159

THE ORATION AGAINST APATURIUS.

THE ARGUMENT.

APATURIUS, the plaintiff, sues the defendant, whose name does not appear, for twenty minas, alleged to be due from him upon a guaranty which he had given for the performance of an award by one Parmeno. The defendant denies that he ever gave such guaranty, stating that another person, and not himself, was Parmeno's surety. He alleges also, that the award given against Parmeno was illegal and fraudulent, having been made contrary to the terms of the reference between Apaturius and Parmeno; for the reference was to three arbitrators, and the award was made by one only, acting in collusion with Apaturius. The defendant put in three special pleas: first, a plea similar to that in the last case; secondly, that there had been a release of all causes of action between the plaintiff and himself; thirdly, that the action was brought too late, as guarantees were by an Athenian statute declared to be in force for one year only. The first of these pleas seems hardly to apply to the present case, (see the argument to the speech against Zenothemis). The release appears to have been given previously to the alleged guaranty, and to have related to other matters. And the defendant does not strongly insist upon the third special plea. We have not the Athenian statute (which he refers to) before us, but, as the defendant intimates that he did not much rely upon it, we may reasonably conjecture that the law afforded some answer to this objection. The case was brought to a hearing (according to the practice) upon the special pleas; but the defendant, not much relying upon them, enters into the general merits of the case; and his chief point of contention is, that the award was invalid for the reason above mentioned. He gives a history of antecedent transactions between the plaintiff and himself, partly to explain the origin of his connexion with him, and partly with a view to show, that the present proceeding was got up from malicious motives.

THE law, men of Athens, declares that merchants and shipowners shall have their actions before the Judges, if any wrong is done them in their trade, either upon a voyage from Athens or upon a voyage to Athens; and it enacts, that the wrongdoers shall suffer imprisonment until they have paid what is adjudged against them, so that wrong may not lightly

be done to commercial people. To those however who are sued upon non-existent contracts1 the law gives the protection of a special plea, so that vexatious demands may be prevented, and the actions be confined to such merchants and shipowners as are in reality injured. And many defendants in mercantile suits have before now pleaded according to this law, and have come into court before you and shown that their opponents were making false and vexatious charges under the pretence of trading. Who the person is that has conspired with the plaintiff against me and got up the present proceedings, will in the course of my address become apparent to you. As Apaturius however is making an unfounded charge against me and suing me contrary to law, as there has been a mutual release and discharge from all the engagements entered into between him and myself, and there is no other loan transaction between us, either on sea or land security,2 I have pleaded that the action is not maintainable, according to these laws which I produce:

[The Laws.]

That Apaturius has commenced his action against me contrary to these laws, and has made an unfounded demand, I shall show you by many proofs. I, men of the jury, have been for a considerable period engaged in foreign trade, and up to a certain time I made voyages myself; it is not quite seven years since I gave up going to sea, and now, having a moderate capital, I make it my business to lend it on maritime adventures. As I have been to many places and constantly attended the marts of commerce, I am acquainted with most of the seafaring people; and I am very intimate with these men from Byzantium, through having stayed so much there. My position being such as I have told you, about three years ago the plaintiff made a voyage to Athens with his fellow-countryman Parmeno, who is a Byzantine by birth, but exiled from his country.

The

1 That is, as Pabst expresses it more fully,-"die man wegen Forderungen vor Gericht stellt, worüber keine schriftlichen Contrakte vorhanden sind."-See the opening of the last speech, and the argument.

2 Pabst und ich auch keine neue Verbindlichkeit durch eine Schuldverschreibung gegen ihn eingegangen habe, weder im Seehandel, noch in Landhandelsachen."

plaintiff and Parmeno came to me on the exchange, and began to talk about money. It happened that the plaintiff owed a sum of forty minas on his ship, and the creditors were pressing for payment, and were about to seize the ship, as being forfeited by his default.1 He being in distress, Parmeno agreed to give him ten minas, and he requested me also to advance him thirty minas, alleging that his creditors (who coveted his ship) had slandered him on the exchange, their object being to get possession of the ship by reducing him to absolute insolvency. I happened to have no ready money by me, but, being on good terms with Heraclides the banker, I persuaded him to lend the sum required and take me as surety. Just after the thirty minas had been procured, Parmeno had a quarrel with the plaintiff; but having agreed to advance him ten minas, and having given him three of them, he was compelled, on account of the money which he had parted with, to let him have the remainder also. For the reason mentioned, however, he did not wish to conclude the loan in his own name, but requested me to make it as safe for him as I possibly could. So I received the seven minas from Parmeno, and for the three, which the plaintiff had previously obtained from him, I got the plaintiff to transfer his obligation to me ;2 then I take a mortgage of the ship and the slaves, till he should repay as well the ten minas which he had received through me, as the thirty for which he had made me his surety to the banker. Hear the depositions that prove these statements:

[The Depositions.]

In this manner Apaturius the plaintiff got rid of his crediNot long afterwards, the bank having been broken, and Heraclides having been obliged for a time to keep out of the way, the plaintiff endeavours clandestinely to send the slaves from Athens and remove the ship out of the harbour. From this arose my first misunderstanding with him. For 1 Pabst "legten Beschlag auf das Schiff als Unterpfand, weil der Zahlungstermin nicht eingehalten worden war."

The commentators have not been happy in their interpretations of ἀνθομολογησάμενος πρὸς τοῦτον. Reiske, in his Index, imagines there was a proceeding before the magistrate. Pabst omits these words. Auger is near the meaning: "mettant sur mon compte les trois qu'il avoit déja données."

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 Aristocles. In 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