by Demosthenes
Not only from the facts already adduced can you see that Aphobus was not in any respect whatever prejudiced by my refusal to give the man up for torture, but also from a consideration of the matter itself. Let us suppose that Milyas is being racked upon the wheel, and consider what Aphobus would most wish him to say. Would it not be that he was not aware that the plaintiff had any of the property in his possession? Well, suppose he says so. Does that prove that the plaintiff has none? Far from it; for I produced men who knew, men who paid him the money, men who were present in person, as witnesses. It is convincing proof, not if one is ignorant that a man has something in his possession （for there might be many such）, but if one knows that he has it. [41] But of the many witnesses who testified against you, what one have you sued for false testimony? Tell us. But you cannot. Yet you plainly convict yourself, and prove that you lie when you declare that you have been outrageously treated, and that you lost the suit unjustly, because this man was not given up to you — you who made no charge of giving false testimony against the witnesses who testified that you received and had in your possession the property, concerning which you demanded Milyas for torture to prove that it was never left us. If you had really been wronged, it would have been more fitting to proceed against them. But you were not wronged, and are bringing a baseless suit out of malice. [42]
There are many points from which one may see your rascality, but most of all if one hears how you acted regarding the will. For although my father, men of the jury, wrote a will containing an inventory of all that he left, with instructions for letting the property, this will Aphobus never gave up to me, lest I should learn from it the value of the estate, and admitted possessing only those items which were so well known that he could not deny that he had them. [43] The will, according to his statement, contained these provisions: that Demophon should at once receive two talents, and should marry my sister when she should come of age （this would be in ten years）; that Aphobus himself should have eighty minae with my mother, and the house to live in; and that Therippides should enjoy the interest on seventy minae until I should reach manhood. All the rest of the property left to me apart from these items, and the clause regarding the letting of the estate, he suppressed from the will, not thinking that it was to his interest that these matters should be made known in your court. [44] However, since it was admitted by Aphobus himself that my father on his death-bed gave to each of these men such large sums of money, the jurymen at the former trial considered these admissions to be a proof of the size of the estate. For when a man gave out of his estate four talents and three thousand drachmae by way of marriage-portion and legacy, it was plain that he took these sums, not from a small estate, but from one （bequeathed to me） of more than double this amount. [45] For it cannot be supposed that he would wish to leave me, his son, in poverty, and be eager further to enrich these men, who were already wealthy. No; it was because of the size of the estate left to me that he gave to Therippides the interest on seventy minae, and to Demophon that on the two talents — though he was not yet to marry my sister. These moneys it has been proved that Aphobus never gave over to me, nor even an amount slightly less. Part of it he said he had spent, part he had never received, part he knew nothing about, part was in the hands of so-and-so, part was in the house, and of part he could say anything except when and where he had paid it over. [46]
As to his story of money left in the house I shall clearly prove to you that he is lying. This argument he speciously introduced, when it had become clear that the property was large and was unable to show that he had paid it back, in order that it might appear a reasonable inference that I was wrongfully seeking to recover what was already in my possession. [47] If my father had no confidence in these men it is plain that he would neither have entrusted them with the rest of his property, nor, if he had left this money in the way alleged, would he have told them of it. How, then, do they know about it? But, if he had confidence in them, he would not, I take it, have given into their hands the bulk of his property, and not have put them in charge of the rest. Nor would he have entrusted this remainder to my mother to keep and then have pledged her herself in marriage to this man, who was one of the guardians. For it is not reasonable that he should seek to make the money secure through her, and yet put one of the men whom he distrusted in control both of her and of it. [48] Furthermore, if there were any truth in all this, do you suppose that Aphobus would not have taken my mother to wife, bequeathed to him as she was by my father? He had already taken her marriage-portion — the eighty minae — as though he were going to marry her; but he subsequently married the daughter of Philonides of Melite, from motives of avarice, in order that, in addition to what he had received from us, he might get from him other eighty minae. But, if there had been four talents in the house, and in her custody, as he alleges, don’t you imagine he would have raced to get possession both of her and of them? [49] Would he have joined with his co-trustees in so shamefully plundering my visible property, which many of you knew had been left me, and have refrained, when he had the chance, from seizing a fund to the existence of which you would not be able to testify? Who can believe this? It is impossible, men of the jury; it is impossible. No; all the money which my father left was indeed buried on the day on which it came into the hands of these men; and the defendant, not being able to tell when and where he paid back any of it, makes use of these arguments, hoping that I may seem to be a rich man, and so meet with no compassion from you. [50]
