by Demosthenes
[23] πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὸν χρόνον ἐμαυτῷ ἡγοῦμαι μάρτυρα εἶναι τοῦ μὴ ἀληθὲς τὸ ἔγκλημα εἶναι. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐπιτροπὴ τούτῳ πρὸς τὸν Παρμένοντα τρίτον ἔτος γέγονεν καὶ ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ Ἀριστοκλέους: αἱ δὲ λήξεις τοῖς ἐμπόροις τῶν δικῶν ἔμμηνοί εἰσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ βοηδρομιῶνος μέχρι τοῦ μουνιχιῶνος, ἵνα παραχρῆμα τῶν δικαίων τυχόντες ἀνάγωνται. εἰ δὴ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ἐγγυητὴς ἦν τοῦ Παρμένοντος, διὰ τί πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ εὐθὺς τῆς γνώσεως γενομένης ἐπράττετο τὴν ἐγγύην;
[23] In 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, 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?
[24] οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτό γ᾽ αὐτῷ ἔνι εἰπεῖν, ὡς διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἐμὲ φιλίαν ὤκνει μοι ἀπεχθέσθαι. αὐτὸς γὰρ εἰσεπέπρακτο ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πρὸς ἔχθραν τὰς χιλίας δραχμὰς τὰς τοῦ Παρμένοντος, καὶ ὅτ᾽ ἐξώρμιζε τὴν ναῦν ἐπιβουλεύων ἀποδρᾶναι καὶ ἀποστερῆσαι τὸ ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν χρέως, ἐκωλύθη ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. ὥστε εἰ ἦν ἠγγυημένος ἐγὼ τὸν Παρμένοντα, οὐκ ἂν τρίτῳ ἔτει ὕστερον, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς τότε εἰσέπραττεν ἄν με τὴν ἐγγύην.
[24] It 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.
[25] ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία εὐπόρως διέκειτο, ὥστ᾽ ἐνεδέχετο αὐτῷ καὶ ὕστερον ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλθεῖν, τότε δ᾽ ἀσχόλως εἶχεν περὶ ἀναγωγὴν ὤν. ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀπορίαν ἐξειστήκει τῶν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν ναῦν ἐπεπράκει. εἰ δ᾽ ἄρα ἐμποδών τι αὐτῷ ἐγένετο τοῦ μὴ εὐθὺς τότε δικάσασθαι, διὰ τί πέρυσιν ἐπιδημῶν, μὴ ὅτι δικάσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐγκαλέσαι μοι ἐτόλμησεν; καίτοι προσῆκεν, εἰ ὁ μὲν Παρμένων ὠφλήκει αὐτῷ τὴν δίκην, ἐγὼ δὲ ἐγγυητὴς ἦν, προσελθεῖν αὐτόν μοι ἔχοντα μάρτυρας καὶ ἀπαιτῆσαι τὴν ἐγγύην, εἰ μὴ προπέρυσιν, ἐν τῷ ἐξελθόντι ἐνιαυτῷ: καὶ εἰ μὲν αὐτῷ ἀπεδίδουν, κομίσασθαι, εἰ δὲ μή, δικάζεσθαι.
[25] Ah, 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.
