Parmeno, discovering that the slaves were about to be carried off, lays his hands upon them and stops it, and prevented the removal of the ship; he then sends for me and tells me what had happened. When I heard of it, I regarded this man as a consummate scoundrel for his attempt, and I began to consider what was the best way to free myself from my guaranty to the bank, and to prevent the foreigner's losing what he had lent to this man through me. Having placed some persons to watch the ship, I explained the matter to the sureties of the bank, and delivered the security to them, informing them that the foreigner had ten minas on the ship. After this, I attached the slaves, so that, in case there were anything short, the deficiency might be made good by the slaves. In such manner, when I found Apaturius acting wrong, I secured both the foreigner's rights and my own. Apaturius however, as if he had been the injured and not the injuring party, complained of my conduct, and asked if I was not satisfied with getting quit of my own guaranty to the bank, but I must attach the ship and the slaves for Parmeno's money also, and make an enemy of him (Apaturius) on account of a man in exile. I replied, that I was all the less inclined to forsake a person who had put trust in me, because he was in exile and misfortune when this man wronged him. In short, I used every exertion, incurred the utmost hostility of the plaintiff, and with difficulty recovered the money, the ship having been sold for forty minas, the sum for which it had been mortgaged. The thirty minas having then been paid to the bank, and the ten minas to Parmeno, we in the presence of several witnesses cancelled the bond upon which the money was lent, and released and discharged each other from our engagements, so that I had nothing further to do with the plaintiff, nor he with me. Now hear the depositions to prove the facts I state :

[The Depositions.]

Since that I have had no transaction with him great or small. Parmeno sued Apaturius for the blows which he received from him when he stopped the carrying off of the slaves, and for damages because he had prevented him making a voyage to Sicily. While the action was pending, Parmeno tenders an oath to Apaturius concerning some particulars of

the plaint, and he accepted it, and gave a deposit, to be forfeited if he did not swear the oath. To prove the truth of these statements, take the depositions : [The Depositions.]

After having accepted the oath, as he was aware that many persons would know him to be perjured, he did not attend to swear it, but, as if he could discharge himself of the oath by bringing an action, he summons Parmeno into court. While both their actions were pending, under the advice of persons present they came to a reference, and drawing up articles of submission, they refer matters to one common arbitrator, their own countryman Phocritus, and each appointed one to act as assessor, the plaintiff choosing Aristocles of Ea, and Parmeno me. And they agreed in the articles that, if we were all three unanimous, our judgment should be binding on them, but, if we were not unanimous, they should be bound to acquiesce in whatever the two decided. Having concluded these terms, they gave sureties to one another for their fulfilment; the plaintiff's surety was Aristocles, Parmeno's was Archippus of Myrrhinus. And in the first instance they deposited the agreement of submission with Phocritus; afterwards, upon Phocritus requesting them to deposit it with some one else, they deposit it with AristoIn proof of my statements, hear the depositions :

[The Depositions.]

That the articles of submission were deposited with Aristocles, and that the reference was to Phocritus and Aristocles and me, has been proved to you by the testimony of those who knew the facts. I entreat you, men of the jury, to hear from me what occurred afterwards; for from this it will be manifest to you that the claim made against me by the plaintiff Apaturius is groundless and vexatious. When he perceived that Phocritus and I were of the same opinion, and saw that we should give our award against him, wishing to break off the reference, he attempted, in concert with the man who held the articles, to destroy them. And he went so far as to contend, that Aristocles was his arbitrator, and said that Phocritus and I had no further authority than to assist in reconciling the parties. Parmeno, indignant at this

assertion, desired Aristocles to produce the articles of submission, adding, that the proof was not far off, if any tricks were played with the document, for his own servant had written it out. Aristocles promised to produce the articles, but he has not given us a sight of them to this hour. He met us at the appointed day in the temple of Vulcan, and as an excuse for not bringing the paper stated, that his boy while waiting for him had fallen asleep and lost it. The contriver of this plot was Eryxias, the physician from Piræus, an intimate friend of Aristocles; and he it is who has got up these proceedings against me, because he has a quarrel with Now for the evidence, that Aristocles pretended he had

me.

lost the paper.

[The Depositions.]

