Delphi Complete Works of Demosthenes

by Demosthenes

  So, in order that you may know how many and how important objects were to be secured by the fabrication of the will, listen for a moment. The first, men of Athens, was this, that Phormio should escape paying the penalty for corrupting one whom it is not proper for me to name, but whom you know of yourselves, even if I do not name her; next, that he might get possession of my father’s property which was in my mother’s keeping; and in addition to this, that he might become master of everything else which belonged to us. That this is so, you will be convinced when you hear the will. For it will be found, not like that of a father writing in the interest of his sons, but like that of a slave who has shamefully misused what belonged to his master, and who is seeking how he may escape punishment. [28]

  Read them the will itself, to which these men have deposed along with the challenge; and do you mark well what I say.”Will

  This is the will of Pasio of Acharnae. I give my wife Archippê to Phormio, and I give as dowry to Archippê the talent due to me at Peparethus, the talent due to me here in Athens, a lodging-house worth one hundred minae, the female slaves and jewelry, and all else that she has in the house. All these things I give to Archippê.”

  You have heard, men of Athens, the large amount of the dowry, — a talent from Peparethus, a talent from Athens, a lodging-house worth a hundred minae, female slaves and jewelry, and all else that she has in her possession — I give it all, says the will; and by this clause he precludes us even from searching for any of the property that was left. [29]

  Now let me show you the lease under which Phormio had taken the bank from my father; for from this also, spurious though it is, you will see that the will is fabrication through and through. I will set forth for you, not a different lease, but the one which Phormio produced, in which there is an added clause setting down my father as owing Phorniio eleven talents on the deposits. [30] This had, I think, the following purpose. Of the effects in the house he made himself master by the will, on the ground that they had been given as a dowry with my mother, as you have just heard; but the money in the bank, about which everybody knew, and which could not be hidden, he got into his hands by representing that our father owed it, so that whatever sums he might be proved to have in his possession he might claim to have received in payment. You have perhaps imagined, because he solecizes in his speech, that he is a barbarian and a man readily to be despised. The fellow is indeed a barbarian in that he hates those whom he ought to honor; but in villainy and in bringing matters to ruin he is second to none. [31]

  Take the lease and read it — the lease which they put in, as they did the will, by means of a challenge.”Lease of The Bank

  On the following terms Pasio has let the bank to Phormio: Phormio is to pay to the sons of Pasio as rental for the bank two talents and forty minae each year above the daily expenditure, and it shall not be lawful for Phormio to carry on a banking business independently unless he first obtains the consent of the sons of Pasio. And Pasio owes the bank eleven talents upon the deposits.” [32]

  This, men of the jury, is the agreement which Phormio produced, alleging that he had leased the bank upon these terms. You learn from hearing it read that Phormio, over and above the daily expenditure, was to pay as rent two talents and forty minae each year, and that it was not to be permitted him to carry on a banking business, unless he obtained our consent; and there is added as a final statement, “Pasio owes eleven talents upon the deposits.” [33] Now, is there any man who would have submitted to the payment of so large a rental for the counter, the site, and the books? And is there any man who would have entrusted the rest of the assets to a man thanks to whom the bank had incurred so great a liability? For, if there was a shortage of so large an amount, it was incurred while Phormio was manager. For you all know that, while my father was engaged in the banking business, Phormio sat at the counter and was his manager; so that he ought rather to be in the mill than to become master of the rest of the property. [34] However, I pass over this and all else that I might find to say about the eleven talents, to show that my father did not owe them but that Phormio secretly appropriated them.

  But let me remind you of the purpose for which I read the lease, namely, to prove that the will is spurious. For it stands written in the lease that it shall not be lawful for Phormio to engage in banking business, unless he obtains our consent. This clause absolutely proves the will to be spurious. For what man, who had taken precautions that the profits which Phormio might make by banking should accrue to his own children and not to Phormio himself, and to secure this end had stipulated that it should not be permitted him to engage in banking for himself, lest his interests might be separated from ours — what man, I ask, in these circumstances would have provided that Phormio should get possession of what he had himself won by his labor and left in his house? [35] And would he have begrudged him the banking business, in which he might have given him a share without disgrace, and yet have given him his wife, a bequest disgraceful above all others? Yes, after receiving from you the gift of citizenship, he gave his wife （if indeed he gave her） as a slave giving to his master, and not, on the contrary, as a master to a slave, and he added such a dowry as no man in Athens was ever known to give. [36] And yet, to have been honored with the hand of his mistress was of itself enough to make this fellow content, whereas in my father’s case, even if he received as much money as these people allege that he gave, it was not reasonable for him to make this arrangement. Nevertheless, to things which are proved to be false by the probabilities, the dates and the facts, to these this man Stephanus has not hesitated to depose. [37]

