by Demosthenes
To prove that I am telling the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the law itself.”Law
It shall be lawful to introduce hearsay evidence from one that is dead, and written evidence given in absence from one who is out of the country, or is sick.” [9]
Now I wish to prove to you that he has given evidence contrary to another law also, that you may know that Phormio, having no harbor of refuge from the grievous wrongs he has committed, had made a pretence of the challenge, but actually has given evidence for himself, screening himself behind the testimony of these men, by which the jurymen were deceived, assuming that they were testifying to the truth, and I was robbed of the property which my father left me and of reparation for the wrongs which I have suffered. For the laws do not permit a man to give evidence for himself either in criminal suits or in civil suits or in audits. Phormio, however, has given evidence for himself, when these men say that they have given this testimony on the strength of what they heard from him. [10]
But that you may be fully convinced of this, please read the law itself.”Law
The two parties to a suit shall be compelled to answer one another’s questions, but they may not testify.”
Now consider this law also which ordains that action for false testimony may also be brought on this very ground, namely, that one testifies contrary to law.”Law
The witness shall also be liable to action for giving false testimony on the mere ground that he gives evidence contrary to law, and the one producing him shall also be liable in the selfsame manner.” [11]
Furthermore, even from the tablet upon which the deposition is written one can tell that he has given false evidence. For it is whitened, and was prepared at home. Yet it is only those who testify to facts who should offer depositions prepared at home; those who testify to challenges, who stand forward on the spur of the moment, should present their depositions written in wax, in order that, if one wants to add or to erase anything, it may be easier to do so. [12] In all these things, then, he is shown to have given false testimony, and to have given it contrary to law; but I wish to prove this further fact, that our father did not make a will, and could not legally make one. For, if anyone should ask you in accordance with what laws we should live as citizens, you would of course answer, the established laws. But look you, the laws ordain, “nor shall it be permitted to enact a law applying to an individual, unless the same law applies also to all the Athenians.” [13] This law, then, ordains that we should live as citizens under the same laws and not one under one law, another under another. But my father died during the archonship of Dysnicetus, and Phormio became an Athenian citizen during the archonship of Nicophemus, in the tenth year after my father died. How, then, could my father, not knowing that Phormio was to become an Athenian citizen, have given him in marriage his own wife, and thus have outraged us, shown his contempt of the gift of citizenship which he had received from you, and disregarded your laws? And which was the more honorable course for him — to do this during his lifetime, supposing he wished to do it, or to leave behind him at his death a will which he had no legal right to make? [14] And verily, when you have heard the laws themselves you will see clearly that Pasio had no right to make a will.
Read the law.”Law
Any citizen, with the exception of those who had been adopted when Solon entered upon his office, and had thereby become unable either to renounce or to claim an inheritance, shall have the right to dispose of his own property by will as he shall see fit, if he have no male children lawfully born, unless his mind be impaired by one of these things, lunacy or old age or drugs or disease, or unless he be under the influence of a woman, or under constraint or deprived of his liberty.” [15]
You have heard the law, then, which does not permit a man to dispose of his property by will, if he have male children lawfully born. But these men declare that my father made this will, yet they cannot prove that they were present at the time. Another thing also deserves to be borne in mind, that it is to those who had not been adopted, but were lawfully born, that the law gives the right, in case of their being childless, to dispose of their property by will. Now my father had been adopted as a citizen by the people, so that on this account also he had not the right to make a will, especially in regard to his wife, of whom he was not even the legal guardian; and besides he had children. [16] Note further, that even if a man be childless, he has not the right to dispose of his property by will, unless he be of sound mind; but if he be impaired by disease or the effect of drugs, or be under the influence of a woman, or be the victim of old age or madness, or be under constraint, the laws ordain that he be incompetent. Now consider whether the will, which these men say my father made, seems to you to be the will of a man of sound mind. [17] Taking the lease, and nothing else, as an example, tell me whether it seems to you consistent that my father should refuse Phormio permission to carry on his business except in association with us, and yet that he should give him his wife in marriage, and thus make him a partner in his own fatherhood? And do not be surprised that, while they were arranging all else in regard to the lease so cleverly, they overlooked this. For perhaps they paid no heed to anything else, save to rob me of my money and to set my father down as a debtor to the bank; and then they did not suppose that I should be clever enough to look into these matters closely. [18]
Now, then, consider the laws, and see from whom they ordain that betrothals should be made, that you may come to know from them also, that this fellow Stephanus has proved himself to be a false witness to a forged will.”Law
If a woman be betrothed for lawful marriage by her father or by a brother begotten of the same father or by her grandfather on her father’s side, her children shall be legitimate. In case there be none of these relatives, if the woman be an heiress, her guardian shall take her to wife, and if she be not, that man shall be her guardian to whom she may entrust herself.” [19]
You have heard what persons this law has appointed to be guardians; and that my mother had none of these my opponents have themselves borne witness. For if there had been such, they would have produced them. Or do you suppose they would have produced false witnesses and a non-existent will, but would not have produced a brother or a grandfather or a father, if they could have done it for money? Since, then, it is plain that no one of these was living, it follows necessarily that my mother was an heiress. Now see whom the law ordains to be guardians of an heiress. [20]
Read the law.”Law
If one be born the son of an heiress, two years after he has reached the age of manhood he shall assume control of the estate, and he shall make due provision for his mother’s maintenance.”
