Against Apaturius

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.

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.

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,[*](Roughly, from September to April, the period when the seas were closed, and the ships laid up in port.) 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?

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.

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.

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.

The Deposition

Now, please take the law which declares that guaranties shall be for a year only.[*](That is, they become invalid, if not renewed at the end of a year.) 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.

The Law

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?

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.

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?

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: 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;

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?

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?

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.

Meet him on this ground: that all men, when they make agreements with one another, seal the articles and deposit them with persons whom they can trust, for this very purpose, that, if a dispute arises between them, they may refer to the document and so settle the point at issue. But when a man, after doing away with the source of accurate knowledge, undertakes to deceive you with words, how can you with justice put any confidence in him?

But perhaps some witness (for this is the easiest course for those who have chosen to do wrong and to bring baseless charges) will testify for him against me. If then, I take action against the witness, how will he prove that his testimony is true? By the articles of agreement? Well, then, let there be no delay about this; let the one who has them bring forward the articles at once. But if he says they have been lost, how, then, shall I find means of refuting the false testimony brought against me? If the document had been deposited with me, it would have been open to Apaturius to charge that I had made away with it because of my guaranty;

but, if it was deposited with Aristocles, why is it, if the agreement has been lost without the plaintiff’s knowledge, that instead of bringing suit against the man who received the agreement but does not produce it, he makes charges against me, bringing forward as a witness against me the man who made away with the agreement, against whom he ought to feel resentment, if it were not that they are leagued together in their evil scheming?

I have made a just plea to the best of my ability. Do you now give a just decision in accordance with the laws.