by Demosthenes
To prove that the woman married at the time I mention; that in the interim Aphobus and I had already gone to law; and that those men did not register the divorce with the archon until after I had instituted my suit, take, please, these depositions regarding each point.” Depositions”
After this archon came Cephisodorus and then Chion. During their term of office, having been admitted to citizenship, I continued to press my charges, and in the archonship of Timocrates I began my suit.
Take this deposition, please.” Deposition “ [18]
Read also this deposition.” Deposition”
It is clear, then, from the evidence adduced that it is not because they have paid the dowry, but because they wish to save his property for Aphobus, that they have had the audacity to act as they have done. For when in so short a time they allege that they owed the money; that they paid it; that the woman was divorced and could not recover the dowry; and that they took a mortgage on the land; how can it be other than clear that they are acting in collusion in their attempt to defraud me of the damages awarded me by you? [19] I shall now endeavor to prove to you from the answers given by the defendant himself, and by Timocrates, and Aphobus, that it is impossible that the dowry should have been paid. For, men of the jury, I questioned each of these men in the presence of many witnesses. I asked Onetor and Timocrates whether any witnesses were present when they paid the dowry, and Aphobus himself whether any were present when he received it; [20] and they all answered severally that no witness was present, but that Aphobus got it from them by instalments, in such sums as he needed from time to time. And yet can any one of you believe this, that, when the dowry was a talent, Onetor and Timocrates put so large a sum into the hands of Aphobus without witnesses? Why, in paying him money, I will not say in this manner, but even in the presence of many witnesses, one would have taken every possible precaution in order, if a dispute should arise, to be able readily to recover in your court what was due. [21] No man, in concluding a transaction of such importance, I will not say with such a man as Aphobus, but with anybody whatever, would have acted without a witness. This is the reason why we celebrate marriage-feasts and call together our closest friends and relations, because we are dealing with no light affair, but are entrusting to the care of others the lives of our sisters and daughters, for whom we seek the greatest possible security. [22] The presumption is, then, that the defendant made the settlement in the presence of the same witnesses before whom he had admitted the indebtedness and promised to pay the interest, if he really did pay the dowry to Aphobus. For, if he had acted in this way, he would have cleared himself of the whole matter; but by paying him when they were alone, he would have left those in whose presence he had made the agreement as witnesses that he was still a debtor. [23] As it was, they could not induce their friends, who were more honest men than themselves, to bear witness to the payment of the money, and they thought that, if they produced other witnesses, not related to them, you would not believe them. Again, if they said the payment had been made all at once, they knew that we should demand for examination by torture the slaves who had brought the money. These, if the payment had not been made, they would have refused to give up, and so they would have been convicted of fraud. But if they maintained that they had paid the money without witnesses in the manner alleged, they thought to escape detection. [24] For this reason they were driven through stress of necessity to make up this false story. By such tricks and pieces of villainy, while hoping themselves to pass for simple folk, they think they will easily deceive you; whereas in the slightest matter affecting their interest they acted, not with simplicity, but with every possible precaution.
