Apollodorus Against Timotheus in the Matter of a Debt (62-65)

Now regarding the bowls which Aeschrion, the body-servant of the defendant, requested of me in the month Maimacterion in the archonship of Asteius, when Timotheus was in Athens at the time when he entertained Alcetas and Jason, and with the value of which he was debited in the archonship of Alcisthenes—for some time my father supposed he would return the bowls which he had borrowed; but when he went off without having returned them, and the bowls of Timosthenes were no longer in the custody of Phormio, and the one who had deposited them came and demanded their return, my father paid the price of the bowls to Timosthenes, and wrote the defendant down as owing this sum in addition to the rest of his debt.

If, then, he makes use of this defence, that he was not in Athens at the time when he was debited with the cost of the bowls, make this reply to him: You received them, when here, and since you did not return them, and were abroad, and the bowls which the depositor claimed were not there, you were debited with their value, that sum, namely, which was paid for the bowls.

Ah but, he will perhaps say, my father ought to have demanded the return of the bowls from him. But my father saw in what straits you were, Timotheus. He trusted you in regard to the rest of your debt, and believed that after your return to Athens he would recover his money from you, when you should be better off for funds. Was he, then, going to distrust you in the matter of the bowls? He promised at your request that he would provide the freight for the timber when you were sailing to take service with the king; was he, then, going to distrust you because of a couple of bowls? He did not demand of you that you pay the rest of the debt, because he saw that you were without funds. Was he, then, going to demand the bowls?

I wish now to speak about the challenge to an oath, which I tendered the defendant, and he tendered me. For after I had put an oath in the evidence-box, he thought that, by taking an oath himself, he could be quit of the affair. And, if I had not known that he had flagrantly perjured himself in many solemn oaths both to states and to individuals, I should have allowed him to take the oath; but as it was, seeing that I had witnesses to prove that the persons appointed by him had in fact received the money from the bank, and conclusive circumstantial evidence as well, it seemed to me a monstrous thing to give an oath to one who would not only take no care to swear honestly, but who, when it was a question of gain, has not spared even temples.