After this the reference was at an end, the articles of submission having been made away with, and the authority of the arbitrators disputed. They endeavoured to draw up new articles, but could not agree about them, as the plaintiff wanted Aristocles, and Parmeno wanted the three, to whom the reference had been made originally. However, though there had been no fresh articles drawn, though the original articles had been made away with, the person who had caused their disappearance was impudent enough to declare, that he would pronounce his award alone. Parmeno in the presence of witnesses, whom he had brought expressly for the purpose, gave notice to Aristocles not to make an award against him contrary to the articles without his colleagues. Hear the evidence of the persons, in whose presence he gave the notice.

[The Deposition.]

After this, men of the jury, a heavy misfortune befel Parmeno. He was dwelling in Ophrynium,1 on account of his exile from home, when the earthquake happened in the Chersonese; his house was shaken down, and his wife and children perished. As soon as he heard of the misfortune, he took ship and departed from Athens. Aristocles, notwithstanding the man's notice (given in the presence of witnesses), not to make an award against him without the co-arbitrators, after Parmeno had left the country on account of his misfor

1 A town on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont.

tune, pronounced an award against him for non-appearance. And, while Phocritus and I, who were nominated in the same articles, declined to act in the arbitration because the plaintiff disputed our having authority from him, Aristocles, whose authority was disputed, and who had also been expressly forbidden to act, nevertheless pronounced his judgment; a thing which not one of you, and indeed no other Athenian, would venture to do.

For these proceedings of Apaturius and the arbitrator in making away with the articles and pronouncing the award, the injured party, if ever he returns safe to Athens, will obtain satisfaction from them. As Apaturius however has been impudent enough to go to law with me, on the alleged ground that I undertook to pay whatever sum should be awarded against Parmeno, and as he asserts that I was introduced as surety into the articles, I will take the proper way to dispose of such a charge; I will first call witnesses before you, to prove that it was not I who became surety for Parmeno, but Archippus of Myrrhinus, and then I will proceed, men of the jury, to establish my defence by circumstantial proofs.

In the first place then I consider, that the time is evidence for me, that the claim is unfounded. For the reference between Apaturius and Parmeno and the decision of Aristocles took place three years ago; and the merchants have their actions every month from Boedromion to Munychion, so that they may obtain speedy justice and put to sea. If then I was in truth a surety for Parmeno, first let me ask, why did he not compel me to pay what I had guaranteed immediately after the judgment? He can never say, that he was reluctant to give me offence, on account of his friendly feeling towards me: for I had rigorously compelled him to pay the thousand drachms due to Parmeno; and when he was removing the ship out of port, with intent to run away and escape payment of the debt to the bank, he was prevented by me. Therefore, if I had made myself responsible for Parmeno, he would not have demanded the guaranty three years afterwards, but would have taken measures to get it immediately.

But perhaps he was in easy circumstances, so that he might conveniently come upon me at a later period, and he had then no leisure, as he was going to sea. Why, he had

been forced for want of money to part with his effects and sell his ship. And, supposing even that there was any cause which prevented his suing me at that moment, why, when he was in the country last year, did he never venture, I will not say to go to law, but even to make a demand? It was clearly his business, if judgment had been given for him against Parmeno and I was surety, to come to me in person with witnesses, and demand the sum guaranteed, if not the year before last, at all events in the year following; then, if I offered payment, to take his money, otherwise to commence an action. For, upon claims of this sort, all people make demands before they go to law. Now there is not a witness who will say he was ever present, either last year or the year before last, when Apaturius took any legal proceeding against me, or spoke a single word to me on the subject of the claim for which he now sues me. To prove that he was in the country last year when the law-courts were open, please to take the deposition.

[The Deposition.]

Now take the law which enacts that guaranties shall be in force for a year.1 And I don't insist under the statute, that I ought not to pay damages if I became surety, but I say, the statute is my witness that I never was surety, and so is the plaintiff himself; for otherwise he would have sued me on the guaranty in the time specified by the law.

[The Law.]

Let this serve me for an additional proof of the falsehood of Apaturius. If I had become surety to him for Parmeno, I should never have incurred the enmity of the plaintiff for Parmeno's sake, to protect him against losing what he lent to the plaintiff through me, and yet have allowed Parmeno to leave me liable on my guaranty to the plaintiff. For what hope had I that any forbearance would be shown me by the plaintiff, whom I had myself compelled to do justice to Parmeno? And, when I had been so rigorous in forcing him to satisfy the guarantee to the bank, what treatment could I expect from him myself?

1 The statute would begin to run, not from the date of the guaranty, but from the time of default. It may possibly be, that Parmeno's absence abroad extended the period of liability.