Take now the depositions of the persons in whose presence they gave their answers, and read them to the jury.” Depositions “ [25]
Now, men of the jury, I shall prove to you that the woman made a merely nominal divorce, but was in reality living with Aphobus as his wife. I think that, if you are thoroughly convinced of this, you will be more inclined to distrust these men, and to give me the aid that is my due. Of some of the facts I shall produce witnesses: others I shall establish by strong presumptions and by adequate proofs. [26] When I saw, men of the jury, that after the woman’s divorce had been registered with the archon, and after the defendant’s declaration that he had taken a mortgage on the farm to secure her marriage-portion, Aphobus continued to hold and till the land just as before, and to dwell with his wife, I knew well that all this was fiction and a pretence to cover up the facts. [27] And wishing to make this clear to you all, I deemed it right to convict him in the presence of witnesses, in case he should deny that matters are as I have stated; and I offered to him for torture a slave who knew well all the facts — one whom I had taken from among those of Aphobus, since he had not paid the damages within the time fixed by law. When I made this demand, Onetor declined to put the slave to torture as to the question of his sister’s living with Aphobus; and, as to Aphobus’s tilling the land, the fact was too plain to be denied, so he confessed it. [28] Nor are these the only proofs which make it easy to see that Aphobus continued to live with his wife and to possess the land up to the time when the suit was begun; it is plain also from the way in which he dealt with the land after judgement was given against him. For, as though the property had not been mortgaged, but was to belong to me according to the court’s decision, he made off with everything that could be carried away — the produce, and all the farm implements, except the storage-tanks. What he could not take away he necessarily left behind, so that Onetor was now at liberty to lay claim merely to the bare land. [29] It is an outrage, though, that one of them should say that the land was mortgaged to him, while the mortgagor is to be seen cultivating it; that he should claim that his sister has left her husband, when he is shown to have refused to accept the test by torture regarding this very point; and that the one who is not living with his wife （as Onetor claims） should carry off all the produce and implements from the farm, while the man acting as guardian for the divorced woman, to secure whose portion he claims to have taken a mortgage on the land, plainly shows no anger at a single one of these acts, but takes everything quietly. [30] Is the whole thing not absolutely clear? Is it not confessedly a scheme to protect Aphobus? One certainly would so declare, if he duly considered each one of the facts.
Now, to prove that the defendant acknowledged that Aphobus farmed the land up to the time of the commencement of my action against him; that he refused the inquiry by torture as to his sister’s continuing to live with Aphobus; and that the farm was stripped after the court’s decision of everything save what was attached to the soil; take these depositions, and read them.” Depositions “ [31]
Although I have so many proofs ready to hand it is Onetor himself who most convincingly showed that the divorce was not a genuine one. He, who should have felt outraged, when, after paying the dowry, as he claims, he got back, not the money, but a farm whose title was under dispute, — this very man, as though he had had no quarrel, and were in no way being wronged, but as though he were on the most intimate terms possible with Aphobus, pleaded for the latter in the suit which I brought against him! As for myself, though I had done him no conceivable injury, he leagued with Aphobus, and sought by every means in his power to join in robbing me of my patrimony, while for Aphobus, whom he should have regarded as a stranger, if there is any truth in their present story, he sought to acquire possession of my property in addition to what he already had. [32] Nor was it only at the trial that he acted thus, but after judgement had been rendered against Aphobus, he got up before the court and begged the jurymen, beseeching and imploring them on behalf of Aphobus with tears in his eyes, to fix the damages at a talent, and offered himself as surety for this amount. These facts are admitted on all hands. Those who were then serving on the jury in the courtroom and many of the bystanders know them well. Nevertheless I will produce witnesses.
Take, and read this deposition.” Deposition “ [33]
Besides all this, men of the jury, there is strong evidence from which it is easy to see that the woman in reality continued to live with Aphobus and even up to the present day has not separated from him. In fact, this woman, before she came to Aphobus, was not unwedded for one single day, but left her living husband, Timocrates, to come and live with Aphobus; and now during the space of three years she has manifestly married no one else. Can anyone believe that she then went directly from husband to husband, in order to avoid living as a widow, but that now, supposing she has really left her husband, she would have endured to remain a widow for so long when she might have married someone else, seeing that her brother possessed so large a fortune, and she herself was so young? [34] There is no truth in it, men of the jury; you cannot believe it. It is a pure fiction. No; the woman is living openly with Aphobus, and makes no secret of the matter. I shall bring before you the evidence of Pasiphon, who cared for her when she was ill, and who saw Aphobus sitting by her side in this very year, when my suit against the defendant had already been instituted.