  Then he goes about, saying that Nicocles testified that he had served as guardian under the will, and Pasicles that he had lived as ward under the will. But for my part I hold that these very facts are proofs that neither these witnesses nor those have testified to the truth. For a person who testifies that he served as guardian under a will should certainly know what the nature of the will was, and a person who testifies that he lived as ward under a will should certainly know what the nature of the will was. [38] Why in the world, then, Stephanus, did you people depose to the will under the form of a challenge, instead of leaving the matter to them? If they on their part shall declare that they do not know the contents of the will, how is it possible for you to know them, you who have never in any way been connected with the matter? Why, pray, is it that one group of witnesses testified to these facts, and another group to those? It is as I have already told you: they divided the fraud. The one so testifying saw no danger in deposing that he served as guardian under the will, or that he lived as ward under the will, [39] each one of them omitting to state what had been written in the will by Phormio, — no danger in deposing that one’s father had left him a document with the word “will” written on it, or anything of that sort. But to testify to the existence of a will in which were involved the theft of such vast sums, the corruption of a lady, the marriage of a mistress with her slave, matters which entailed such shame and disgrace — nobody was ready to do this save these men who got up the challenge; and from them it is right to exact the penalty for the whole of this villainous fraud. [40]

  Now, men of Athens, that it may be made clear to you that this fellow Stephanus has given false testimony — made clear not merely by my accusations and proofs, but also by the acts of the person who brought him forward as a witness — I wish to tell you what that person has done. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I shall show that they are their own accusers. In the suit in which this testimony was given, Phormio entered a special plea to estop me on the ground that the suit was not admissible, alleging that I had released him from all claims. [41] Now I myself know that this is false, and I shall prove it so when I proceed against those who gave this testimony; but Stephanus is not at liberty to say it is false. If, then, you should believe in the genuineness of the release, this, more than anything else, would prove that the fellow has given false testimony, and has deposed to a will that is for
ged. For who would be so senseless as to give a release in the presence of witnesses, that his discharge might be binding, and yet to suffer the articles of agreement, the will, and the other documents regarding which he gave the release, to remain under seal as evidence against himself? [42] The special plea, therefore, contradicts all the evidence, and the lease which I just now read to you contradicts this will; not one of their acts is either reasonable or straightforward or consistent with itself. In this manner their whole story is shown to be a fiction and a fraud. [43]

  That the statements in the deposition are true I hold that neither Stephanus himself nor anyone else in his behalf will be able to prove. I hear, however, that he is prepared to make some such statement as this, that he is responsible for a challenge, not for a deposition, and that he should be held to account, not for everything written in it, but for two things only — whether Phormio tendered me this challenge or not, and whether I refused it; these matters and no more, he will say, were included in his deposition; as for the rest, Phormio covered them in his challenge, but whether they were true or not it was not the business of the witness to inquire. [44] In answer to this argument and to the man’s impudence it is better that I say a few words to you in advance, that you be not taken at unawares and misled. In the first place, when he tries to bring forward the argument that he is not responsible for the entire content of the deposition, bear in mind that the reason why the law requires people to give evidence in written form is that it may not be open to them to strike out any part of what has been written, or add anything to it. He should at the time have demanded the erasure of the statements to which he will now deny having deposed, and not try now to brazen it out, while they stand in the document. [45] Moreover, consider this too, whether you would suffer me in your presence to take the document and add to it. Of course you would not. Well, then, neither is it fitting to suffer him to strike out any of its contents. For who will ever be convicted of giving false testimony, if he is to depose to what he pleases, and be accountable only for what he pleases? No, the law does not thus make a distinction in these matters, and you ought not to listen to such a thing either. The straightforward and honest course is this: “What stands written? To what have you deposed? Show that this is true. For you have written in your plea in answer to the complaint these words, ‘I have given true testiniony in testifying to what is contained in the deposition’ — not ‘to this or that in the deposition.’” [46]

  To prove that this is so, take, please, the plea itself. Read it.”Complaint and Counter-Plea

  Apollodorus, son of Pasio, of Acharnae, sues Stephanus, son of Menecles, of Acharnae, for false testimony; damages one talent. Stephanus gave false testimony against me in testifying to that which is contained in the record.

  I gave true testimony in testifying to that which is contained in the record.”

