Against Athenogenes (21-25)

in this way. If ignorance prevented you from informing me in advance of all the debts, and if I thought when I concluded the agreement that your statement covered them all, which of us has to pay them? The subsequent purchaser, or the man who owned the business originally, when the money was borrowed? Personally I think that you are liable. But if it turns out that we disagree on this, let the law be our arbiter, which was made neither by lovers nor men with designs on other people’s property but by that great democrat Solon.

He knew that sales are constantly taking place in the city and passed a law, which everyone admits to be just, stating that any offences or crimes committed by a slave shall be the responsibility of the master who owns him at the time.[*] This is only fair; for if a slave gains any success or brings in earnings, his owner enjoys the benefits. But you ignore the law and talk about agreements being broken. Solon did not consider that a decree, even when constitutionally proposed, should override the law.[*] Yet you maintain that even unjust agreements take precedence over all the laws.

Besides this, gentlemen of the jury, he was saying to my father and my other relatives that ⋯[*] telling me to leave Midas for him instead of buying him, but that I refused and wanted to buy them all. I gather that he is even going to mention these points to you with the idea of convincing you of his moderation, if you please. He must think that he is going to address a set of fools who will not realize his effrontery.

You must hear what happened; for you will see that it fits in with the rest of their plot. He sent me the boy, whom I mentioned just now, with the message that he could not stay with me unless I freed his father and brother. When I had already agreed to put down the money for the three of them, Athenogenes approached some of my friends and said:

Why does Epicrates want to give himself extra trouble when he could take the boy and use ⋯?