I have many other charges to make against him, but I have not the right to speak of the injuries I myself have suffered, when the witness is in danger of losing his civic rights. Still I wish to read to you a challenge, for you will know, when you have heard it, that the testimony was true, and that Aphobus, who now declares that he demands Milyas to be examined about all the matters involved in the suit, at first demanded him only in regard to a question of thirty minae; and, furthermore, that he has been put to no disadvantage because of the testimony. [51] For I, in my desire to refute him in every particular, and in my attempt to make clear to you his tricks and his villainies, asked him how large the sum was regarding which he demanded to examine Milyas, as one who had knowledge of the facts. To this he replied falsely, that it was in regard to the whole amount. “Well then,” said I, “as to this I will give up to you for examination by torture the slave who has the copy of your challenge to me. [52] If, when I have given oath that you acknowledged the man to be free, and that you so testified against Demo, you will swear to the contrary with imprecations upon your daughter, I release to you the entire sum, for which you shall be shown by the examination of the slave to have at the first demanded Milyas; and the damages which you were condemned to pay shall be lessened by thus much — that is, by the amount in regard to which you demanded Milyas, to the end that you may be found to have been put to no disadvantage by the witnesses.” [53] This challenge I made to him in the presence of many witnesses; but he said he could not accept it. Yet, if a man refused to give this judgement in his own favor, how can it be right for you, who are upon your oaths, to give credence to his words and convict the witnesses, and not rather to regard this man as the most shameless of humankind?
To prove that my words are true, call the witnesses to these facts.” Witnesses “ [54]
Do not suppose that while I was ready to take this course, the witnesses did not hold the same opinion. No; they too were ready to place their children by their side, and in confirmation of the testimony they had given, to take an oath with imprecations upon them, if they swore falsely. But Aphobus did not see fit to allow an oath to be given either to them or to me. Instead, he rests his case on arguments subtly planned and on witnesses accustomed to perjury, and thinks thereby easily to mislead you. So take and read to the jury this deposition also.” Deposition “ [55]
How could one prove more clearly than I have proved that we are the object of a malicious charge; that the evidence brought forward against my opponent is true; and that
his condemnation was just? I have shown that he refused to examine by torture the slave who wrote the testimony regarding the very things to which he had testified; that his brother, Aesius, has attested the facts which he on his part declares to be false; [56] that Aphobus himself has, at my summons, given against Demo, his uncle and co-trustee, the same testimony as the witnesses whom he is suing; that he refused to examine my women-servants as to the fact of Milyas being a freeman; that my own mother was ready to give an oath regarding these matters with imprecations upon us; that he refused to accept for examination any one of my other slaves who knew all the circumstances better than Milyas did; that he has not brought a charge of false witness against any one of those who testified that he had the money; [57] that he did not give over the will, nor let the house, although the laws so bade; and finally that he did not see fit to give an oath, after the witnesses and I myself had sworn, whereby he could have secured release to the amount of the sums regarding which he had demanded Milyas for torture. By heaven, I certainly could think of no better way than this to establish these facts. Yet, plain as it is that he falsely attacks the witnesses; that he suffers no damage from the facts adduced; that he was justly condemned; he still tries to brazen it out. [58] If it were not that he uses his present language after having at the outset been judged to be in the wrong by his own friends and by the arbitrator, there would be less reason to wonder at all this. But the fact is, that after persuading me to refer the matter to Archeneus and Dracontides and Phanus （the last of whom he is now suing on a charge of giving false witness）, he rejected them （having heard them say that, if they decided on oath, they would condemn his conduct as guardian）, and appeared before the official arbitrator, who, since Aphobus was unable to clear himself from the charges which I brought, gave judgement against him. [59] The jury, to whom he then appealed, having heard the case, gave the same decision that his own friends and the arbitrator had given, and fixed the damages at ten talents. This was not, heaven knows, because he had admitted Milyas to be a freeman （for this was nothing to the point）, but because, a fortune of fifteen