Take Pasiphon’s deposition.” Deposition “ [35]
I knew, men of the jury, that the defendant, immediately on the conclusion of the suit, had received the goods from the house of Aphobus, and had come into control of his property and all my estate as well, and I knew, further, that beyond all doubt the woman was living with Aphobus. I therefore demanded of Onetor three female slaves, who knew that the woman was living with Aphobus and that the effects were in the hands of these men, in order that we might not have mere statements but that the matters might be established by proof from the torture. [36] But Onetor, when I made this challenge to him, and all those present declared that my proposal was just, refused to have recourse to this certain test, but, as though there were other and surer proofs regarding such matters than torture and testimony, he produced no witnesses to prove that he had paid the dowry, nor would he give up for torture the female slaves who knew the fact, to prove that his sister was not living with Aphobus; and, because I made this demand of him, he in an outrageous and insulting manner refused to let me talk to him. Could there be a man more impossible to deal with than he, or more ready to pretend ignorance of what is right? Take the challenge itself and read it.” Challenge “ [37]
You on your part hold that in both private and public matters the torture is the most certain of all methods of proof, and when slaves and freemen are both available, and the truth of a matter is to be sought out, you make no use of the testimony of the freemen, but seek to ascertain the truth by torturing the slaves; and very properly, men of the jury. For of witnesses who have given testimony there have been some ere now who have been thought not to tell the truth; but of slaves put to the torture no one has ever been convicted of giving false testimony. [38] Yet Onetor, after refusing a test so fair, and rejecting proofs so clear and so convincing, will produce Aphobus and Timocrates as witnesses, the one that he has paid the dowry, and the other that he has received it, and will demand that you believe him, when he pretends that his transactions with them were without witnesses. For such simpletons does he take you. [39] But that their words are neither true nor like the truth I think I have — by the fact that at the first they confessed that they had not paid the dowry, that again they pretended to have paid it without witnesses, that the dates do not admit of their having paid the money, seeing that the property was already in litigation, and finally by all the other evidences adduced I have, as I think, conclusively proved.
AGAINST ONETOR 2
Translated by A. T. Murray
There is one proof which I omitted in my former speech, quite as important as any of those which were brought forward, to prove that these men did not pay the marriage-portion to Aphobus. This I shall speak of first, and shall then undertake to refute the falsehoods which the defendant has uttered before you. For the fellow, men of the jury, when he first determined to lay claim to the property of Aphobus, declared that he had paid as the marriage-portion, not a talent, as he now alleges, but eighty minae; and he set up pillars on the house for two thousand drachmae, and on the land for a talent, wishing to preserve both the one and the other for Aphobus. [2] When, however, the trial against him had been decided, and he saw what your attitude was toward those who were too brazen in their wrongdoings, he came to his senses, and concluded that I should appear to be suffering outrageous treatment, if, after being robbed of such large sums, I should be unable to recover anything whatever from Aphobus, who had my property in his possession, but it should become clear that I was prevented by the defendant from recovering anything. [3] What, then, does he do? He removes the pillars from the house, and declares that the marriage-portion was a talent only, which sum was guaranteed by a mortgage on the land. Yet, if the inscription on the house was set up by him in fairness and sincerity, it is plain that the one on the land was also. But if he set up a false inscription in the former case with the intent to commit fraud, it is probable that the latter one was false also. [4] This matter you should consider, not in the light of the proofs which I have advanced, but from the conduct of Onetor himself. No man on earth compelled him; he took down the pillars himself; and thus by his own act he makes clear that he is a liar. To prove that these statements of mine are true, that he even now declares that the land is mortgaged for a talent, but that he laid claim to two thousand drachmae more on the house, and took the pillars down after the suit was decided, I shall bring forward witnesses who know the facts.
