Dēmos · Classical Athenian Democracy · a Stoa Publication
→ § 44 (Dem. 33).
Craig Gibson, trans., edition of April 30, 2003
page 45 of 58
Plot on a Map
(1) The man who is bringing this indictment against a case for an illegal prosecution had some private contracts with Apaturius, but he gave a release and discharge for them. Now, however, he is being accused because of his relationship with Parmenon, and money is being demanded from him. Parmenon was a citizen of Byzantium. Apaturius was a merchant from there, but he had been exiled. Though initially enjoying Apaturius’ friendship, Parmenon later took offense at him, went to court, and prosecuted him for blows and damages, and Apaturius in response initiated a countersuit against Parmenon. (2) Apaturius claimed that he had turned the matter over to Aristocles, a single arbitrator, who had passed judgment against Parmenon. So Apaturius has come to court to oppose this man (the one who is now bringing an indictment for an illegal prosecution against the case), saying that he had been Parmenon’s guarantor. (3) But the speaker admits none of these things; rather, he says, first, that he turned the matter over to three arbitrators, not just the one, Aristocles. Second, he says that Archippus was listed as Parmenon’s guarantor in the agreement, and that this agreement had been destroyed through the wickedness of Apaturius. Apaturius (he says) had persuaded Aristocles (the one who was in possession of the agreement) not to bring it to light, but rather to say that his slave fell asleep and lost it, and that no new agreement had been written nor had the matter been turned over for a new arbitration. (The first arbitration had previously been made void due to the loss of the agreement, and they had never agreed on a second one). The speaker also says that Aristocles, contrary to everything that is just, had given a judgment against Parmenon—this despite the fact that he was no longer the arbitrator and that Parmenon not only was out of town at the time due to some personal tragedy, but also had forbidden Aristocles to serve as their arbitrator. (4) And so the defendant presents these just objections and brings an indictment against the case for an illegal prosecution, saying that a release had been given for the contracts between himself and Apaturius, that no new agreement had been drawn up later, and that the laws forbade cases concerning such matters to be tried.
page 45 of 58