[26] τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐγκλημάτων πρότερον τὰς ἀπαιτήσεις ποιοῦνται ἅπαντες ἢ δικάζονται. οὐκ ἔστιν τοίνυν ὅστις μαρτυρήσει παραγενέσθαι, ὅπου οὗτος ἢ πέρυσιν ἢ προπέρυσιν ἐδικάσατό μοι ἢ λόγον ὁντινοῦν ἐποιήσατο πρὸς ἐμὲ περὶ ὧν νυνί μοι δικάζεται. ὅτι δ᾽ ἐπεδήμει πέρυσιν, ὅτε αἱ δίκαι ἦσαν, λαβέ μοι τὴν μαρτυρίαν.”Μαρτυρία”
[26] For 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”
[27] λαβὲ δή μοι καὶ τὸν νόμον, ὃς κελεύει τὰς ἐγγύας ἐπετείους εἶναι. καὶ οὐκ ἰσχυρίζομαι τῷ νόμῳ, ὡς οὐ δεῖ με δίκην δοῦναι εἰ ἠγγυησάμην, ἀλλὰ μάρτυρά μοί φημι τὸν νόμον εἶναι τοῦ μὴ ἐγγυήσασθαι καὶ αὐτὸν τοῦτον: ἐδεδίκαστο γὰρ ἄν μοι τῆς ἐγγύης ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τῷ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γεγραμμένῳ.”Νόμος”
[27] Now, please take the law which declares that guaranties shall be for a year only. I do not lay stress on the law to show that I should not pay what is due, if I actually became a surety, but I declare that the law is a witness that I did not become one, and so is the fellow himself; for otherwise he would have brought suit against me within the time specified by the law.” Law”
[28] γενέσθω τοίνυν καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τεκμήριον τοῦ ψεύδεσθαι Ἀπατούριον: εἰ γὰρ ἠγγυησάμην ἐγὼ τούτῳ τὸν Παρμένοντα, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως τούτῳ μὲν ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου ἀπηχθόμην, πρόνοιαν ποιούμενος ὅπως μὴ ἀπολεῖ ἃ δι᾽ ἐμοῦ τούτῳ συνέβαλεν, αὐτὸς δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν περιεῖδον ἂν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου πρὸς τοῦτον ἐν ἐγγύῃ καταλειπόμενον. τίνα γὰρ ἐλπίδα ἔσχον τοῦτον ἀποσχήσεσθαί μου, ὃν αὐτὸς ἠναγκάκειν ἐκείνῳ τὰ δίκαια ποιῆσαι; καὶ τὴν ἐγγύην αὐτὸν εἰσπράξας τὴν πρὸς τὴν τράπεζαν πρὸς ἀπέχθειαν, τί προσεδόκων ὑπὸ τούτου αὐτὸς πείσεσθαι;
[28] Let this, then, be another proof to you that Apaturius is lying. If I had become surety to him for Parmeno, it is inconceivable that I should have made the plaintiff my enemy for Parmeno’s sake, taking every care that the latter should not lose what he had lent the plaintiff through me, and yet have allowed myself to be left in the lurch by him as his surety to the plaintiff. For what ground had I to hope that leniency would be shown me by the man whom I had compelled to do justice to Parmeno? And when I had made him my enemy by exacting from him what was guaranteed to the bank, what treatment could I myself have expected to receive at his hands?
[29] ἄξιον τοίνυν καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐνθυμηθῆναι, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτι οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἔξαρνος ἐγενόμην, εἰ ἠγγυήμην: πολὺ γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἦν μοι ἰσχυρότερος ὁμολογοῦντι τὴν ἐγγύην ἐπὶ τὰς συνθήκας ἰέναι, καθ᾽ �
�ς ἡ ἐπιτροπὴ ἐγένετο. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ τρισὶν ἐπετράπη διαιτηταῖς, μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν: ὁπότε δὲ μὴ ἔγνωσται ὑπὸ τῶν τριῶν, τί βουλόμενος ἠρνούμην ἂν τὴν ἐγγύην; μὴ γὰρ γενομένης τῆς γνώσεως κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼ τῆς ἐγγύης ὑπόδικος ἦν. ὥστε οὐκ ἄν ποτε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, παραλιπὼν τὴν οὖσάν μοι ἀπολογίαν, εἰ ἠγγυησάμην, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρνεῖσθαι ἦλθον.
[29] It is worth while also for you to bear this in mind, men of the jury, that, if I had been surety, I should never have denied it. For my argument was much stronger, if I admitted the guaranty and appealed to the agreement in accordance with which the arbitration was to be held. That the matter was referred to three arbitrators has been shown by testimony. When, then, there had been no decision by the three, why in the world should I have denied the guaranty? For, if judgement had not been given in accordance with the agreement, neither should I have been open to action for my guaranty. Therefore, men of the jury, if I had really become a surety, I should not have given up a defence which was at hand, and have proceeded to deny the fact.
