Against Aphobus I

And these slaves themselves, upon whom he alleges that he has expended the money, they have never handed over to me. On the contrary, they tell the idlest tale imaginable, to the effect that the man who pledged the slaves to my father is the vilest sort of a fellow, who has left many friendly loans[*](The ἔρανος, originally a meal to which each contributed his due portion, came not unnaturally to mean a club to which each member contributed, and from which he could claim help, if need arose. Then it was also used, as here, of the contribution or better, the loan, made to such members.) unpaid, and who is overwhelmed with debt; and to prove this against him they have called a large number of witnesses. But as for the slaves—who got them; how they went out of the house; who took them away; or in what suit they lost them by judgement, they are unable to say.

Yet, if there were any truth in what they allege they would not be bringing forward witnesses to prove this man’s vile character (with which I have no concern), but would be holding on to the slaves, or would show who took them, and would have left not one of them out of sight. But as it is, though they admit that the slaves were left by my father, and though they took possession of them and enjoyed the profits from them for ten years, they have in the most ruthless manner possible done away with the whole factory.

To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, take, please, and read the depositions.

The Depositions

That, moreover, Moeriades was not without resources and that my father did not act foolishly in making the contract with him about the slaves, I will show you by the clearest proof. For after Aphobus took into his own hands the factory as you have yourselves heard from the witnesses, when it was his duty as my guardian to prevent anyone else from advancing money on the same security, he himself loaned to Moeriades on the security of these same slaves the sum of five hundred drachmae, which he admits he has duly recovered from him in full.

And yet is it not outrageous that we who made the prior loan should, besides having received no profit from the slaves, have lost our security, while this fellow, who loaned money on security belonging to us, and whose loan was so long subsequent to ours, should from funds that were ours have recovered both principal and interest, and have suffered no loss whatever?

To prove that what I say is true, take the deposition and read it.

The Deposition

Consider now of how large a sum they are defrauding me in the matter of these sofa-makers: the principal alone, forty minae, and interest upon it for ten years, two talents; for they obtained from the slaves a profit of twelve minae each year. Is this a trifling sum drawn from some obscure source, which might easily have been miscalculated, or have they not manifestly robbed me of nearly three talents[*](Strictly, two talents and forty minae. See the table on p. 11.)? Of this sum which they have jointly scattered to the winds, it is surely right that I should recover a third from the defendant.

Furthermore, men of the jury, they have dealt in much the same way with the ivory and iron which were left me. They do not produce them. Yet it is impossible that one who possessed so many sofa-makers and so many sword-makers should not also have left iron and ivory. These things must have been available, for what could the slaves have produced without these materials.