  This is the plea which the defendant himself has entered. You must keep it in mind, and not regard the deceitful language which will soon be addressed to you as being more worthy of credence than the laws and what the defendant has written in his own plea. [47]

  I learn that they are going to speak about my original suit and to denounce it as baseless and malicious. But I on my part have already mentioned to you and explained in detail the manner in which Phormio concocted the lease, in order to get into his possession the banking-stock, and I should be unable to speak of these other matters and at the same time convict these men of giving false testimony; for the amount of water allotted me is not sufficient. [48] And that you yourselves could not in fairness be willing to listen to them in regard to these matters you will see at once, if you reflect that it is no difficult matter to speak now about subjects concerning which no charge is made, just as it was no difficult matter for Phormio to get himself acquitted by reading false depositions. However, no man would say that either of these courses is right, but that course rather which I am about to propose. [49] Listen, and judge. I demand that they do not now seek for the proofs regarding my charges, proofs which should have been mentioned at the former trial, but of which they deprived me; but that they prove that the testimony by which they deprived me of them was true. If, when I bring in my suit, they are to demand that I refute their testimony, and, when I proceed against that, they are to bid me speak regarding my original charges, what they propose will be neither right nor in your interest. [50] For you have sworn to give a verdict, not in regard to matters upon which the defendant asks your decision, but in regard to those only which are raised by the prosecution. The cause of action must be made clear by the complaint of the prosecutor, and this in my case is a suit against this man for false testimony. Let him not, then, leave this and talk about matters regarding which I am not suing him; and do you, if he is so shameless, refuse to permit it. [51]

  I imagine that, having no just argument to advance on any point, he will have recourse to this defence also — that it is absurd for me, after having been worsted in the case of the special plea, to sue those who gave evidence of a will; and he will maintain that the jurymen in that trial were led to vote in favor of Phormio, by the evidence of those who testified to the release rather than by that of those who testified to the will. But, men of Athens, I think you all know that it is your habit to examine the facts no less closely than the pleas which men make regarding them; and these men, by giving false testimony against me regarding the facts themselves, weakened my arguments on the special plea. [52] However, besides this, it is absurd, when all have given false evidence, to demonstrate who did the greatest amount of harm, instead of making each one prove that he has himself testified to the truth. It is not by proving that another has done more outrageous things than himself that a witness is to be let off, but by showing that he has himself given testimony that is true. [53]

  Now, men of Athens, let me show you the thing for which more than anything else this fellow Stephanus deserves to be put to death. It is an awful thing to bear false witness against anyone whomsoever, but it is a thing more awful by far, and more deserving of indignation, to bear false witness against those of your own blood; for a man of that stamp violates, not the written laws alone, but also the ties of natural relationship. This, then, Stephanus shall be proved to have done. [54] For his mother and the father of my wife are a brother and sister, so that my wife is his first cousin, and the children born to her and to me are his cousin’s children. Do you think, then, that this man, if he saw his female relatives driven by want to shameful actions, would give them in marriage and add marriage portions out of his own resources — a thing which many a man has done ere now — when he has chosen to give false testimony in order to prevent their getting what belongs to them, and has counted the wealth of Phormio of higher worth than the strong ties of kinship? [55]

  However, to prove that I am telling the truth in this, take the deposition of Deinias and read it; and call Deinias.”Deposition

  Deinias, son of Theomnestus, of Athmonon, deposes that he gave his daughter to Apollodorus to live with him as his wife according to the laws, and that he was never present when Apollodorus released Phormio from all claims, nor was ever aware that he had done so.” [56]

  Deinias, men of the jury, is very like Stephanus, is he not? — Deinias, who on account of his relationship, refuses to testify against the defendant even to what is true, and on behalf of his daughter and his daughter’s children, and me, his son-in-law! Not so Stephanus here. He did not hesitate to give false testimony against us; even respect for his own mother, if for no one else, did not keep him from bringing the extremest poverty upon those who through her were his relatives. [57]

  I wish now, men of the jury, to tell you of the most a outrageous thing which has been done to me, — a thing which more than anything else overwhelmed me with dismay in the course of the trial; for you will thus see even more clearly the fellow’s baseness, and I, by venting before you my grief for what has happened, shall find, as it were, a sort of relief. The deposition, which I thought was t
here, and which afforded the strongest evidence in support of my case, I did not find in the box. [58] At the time, dismayed by this misfortune, I could imagine nothing else than that the magistrate had wronged me and tampered with the box. Now, however, from what I have since learned, I find that the defendant Stephanus had filched the document away in the very presence of the arbitrator, when I had got up to put a witness on his oath. And to prove that I am speaking the truth in this, depositions shall first be offered you from those who were present at the time and saw it; for I do not think they will choose to take an oath of disclaimer. [59] But if they are shameless enough to do this the clerk shall read you a challenge by which you will catch them in the very act of perjury, and will know all the same that this man did steal the deposition. And yet, men of Athens, a person who would not shrink from being named as one who had stolen what was prejudicial to another — what do you suppose he would do in his own interest? [60]

  Read the deposition, and then this challenge.”Deposition

  The deponents testify that they are friends and associates of Phormio, and that they were present hefore the arbitrator Teisias when the announcement of the award was made in the suit between Apollodorus and Phormio, and that they know that Stephanus filched away the deposition which Apollodorus charges him, with having stolen.”