπήντα, ὡς δὲ δίκῃ λύσων τὸν ὅρκον προσκαλεῖται τὸν Παρμένοντα. ἐνεστηκυιῶν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς τῶν δικῶν πεισθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν παρόντων εἰς ἐπιτροπὴν ἔρχονται, καὶ γράψαντες συνθήκας ἐπιτρέπουσιν ἑνὶ μὲν διαιτητῇ κοινῷ Φωκρίτῳ πολίτῃ αὑτῶν, ἕνα δ᾽ ἑκάτερος παρεκαθίσατο, οὗτος μὲν Ἀριστοκλέα Ὀῆθεν, ὁ δὲ Παρμένων ἐμέ.
[14] Having accepted the oath, since he was aware that many would know that he had perjured himself, he did not present himself for the swearing, but, as though he could get free of the oath by an action, he summoned Parmeno into court. When both actions had been instituted, on the advice of persons present they proceeded to an arbitration, and after drawing up an agreement they submitted the matter to one common arbitrator, Phocritus, a fellow-country-man of theirs; and each one appointed one man to sit with Phocritus, Apaturius choosing Aristocles of Oea, and Parmeno choosing me.
[15] καὶ συνέθεντο ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις, εἰ μὲν τρεῖς ὄντες ὁμογνώμονες γενοίμεθα, ταῦτα κύρια εἶναι αὑτοῖς, εἰ δὲ μή, οἷς οἱ δύο γνοίησαν, τούτοις ἐπάναγκες εἶναι ἐμμένειν. συνθέμενοι δὲ ταῦτα, ἐγγυητὰς τούτων ἀλλήλοις κατέστησαν, οὗτος μὲν ἐκείνῳ τὸν Ἀριστοκλέα, ὁ δὲ Παρμένων τούτῳ Ἄρχιππον Μυρρινούσιον. καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐτίθεντο τὰς συνθήκας παρὰ τῷ Φωκρίτῳ, εἶτα κελεύσαντος τοῦ Φωκρίτου παρ᾽ ἄλλῳ τινὶ θέσθαι, τίθενται παρὰ τῷ Ἀριστοκλεῖ. καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀκούσατε τῶν μαρτυριῶν.”Μαρτυρίαι”
[15] They agreed in the articles that, if we three were of one mind, our decision should be binding on them, but, if not, then they should be bound to abide by what the two should determine. Having made this agreement, they appointed sureties for one another to guarantee its f
ulfillment. Apaturius appointed Aristocles, and Parmeno Archippus of Myrrhinus. At the outset they deposited their agreement with Phocritus, but upon his bidding them to deposit it with someone else, they deposited it with Aristocles.
In proof that my words are true, hear the depositions.” Depositions”
[16] ὅτι μὲν ἐτέθησαν αἱ συνθῆκαι παρὰ Ἀριστοκλεῖ καὶ ἡ ἐπιτροπὴ ἐγένετο Φωκρίτῳ καὶ Ἀριστοκλεῖ καὶ ἐμοί, οἱ εἰδότες ταῦτα μεμαρτυρήκασιν ὑμῖν. δέομαι δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα πραχθέντα ἀκοῦσαί μου: ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ἔσται φανερὸν ὑμῖν, ὅτι συκοφαντοῦμαι ὑπὸ τουτουὶ Ἀπατουρίου. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ᾔσθετο ὁμογνώμονας ὄντας ἐμὲ καὶ τὸν Φώκριτον καὶ ἔγνω καταδιαιτήσοντας ἡμᾶς ἑαυτοῦ, λῦσαι βουλόμενος τὴν ἐπιτροπήν, διαφθεῖραι τὰς συνθήκας ἐπεχείρησε μετὰ τοῦ ἔχοντος αὐτάς.
[16] That the agreements were deposited with Aristocles, and that the arbitration was left with Phocritus, Aristocles and myself, has been testified to you by witnesses who know the facts. And now, men of the jury, I beg of you to hear from me what happened after this; for from this it will be clear to you that this man Apaturius is making a claim upon me which is baseless and malicious. For when he saw that Phocritus and I were of one mind, and realized that we should give judgement against him, wishing to break down the arbitration, he sought, in collusion with the man who held them, to destroy the articles of agreement,
[17] καὶ ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀμφισβητεῖν ὡς αὑτῷ διαιτητὴς εἴη ὁ Ἀριστοκλῆς, τὸν δὲ Φώκριτον καὶ ἐμὲ οὐδενὸς κυρίους ἔφησεν εἶναι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τοῦ διαλῦσαι. ἀγανακτήσας δὴ τῷ λόγῳ ὁ Παρμένων ἠξίου τὸν Ἀριστοκλέα ἐκφέρειν τὰς συνθήκας, οὐ πόρρω φάσκων εἶναι τὸν ἔλεγχον, εἴ τι κακουργοῖτο περὶ τὰ γράμματα: γεγραφέναι γὰρ αὐτὰ οἰκέτην ἑαυτοῦ.
[17] and he proceeded to contend that Aristocles was his arbitrator, and declared that Phocritus and I were empowered to do nothing else than seek to bring about a reconciliation. Angered at this statement, Parmeno demanded of Aristocles that he produce the agreement, adding that if there had been any criminal meddling with the papers, proof of the fact would not be far to seek, for his own slave had written them.