talents having been left me, he had not let the property; because further, he with his co-trustees had the management of the estate for ten years, and agreed on behalf of me, a child, to pay a property-tax at the rate of five minae, [60] the same rate at which Timotheus, son of Conon, and those possessing the largest fortunes were assessed; and because, after administering for so long an estate, on which he voluntarily chose to pay so high a tax, he turned over to me, as the amount due from him, property not even of the value of twenty minae, having together with those others robbed me of my whole estate, principal as well as interest. The jurymen, therefore, although they allowed interest on the whole property at the lowest rate, and not that at which estates are ordinarily let, found that these men had robbed me of more than thirty talents, and accordingly fixed the damages against Aphobus at ten talents.
AGAINST ONETOR 1
Translated by A. T. Murray
I should have been most glad, men of the jury, had the difference which I have had with Aphobus, and also that in which I am now involved with this man Onetor, his brother-in-law, not come about. Accordingly, I made to them both many fair offers, but I have been unable to secure any reasonable action from either of them. On the contrary, I have found this man far harder to deal with, and more worthy of punishment than the other. [2] In the case of Aphobus, I held that his controversy with me should be settled among our friends, and not come to trial before you, but I could not persuade him. But this man, when I bade him act as judge in his own case, that he might not risk a trial before you, treated me with such contempt, that not only did he not think fit to give me a hearing, but I was even in the most outrageous manner driven off the land, which belonged to Aphobus, when he lost his suit to me. [3] Since, therefore, he joins with his brother-in-law in seeking to deprive me of what is mine, and has come before you, trusting in the measures he has concocted, there is no other course open to me than to try in your court to get justice from him. I know well, men of the jury, that I have to contend against arguments craftily prepared, and against witnesses who are going to give false testimony; nevertheless I think that I shall have such an advantage over him because of the justice of my cause, [4] that, even if any one of you heretofore thought him an honest man, he will learn from the defendant’s acts toward me that even in time past he has been, without your knowing it, the basest and most unrighteous of men. I shall show, namely, that he has not only never paid the marriage-portion, to secure which he alleges that the land has been mortgaged, but from the very start has schemed to defraud me of my rights; that, further, the lady, on whose behalf he drove me from the land in question, has not been divorced at all; [5] and that he is now screening Aphobus, and standing this trial with the purpose of depriving me of what is mine. This I shall show by such strong and manifest proofs, that you will see how just and proper it is that I have instituted this action against him. I shall commence with matters which will best enable you to grasp the facts of the case. [6]
In common with many others of the Athenians, men of the jury, this man was well aware that my guardians were proving false to their trust. Indeed, it became clear very early that I was being wronged, so many were the discussions and arguments regarding my affairs held before the archon and before other officials. For the value of the property left me was well known, and it was pretty clear that the administrators were leaving it unlet in order that they might have the use of the money themselves. There was not a single one, therefore, among those who realized what was going on, who did not expect that I should obtain a judgement for damages from these men, as soon as I should attain my majority. [7] Among those who from first to last held this opinion were Timocrates and Onetor. Of this I can give you the strongest of proofs. For the defendant wished to give his sister in marriage to Aphobus, seeing that he had got into his hands his own patrimony and mine （which was not inconsiderable） as well; but he had not confidence enough in him to abandon her marriage-portion. It was as if he felt, forsooth, that the property of guardians was a security for their wards. He did, however, give him his sister, but the portion, Timocrates, who had been her former husband, agreed to keep as a loan with interest at the rate of five obols. [8] When I had won my suit against Aphobus in the matter of the guardianship and he still refused to make any just settlement, Onetor did not even try to settle our dispute, but, alleging that his sister had been divorced, and that he was unable to get back her marriage-portion, which he had paid （although he had not paid it, and it was even then in his possession）, declared that he had taken a mortgage on the land, and had the effrontery to expel me from it; such was his contempt for me, and for you, and for the laws which were in force. [9] These, men of the jury, are the facts because of which he is defendant in the present suit, and regarding which you are to cast your vote. I shall bring forward witnesses, and in the first instance Timocrates himself, who will testify that he agreed to hold the dowry as a loan, and that he continued to pay interest on it to Aphobus according to the agreement; also that Aphobus himself acknowledged that he received the interest from Timocrates.