[30] ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τοῦτο μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐπειδὴ ἠφανίσθησαν αἱ συνθῆκαι ὑπὸ τούτων, ἐζήτουν ἑτέρας γράφεσθαι οὗτος καὶ ὁ Παρμένων, ὡς ἀκύρων ὄντων αὐτοῖς τῶν πρότερον ὡμολογημένων. καίτοι ὁπότε περὶ τῆς μελλούσης γνώσεως γενήσεσθαι ἑτέρας ἐνεχείρουν συνθήκας γράφεσθαι, ἐπειδὴ αἱ ὑπάρχουσαι ἀπώλοντο, πῶς ἐνῆν μὴ γραφεισῶν συνθηκῶν ἑτέρων ἢ δίαιταν γενέσθαι ἢ ἐγγύην; περὶ αὐτοῦ γὰρ τούτου διενεχθέντες οὐκ ἔγραψαν ἕτερα γράμματα, ὁ μὲν ἀξιῶν ἕνα διαιτητὴν αὑτῷ εἶναι, ὁ δὲ τρεῖς. ὁπότε δὲ αἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς συνθῆκαι ἠφανίσθησαν, καθ᾽ ἃς ἐμέ φησιν γενέσθαι ἐγγυητήν, ἕτεραι δὲ μὴ ἐγράφησαν, πῶς ὀρθῶς ἂν ἐμοὶ δικάζοιτο, καθ᾽ οὗ μὴ ἔχει παρασχέσθαι συνθήκας;
[30] Again, the following fact has been testified to you by witnesses, that, after the articles of agreement had been made away with by these men, the plaintiff and Parmeno sought to have new articles drawn up, thus admitting that their former agreement was without force. Yet, when they sought to have other articles drawn in regard to the judgement that was to be given, since the existing ones had been lost, how was it possible that, if other articles were not drawn, there could be either arbitration or guaranty? It was the fact that they disagreed upon this very point that prevented their writing new articles, Apaturius demanding that there should be one arbitrator, and Parmeno that there should be three. But, since the original articles were made away with, in accordance with which he alleges that I became a surety, and other articles were not written, what right has he to bring suit against me, against whom he is able to produce no agreement?
[31] ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ὡς ἀπηγόρευεν ὁ Παρμένων τῷ Ἀριστοκλεῖ καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ μὴ γιγνώσκειν ἄνευ τῶν συνδιαιτητῶν, μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν. ὅταν δὴ ὁ αὐτὸς ἠφανικὼς φαίνηται τὰ γράμματα καθ᾽ ἃ ἔδει τὴν δίαιταν γενέσθαι, καὶ ἄνευ τῶν συνδιαιτητῶν παρὰ τὴν ἀπόρρησιν φῇ δεδιῃτηκέναι, πῶς ἂν τούτῳ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πιστεύσαντες δικαίως ἐμὲ ἀπολέσαιτε;
[31] Further, it has been testified to you by witnesses that Parmeno forbade Aristocles to give judgement against him without the concurrence of his co-arbitrators. When, therefore, it is shown that the same person has made away with the document in accordance with the terms of which the arbitration was to be made, and declares that he has made the decision without his co-arbitrators, and in defiance of the notice forbidding him to do so, how can you with any fairness credit the fellow and condemn me? Consider this, men of the jury:
[32] σκέψασθε γὰρ τοῦτο, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί: εἰ μὴ ἐμὲ νυνί, ἀλλὰ τὸν Παρμένοντα ἐδίωκεν Ἀπατούριος οὑτοσί, εἰσπράττων τὰς εἴκοσι μνᾶς, ἰσχυριζόμενος τῇ Ἀριστοκλέους γνώσει, ὁ δὲ Παρμένων παρὼν ἀπελογεῖτο ὑμῖν καὶ μάρτυρας παρείχετο, τοῦτο μὲν ὅτι οὐ μόνῳ τῷ Ἀριστοκλεῖ, ἀλλὰ τρίτῳ ἐπέτρεψεν,
[32] suppose it was not against me, but against Parmeno, that this man Apaturius were now taking action, seeking to recover the twenty minae in reliance upon the judgement of Aristocles; and that Parmeno was present and making his defence, calling witnesses to prove that he had turned the matter over to Aristocles, not as a single arbitrator, but as one of three;