The law, then, appoints that sons who have reached the age of manhood shall be guardians of their mother and shall make due provision for their mother’s maintenance. But it is clear that I was on a military expedition and in command of a trireme in your service, when this man married my mother. [21] Nay more, to prove that I was absent in command of a trireme, and that my father had been dead for some time, when the fellow married, I demanded of him the female slaves, and claimed the right of having them put to the torture to establish this very point, whether what I am saying is true — to prove all this, and that I tendered him a challenge, please take the deposition.”Deposition
The deponents testify that they were present when Apollodorus challenged Phormio, namely, when Apollodorus demanded that Phormio give up the female slaves for the torture, if Phormo denied that he had seduced my mother before the time when Phormio declares that he married her, after she had been betrothed to him by Pasio. And when Apollodorus tendered this challenge, Phormio refused to surrender the female slaves.” [22] Now in addition to this read the law which appoints that there shall be an adjudication of all heiresses, whether alien or citizen, and that in the case of those who are citizens the archon shall have jurisdiction and shall take charge of the matter, and in the case of those who are resident aliens, the polemarch; and it shall not be lawful
for anyone to obtain an inheritance or an heiress without legal adjudication.”Law
The archon shall assign by lot days for the trial of claims to inheritances or heiresses in every month except Scirophorion; and no one shall obtain an inheritance without adjudication.” [23]
Well then, if he had wished to proceed regularly, he ought to have entered his claim for the heiress, whether the claim was based upon a gift or upon nearness of kin, before the archon, if he claimed her as a citizen, and before the polemarch, if as an alien; and then, if he had any just claim to advance, it was his duty to convince those of you who were drawn on the jury, and so obtain the woman by their verdict and in a manner sanctioned by your laws, instead of having made laws valid for himself alone, and in that way having accomplished what he desired. [24]
Note, too, the following law, that a will shall be valid which a father makes, even though he has sons lawfully born, provided the sons die before they reach the age of manhood.”Law
Whatsoever will a father shall make, while he has lawfully born sons, if the sons die within two years after having reached the age of manhood, that father’s will shall be valid.” [25]
Well then, seeing that the sons are alive, the will which these men say my father left is invalid, and this man Stephanus has borne false witness in defiance of all the laws, in declaring that the document is a copy of Pasio’s will. Why, how do you know that it is? Where were you ever present when my father made it? You are shown to have been guilty of trickery in the suit, to have given false witness yourself without scruple, to have stolen depositions which supported the truth, to have misled the jury, and to have entered into a conspiracy to defeat justice. But the laws have provided criminal suits for actions such as these. [26]
Read the law, please.”Law
If any man enter into a conspiracy, or join in seeking to bribe the Heliaea or any of the courts in Athens, or the Senate, by giving or receiving money for corrupt ends, or shall organize a clique for the overthrow of the democracy, or, while serving as public advocate, shall accept money in any suit, private or public, criminal suits shall be entered for these acts before the Thesmothetae.” [27]
So, in the light of all these things, I should like to ask you in accordance with what laws you have sworn to give judgement: whether according to the laws of the state, or according to the laws which Phormio enacts for himself. I bring before you, then, these laws, and I prove that both these men have transgressed them, Phormio by having at the outset wronged me and robbed me of the money which my father left me, and which that father leased to Phormio together with the bank and the manufactory; Stephanus here, by having given false testimony, and given it in defiance of the law. [28]
Another thing also, men of the jury, deserves to be borne in mind, that no one ever makes a copy of a will; they make copies of contracts, that they may know the terms and not violate them; but not of wills. For this is the very reason why the testators leave a will — that no man may know how they are disposing of their property. How, then, do you people know that what is written in the document is a copy of Pasio’s will?
I beseech and implore you all, men of the jury, to come to my aid and to punish those who thus without scruple have given false testimony, for your own sakes, for mine, for the sake of justice and the laws.