Take the depositions.” Depositions “ [10]
From the very first, you see, it is admitted that the dowry was not paid to Aphobus, and that he did not get it under his control. And it seems very probable that on account of the facts which I have mentioned, they chose to continue as debtors for the dowry, rather than to have it involved in the estate of Aphobus which was sure to be so seriously endangered. For it is impossible for them to claim that poverty prevented their paying it over at once, since Timocrates has an estate of more than ten talents, and Onetor one of more than thirty; so this cannot have been the reason why they have not made an immediate payment. [11] Nor can they claim that they had property indeed, but no ready money, or that the lady was a widow, and that they therefore hastened to conclude matters without at once paying her portion. For these men are in the habit
of lending considerable sums to others, and moreover, the lady was not a widow, but when they gave her in marriage, it was from the house of Timocrates, where she was living with him as his wife; so that there is no reasonable ground why one should accept this excuse either. [12] Further, men of the jury, I think you would all agree to this, that, in arranging a matter of this sort, anyone would choose to borrow money of another, rather than fail to pay the dowry to his sister’s husband. For if a man does not settle this matter he becomes a debtor, regarding whom it is uncertain whether he will meet his just obligations or not; but if together with the lady he gives also what is hers, he becomes a kinsman and a brother-in-law, [13] for he is not under any suspicion, since he has done all that justice demanded. Seeing that the matter stands thus, and that they were not forced by a single one of the causes which I have mentioned to let this debt stand, and could not have desired to do so, it is not possible to suggest any other excuse for non-payment. It must be for the reason which I have mentioned — that they did not trust Aphobus enough to pay him the dowry. [14]
I have established this point, then, in this way beyond all controversy; and I think I shall easily demonstrate from the facts themselves that they did not pay the portion subsequently either; so that it will be clear to you that even if they withheld the money, not for the reasons I have mentioned, but with the intention of speedy payment, they would never actually have paid it, or let it slip out of their hands; with such urgency did the case press upon them. [15] There was an interval of two years between the marriage of the woman and their declaration that the divorce had taken place. She was married in the archonship of Polyzelus, in the month of Scirophorion, and the divorce was registered in the month of Poseidon, in the archonship of Timocrates. I, on my part, was admitted to citizenship immediately after the marriage, laid my charges, and demanded an accounting; and, finding that I was being robbed of all my property, instituted my suit under the last-mentioned archon. [16] The shortness of the time makes the continuance of the debt in accordance with the agreement not unlikely, but it is incredible that it should have been paid. For do you suppose that the defendant here, a man who at the first chose to owe the money and to pay interest on it, in order that his sister’s dowry might not be jeopardized along with the rest of her husband’s property, would have paid it when suit had already been instituted against that husband? Why, even if he had at the first trusted him with the money, he would then at once have sought to recover it. No, men of the jury; the supposition is, I presume, impossible. [17]