Now take the deposition.” Deposition “ [5]
It is plain, then, that Onetor having put up pillars on the house for two thousand drachmae, and on the land for a talent, intended to push his claim as though he had paid eighty minae. Could you have stronger proof that there is not a word of truth in what he now says, than the fact that his present story is different from the one he told at first about the same matters? To me it seems that no stronger proof than this could be found. [6]
Now note the shamelessness of the man. He had the audacity to say before you that he is not depriving me of what the land is worth beyond a talent, and that, too, when he has himself fixed its value as nothing more. With what end in view, Onetor, did you fix your pillars on the house for the two thousand extra drachmae, when you were demanding eighty minae, if the land was really worth more, instead of securing the two thousand drachmae also by a mortgage on the land? [7] Or, when it suits your purpose to save all of the property of Aphobus, is the land to be worth a talent only, and are you to hold the house on a mortgage of two thousand drachmae more; and the marriage-portion being eighty minae, will you claim the right to hold both the land and the house; or again, when this is not to your interest, is all to be different: the house is to be worth a talent, because now it is I that hold it, and what is left of the farm is to be worth not less than two talents, in order that it may seem that I am wronging Aphobus, not myself being robbed? [8] Do you see that, while you pretend to have paid the dowry, you are shown not to have paid it in any way whatsoever? For that line of conduct is sincere and free from guile, which remains throughout such as it was at the first, but you are proven to have followed the contrary course, so as to fulfil your service as an underling to my detriment. [9]
It is worth while to consider in the light of these facts what sort of an oath he would have sworn, if an oath had been tendered him. For, when he declared that the dowry was eighty minae, if one had granted that he should recover that sum on condition of his swearing that this statement of his was true, what would he have done? Is it not plain that he would have taken the oath? What can he say to deny that he would have sworn it under those circumstances, when he demands the right to do so now? Well then, his own words prove that he would have perjured himself; for he now claims that he paid, not eighty minae, but a talent. What reason is there why one should believe that he is forswearing himself in one statement rather than in the other? Or what opinion should one rightly hold of a man who thus lightly convicts himself of perjury? [10]
B
ut perhaps not all of his acts have been of this nature, nor is he proven in every instance to be a trickster. Yet it has been shown that he sought in Aphobus’s interest to have the damages fixed at a talent, and himself offered to act as bail for the payment to me of that sum. Yet observe that this is a proof not only that his wife was living with Aphobus and that Onetor was on intimate terms with him, but also that he had not paid the dowry. [11] For what man would be so foolish as, first, to pay out so large a sum, then to take as security a single piece of property, the title to which was under dispute, and finally, not satisfied with his previous losses and assuming that the one who had wronged him was now going to act justly, to become his bail for the damages assessed by the court? Nobody would, to my thinking. The assumption is not even rational, that a man unable to recover a talent for himself, should promise to pay that sum to another, and further to give bail for it. No; from these facts alone it is clear that he has never paid the dowry, but as a close friend of Aphobus he took this mortgage in return for my large property, wishing to make his sister jointly with Aphobus an inheritor of my estate. [12] Then he seeks now to deceive and beguile you by claiming that he set up the pillars before judgement was given against Aphobus. Aye, Onetor; but not before it was given by you, if what you now say is true. For it is clear that you acted as you did because you were convinced of his guilt. Again, this language of yours is absurd, as though you, men of the jury, did not know that all those who commit frauds of this sort determine what they are going to say, and that no one ever lost a suit through keeping quiet, or admitting that he was in the wrong; but it is, I think, when he has been convicted of making a false statement, that men know what manner of man he is. [13] And this is what appears to me to be exactly the plight of Onetor. For tell me, how can it be just, if you set up pillars for eighty minae, that the dowry should be eighty minae; and, if for more, more; and, if for less, less? Or how is it just, when your sister up to this present day has never lived with any other man, or been separated from Aphobus, when you have neither paid the dowry, nor been willing to have recourse to the torture, or to any other fair means of determining the matters at issue, that because you claim to have set up pillars, the farm shall belong to you? I certainly do not see how it can be. It is the truth to which we must look, not to arguments which a man has contrived （as you are doing） in order to seem to speak with some plausibility. [14] Then — the most outrageous thing of all — suppose you had in reality paid the marriage-portion （which you have not paid）, whose fault was it? Was it not yours? For you paid it on the security of my property. Was it not ten full years before he became your brother-in-law that Aphobus took possession of my estate for which judgement has been rendered against him? And was it right for you to recover the whole amount, while I, who had been awarded damages against him, I, an orphan who had been wronged and robbed of a marriage-portion that was genuine, I who with better right than any other man should have been exempted from the risk of having to pay costs, should be forced to suffer thus, and should have recovered nothing whatever, though ready to meet any of your proposals, had you been willing to do anything that justice required?