AGAINST EVERGUS AND MNESIBULUS
Translated by A. T. Murray
It is in my opinion, men of the jury, an admirable provision of the laws that they allow another chance after a trial by means of proceedings for false testimony, in order that, if anyone by bringing forward witnesses testifying to what is false or by citing challenges which were never tendered or depositions made contrary to law, has deceived the jury, he may gain nothing by it, but the one who has been wronged may impeach the testimony, and come into your court and show that the witnesses have given false testimony regarding the matter at issue, and thus exact the penalty from them and hold the one who brought them forward liable to an action for subornation of perjury. [2] And for this reason they have made the fine less for the plaintiff, if he lose his case, in order that those who have been wronged may not by the fine be deterred from prosecuting witnesses for false testimony, while they have imposed a heavy penalty upon the defendant, if he be convicted and be thought by you to have given false testimony. [3] And justly so, men of the jury. For you look to the witnesses and give your verdict as you do, because you have believed the testimony which they have given. It is, therefore, to prevent you from being deceived and those who come into your court from being wronged that the lawgiver made the witnesses responsible. I, therefore, beg of you hear me with goodwill, while I rehearse all the facts from the beginning, in order that from these you may see the magnitude of the wrongs I have suffered, and know that the jurymen were deceived and that these men have given testimony which is false. [4]
I should have much preferred not to go to law, but, if forced to do so, it is a satisfaction to appear against men who are not unknown to you. However, I shall devote a larger part of my speech to exposing the character of these men than to proving that their testimony is false. As to my charge that the testimony to which they have deposed is false, they seem to me to have given proof by their own actions, and there is no need for me to produce any other witnesses than themselves. [5] For when they might have got rid of all trouble, and have avoided the risk which they run in coming into your court, by establishing in fact the truth of their testimony, they have refused to deliver up the woman, whom they have testified that Theophemus was ready to deliver up, and had offered to deliver up before the arbitrator, Pythodorus of Cedae, but whose surrender I, in fact, demanded, as the witnesses who were then present in court testified, and will now testify. And Theophemus has not impeached them for giving testimony that was not true, nor does he proceed against them for false witness. [6]
The defendants themselves practically admit in their deposition that I was anxious to receive the woman for the torture, and that Theophemus urged me to postpone the action, whereas I was unwilling to do so. And yet it was regarding this woman, whom I demanded for the torture, but whom Theophemus offered to give up, as these men say; whom, however, no one ever saw present in person either at that time before the arbitrator or afterwards in the court-room, or produced at any other place, — it was regarding her that these witnesses deposed that Theophemus was ready to give her up, and made the offer with a challenge; [7] and the jury thought that the testimony was true, and that I was seeking to evade the evidence which the woman might have given in regard to the assault and the question as to which one of us delivered the first blow （for this is what constitutes assault）. Is it not, then, a necessary inference that these witnesses have given false testimony, men who even up to this day dare not deliver up the woman in person, as according to their statement Theophemus offered to do, and as they testified for him? And they dare not establish by actual fact the truth of their testimony [8] and free the witnesses from the risk of a trial by making Theophemus, since he then refused to do so, deliver up the woman in person, to be put to the torture regarding the assault for which I am suing Theophemus, and so make the proof result from the very statements made at that time by Theophemus with a view to deceiving the jurors. For he said in the course of the trial for assault that the witnesses who had been present and who testified to what had taken place by a deposition in writing, as the law provides, were false witnesses and had been suborned by me; but that the woman who had been present would tell the truth, deposing, not to a written document, but under torture, giving thus the strongest kind of evidence as to which party delivered the first blow. [9] This is what he said at that time, using the most vigorous language and bringing forward witnesses to support his statements, and by this means deceiving the jurors; but now all this is proved to be false; for he does not dare to deliver up the woman, whom the witnesses have declared that he was ready to deliver up, but prefers that his brother and his brother-in-law should have to stand trial on a charge of giv
ing false testimony, rather than that he should deliver up the woman in person, and so be well rid of his troubles in a fair and legal way, and that they should not try by arguments and entreaties to find a means of escape by deceiving you, if they could; [10] although I challenged him again and again, and asked for the woman, demanding to receive her for the torture both at that time and after the trial, and again when I paid them the money, and in my suit for assault against Theophemus, and in the examination before the magistrate in the trial for false testimony. These men do not try to hide anything; their words are perjury, their act is to refuse to deliver up the woman; for they knew well that, if she should be put to the torture, it would be proved that they were the wrongdoers and not the parties wronged.
To prove that I am speaking the truth in this, the clerk shall read you the depositions concerning these matters.” Depositions “ [11]
That, despite my frequent challenges and demands for the delivery of the woman for examination, no one has ever delivered her up, has been shown to you by witnesses. But in order that you may know from circumstantial proofs also that they have given false testimony, I will prove it. For if what they state were true, namely, that Theophemus tendered the challenge and offered to give up the woman in person, these men, I take it, would not have produced two witnesses only, a brother and a brother-in-law, to testify to what was true, but many others as well. [12] For the arbitration took place in the Heliaea, where those serving as arbitrators for the Oeneïd and Erectheïd tribes hold their sessions; and when challenges of this sort are given, and a party brings his slave in person, and delivers him up for examination by the torture, hosts of people stand forth to hear what is said; so that they would not have been at a loss for witnesses, if there had been the least truth in the deposition. [13]