[33] εἶθ᾽ ὅτι ἀπεῖπεν αὐτῷ ἄνευ τῶν συνδιαιτητῶν καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ μὴ ἀποφαίνεσθαι, καὶ ὅτι ἀπολομένης αὑτῷ τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν παίδων ὑπὸ τοῦ σεισμοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τηλικαύτην συμφορὰν ἀπάραντος οἴκαδε, ὁ τὰς συνθήκας ἠφανικὼς ἐρήμην αὑτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀποδημίᾳ κατέγνω τὴν δίαιταν, ἔστιν ὅστις ἂν ὑμῶν ταῦτα τοῦ Παρμένοντος ἀπολογουμένου τὴν οὕτω παρανόμως γνωσθεῖσαν δίαιταν κυρίαν ἔγνω εἶναι;
[33] that he had forbidden him to announce a decision against him without his co-arbitrators; and that, after his wife and children had perished in the earthquake, and he in the face of a disaster so appalling had sailed for home, the man who had made away with the articles of agreement announced a judgement against him by default in his absence, is there a single one of you who, when Parmeno had brought out these facts in his defence, would have considered an award so unjustly made to be valid?
[34] μὴ γὰρ ὅτι ἀμφισβητουμένων ἁπάντων, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ἦσαν μὲν αἱ συνθῆκαι, ὡμολογεῖτο δὲ εἷς εἶναι ὁ διαιτητὴς Ἀριστοκλῆς, μὴ ἀπεῖπεν δὲ ὁ Παρμένων αὐτῷ καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ μὴ διαιτᾶν, ἀλλὰ συνέβη πρὶν τὴν ἀπόφασιν γενέσθαι τῆς διαίτης ἡ συμφορὰ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, τίς οὕτως ὠμός ἐστιν ἀντίδικος ἢ διαιτητὴς ὃς οὐκ ἂν ἀνεβάλετο εἰς τὸ ἐπιδημῆσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; εἰ δὲ ὁ Παρμένων εἰς λόγον καταστὰς πανταχοῦ δικαιότερ᾽ ἂν φαίνοιτο λέγων τούτου, πῶς ἂν ὀρθῶς ἐμοῦ καταγιγνώσκοιτε, ᾧ τὸ παράπαν πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τουτονὶ μηδὲν συμβόλαιόν ἐστιν;
[34] More than this; suppose that not every point was under dispute; that there were in existence articles of agreement; that Aristocles was admittedly an arbitrator having sole authority; that Parmeno had not forbidden him to make the award; but that the calamity had befallen the man before the announcement of the award; what adversary or what arbitrator would have been so cruel as not to postpone the case until the man returned to the country? Then, if Parmeno, coming to plead before you, should be judged in every point to speak with more justice than the plaintiff, how can you justly give judgement against me, who have absolutely no contract with this man?
[35] ὅτι μὲν ο
ὖν ἐγὼ μὲν ὀρθῶς τὴν παραγραφὴν πεποίημαι, Ἀπατούριος δὲ τὰ ψευδῆ ἐγκέκληκε καὶ παρὰ τοὺς νόμους τὴν λῆξιν πεποίηται, ἐκ πολλῶν οἶμαι ἐπιδεδεῖχθαι τοῦτο ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί: τὸ δὲ κεφάλαιον, πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιχειρήσει λέγειν Ἀπατούριος ὡς συνθῆκαί τινες αὐτῷ εἰσίν. ὅταν δὲ λέγῃ ψευδόμενος, ὡς ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τὸν Παρμένοντα συνθήκαις ἐνεγράφην ἐγγυητής, ἀπαιτεῖτε αὐτὸν τὰς συνθήκας,
[35] That I, on my part, have made my special plea with good right, and that Apaturius has lodged against me a claim that is .baseless, and instituted a suit contrary to law, has, I think, been shown to you, men of the jury, by many proofs. The main point is this: Apaturius will not even attempt to say that he has any articles showing an agreement between us. When he falsely states that my name was written in as surety in the agreement made with Parmeno, demand of him the articles.