[18] ὁμολογήσας δὲ ἐξοίσειν τὰς συνθήκας ὁ Ἀριστοκλῆς ἐμφανεῖς μὲν οὔπω καὶ τήμερον ἐνήνοχεν, εἰς δὲ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν συγκειμένην ἀπαντήσας εἰς τὸ Ἡφαιστεῖον, προὐφασίζετο ὡς ὁ παῖς περιμένων αὑτὸν ἀπολωλεκὼς εἴη τὸ γραμματεῖον καθεύδων. ὁ δὲ ταῦτα κατασκευάζων ἦν Ἐρυξίας ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἐκ Πειραιῶς, οἰκείως ἔχων τῷ Ἀριστοκλεῖ: ὅσπερ καὶ ἐμοὶ τοῦ ἀγῶνος αἴτιός ἐστιν, διαφόρως ἔχων. καὶ ὡς ἐσκήψατο ἀπολωλέναι ὁ Ἀριστοκλῆς, ἀκούσατε τῶν μαρτυριῶν.”Μαρτυρίαι”
[18] Aristocles promised that he would produce the articles, but up to this day has not brought them to light. He did meet us on the appointed day at the Hephaesteum, but made the excuse that his slave while waiting for him had fallen asleep and lost the document. The man who concocted this plot was Eryxias, the physician from Peiraeus, an intimate friend of Aristocles, the same man who out of enmity toward me has also got up this action against me.
Now in proof that Aristocles pretended that he had lost the document, hear the depositions.” Depositions”
[19] ἐντεῦθεν τοίνυν τὸ μὲν τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς ἐλέλυτο, ἠφανισμένων τῶν συνθηκῶν καὶ τῶν διαιτητῶν ἀντιλεγομένων: ἐπιχειροῦντες δὲ γράφειν ἑτέρας συνθήκας περὶ τούτων διηνέχθησαν, οὗτος μὲν ἀξιῶν τὸν Ἀριστοκλέα, ὁ δὲ Παρμένων τοὺς τρεῖς, οἷσπερ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡ ἐπιτροπὴ ἐγένετο. οὐ γραφεισῶν δ᾽ ἑτέρων συνθηκῶν, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀφανισθεισῶν, εἰς τοῦτ᾽ ἦλθεν ἀναιδείας ὁ ἠφανικὼς τὰς συνθήκας, ὥστε εἷς ὢν ἀποφανεῖσθαι ἔφη τὴν δίαιταν. παρακαλέσας δὲ ὁ Παρμένων μάρτυρας ἀπεῖπεν τῷ Ἀριστοκλεῖ μὴ ἀποφαίνεσθαι παρὰ τὰς συνθήκας καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἄνευ τῶν συνδιαιτητῶν. καὶ ὧν ἐναντίον ἀπεῖπεν, ἀκούσατε τῆς μαρτυρίας.”Μαρτυρία”
[19] After 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”
[20] μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν τῷ Παρμένοντι συνέβη συμφορὰ δεινή, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί. οἰκοῦντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐν Ὀφρυνείῳ διὰ τὴν οἴκοθεν φυγήν, ὅτε ὁ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο ὁ περὶ Χερρόνησον, συμπεσούσης αὐτῷ τῆς οἰκίας ἀπώλοντο ἡ γυνὴ καὶ οἱ παῖδες. καὶ ὁ μὲν πυθόμενος τὴν συμφορὰν ᾤχετο ἐνθένδε ἀποπλέων: ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοκλῆς, διαμαρτυραμένου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐναντίον μαρτύρων μὴ ἀποφαίνεσθαι καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἄνευ τῶν συνδιαιτητῶν, ἀποδημήσαντος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου διὰ τὴν συμφορὰν ἐρήμην κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀπεφήνατο τὴν δίαιταν.
[20] After this there befell Parmeno, men of the jury, a dire misfortune. He was dwelling in Ophrynium 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.
[21] καὶ ἐγὼ μὲν καὶ ὁ Φώκριτος ἐν ταῖς αὐταῖς συνθήκαις γεγραμμένοι, ὅτι ἠμφεσβήτησεν οὗτος μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς διαιτητὰς αὑτῷ, ἐφύγομεν τὸ διαιτῆσαι: ὁ δὲ οὐ μόνον ἀμφισβητηθείς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπορρηθὲν αὐτῷ, οὐδὲν ἧττον τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἐποιήσατο. ὃ οὔτε ὑμῶν οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων Ἀθηναίων ὑπομείναι ἂν ποιῆσαι οὐδείς.
[21] Phocritus 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.
[22] ἃ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὴν ἀφάνισιν τῶν συνθηκῶν καὶ περὶ τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς διαίτης Ἀπατουρίῳ καὶ τῷ διαιτητῇ πέπρακται, ἐάν ποτε σωθῇ ὁ ἠδικημένος, δίκην παρ᾽ αὐτῶν λήψεται: ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθεν Ἀπατούριος ἀναιδείας, ὥστε κἀμοὶ δικάζεται, ἐπιφέρων αἰτίαν ὡς ἀνεδεξάμην ἐκτείσειν, εἴ τι καταγνωσθείη τοῦ Παρμένοντος, καί φησιν ἐγγραφῆναι εἰς τὰς συνθήκας ἐμὲ ἐγγυητήν, ὥσπερ προσήκει τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἀπολύσασθαι, πρῶτον μὲν ὑμῖν μάρτυρας παρασχήσομαι ὡς οὐκ ἠγγυησάμην ἐγὼ τὸν Παρμένοντα, ἀλλ᾽ Ἄρχιππος Μυρρινούσιος, ἔπειτα πειράσομαι καὶ ἐκ τεκμηρίων τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιήσασθαι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί.
[22] For 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.