Delphi Complete Works of Demosthenes

by Demosthenes

  [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] ὑμεῖς τοίνυν καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ βάσανον ἀκριβεστάτην πασῶν πίστεων νομίζετε, καὶ ὅπου ἂν δοῦλοι καὶ ἐλεύθεροι παραγένωνται, δέῃ δ᾽ εὑρεθῆναι τὸ ζητούμενον, οὐ χρῆσθε ταῖς τῶν ἐλευθέρων μαρτυρίαις, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δούλους βασανίζοντες, οὕτω ζητεῖτε τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρεῖν. εἰκότως, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί: τῶν μὲν γὰρ μαρτυρησάντων ἤδη τινὲς οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρῆσαι ἔδοξαν: τῶν δὲ βασανισθέντων οὐδένες πώποτ᾽ ἐξηλέγχθησαν, ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐκ τῆς βασάνου εἶπον.

  [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] οὗτος δὲ τηλικαῦτα δίκαια φυγὼν καὶ σαφεῖς οὕτω καὶ μεγάλους ἐλέγχους παραλιπών, Ἄφοβον παρεχόμενος μάρτυρα καὶ Τιμοκράτην, τὸν μὲν ὡς ἀπέδωκε τὴν προῖκα, τὸν δ᾽ ὡς ἀπείληφεν, ἀξιώσει πιστεύεσθαι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, ἀμάρτυρον τὴν πρὸς τούτους πρᾶξιν γεγενῆσθαι προσποιούμενος: τοσαύτην ὑμῶν εὐήθειαν κατέγνωκεν.

  [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] ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὔτ᾽ ἀληθῆ οὔτ᾽ ἀληθείᾳ ἐοικότα λέξουσιν, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτοὺς ὁμολογεῖν τὴν προῖκα μὴ δοῦναι, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πάλιν ἄνευ μαρτύρων ἀποδεδωκέναι φάσκειν, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τὸν χρόνον μὴ ἐγχωρεῖν ἀμφισβητουμένης ἤδη τῆς οὐσίας ἀποδοῦναι τἀργύριον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἱκανῶς ἀποδεδεῖχθαι νομίζω.

  [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.

  πρὸς Ὀνήτορα Ἐξούλης Β — AGAINST ONETOR 2

  [1] ὃ παρέλιπον ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ λόγῳ τεκμήριον, οὐδενὸς τῶν εἰρημένων ἔλαττον, τοῦ μὴ δεδωκέναι τὴν προῖκα τούτους Ἀφόβῳ, τοῦτο πρῶτον εἰπών, μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ ὧν οὗτος ἔψευσται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐξελέγχειν αὐτὸν πειράσομαι. οὗτος γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τὸ πρῶτον ὅτε τῶν Ἀφόβου διενοεῖτ᾽ ἀμφισβητεῖν, οὐχὶ τάλαντον ἔφη τὴν προῖκα, ὥσπερ νυνί, ἀλλ᾽ ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς δεδωκέναι, καὶ τίθησιν ὅρους ἐπὶ μὲν τὴν οἰκίαν δισχιλίων, ἐπὶ δὲ τὸ χωρίον ταλάντου, βουλόμενος μὴ μόνον τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ κἀκείνην διασῴζειν αὐτῷ.

  [1] 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] γενομένης δέ μοι τῆς δίκης πρὸς αὐτόν, ἰδὼν ὡς διάκεισθ᾽ ὑμεῖς πρὸς τοὺς λίαν ἀναιδῶς ἀδικοῦντας, ἔννους γίγνεται, καὶ δεινὰ πάσχειν ἡγήσατο δόξειν ἐμὲ τοσούτων χρημάτων ἀπεστερημένον, εἰ μηδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἕξοιμι τῶν Ἀφόβου λαβεῖν τοῦ τἄμ᾽ ἔχοντος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τούτου κωλυόμενος φανερὸς γενήσομαι.

  [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] καὶ τί ποιεῖ; τοὺς ὅρους ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἀφαιρεῖ, καὶ τάλαντον μόνον εἶναι τὴν προῖκά φησιν, ἐν ᾧ τὸ χωρίον ἀποτετιμῆσθαι. καίτοι δῆλον ὅτι τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας ὅρους εἰ δικαίως ἔθηκεν καὶ ὄντως ἀληθεῖς, δικαίως καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ χωρίου τέθηκεν: εἰ δ᾽ εὐθὺς ἀδικεῖν βουλόμενος ψευδεῖς ἔθηκεν ἐκείνους, εἰκὸς καὶ τούτους οὐκ ἀληθεῖς ὑπάρχειν.

  [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] τοῦτο τοίνυν οὐκ ἐξ ὧν ἐγὼ δεδήλωκα λόγων δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ὧν αὐτὸς οὗτος διεπράξατο: οὐδ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑνὸς γὰρ ἀναγκασθεὶς ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸς ἀνεῖλεν τοὺς ὅρους, ἔργῳ φανερὸν ποιήσας ὅτι ψεύδεται. καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, τὸ μὲν χωρίον καὶ νῦν οὗτός φησιν ἀποτετιμῆσθαι ταλάντου, τὴν δ᾽ οἰκίαν ὡς προσωρίσατο δισχιλίων καὶ πάλιν τοὺς ὅ
ρους ἀνεῖλεν γενομένης τῆς δίκης, τοὺς εἰδότας ὑμῖν μάρτυρας παρέξομαι. καί μοι λαβὲ τὴν μαρτυρίαν.”Μαρτυρία”

  [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] δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι δισχιλίων μὲν ὡρισμένος τὴν οἰκίαν, ταλάντου δὲ τὸ χωρίον, ὡς ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς δεδωκὼς ἔμελλεν ἀμφισβητήσειν. μεῖζον οὖν ἄν τι γένοιτο τεκμήριον ὑμῖν τοῦ μηδὲν ἀληθὲς νῦν λέγειν τοῦτον ἢ εἰ φανείη μὴ ταὐτὰ λέγων τοῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν; ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἂν δοκεῖ τούτου μεῖζον εὑρεθῆναι.

  [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] σκέψασθε τοίνυν τὴν ἀναίδειαν, ὃς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν, ὡς οὐκ ἀποστερεῖ μ᾽ ὅσῳ πλείονος ἄξιόν ἐστι ταλάντου, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ αὐτὸς τιμήσας οὐκ ἄξιον εἶναι πλείονος. τί γὰρ βουλόμενος δισχιλίων προσωρίσω τὴν οἰκίαν, ὅτε τὰς ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς ἐνεκάλεις, εἴ γε τὸ χωρίον ἄξιον ἦν πλείονος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ τὰς δισχιλίας ἐτίθεις;

  [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] ἢ ὅταν μέν σοι δοκῇ πάντα τὰ Ἀφόβου διασῴζειν, τό τε χωρίον ἔσται ταλάντου μόνον ἄξιον, καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐν δισχιλίαις προσέξεις, ἥ τε προὶξ ὀγδοήκοντα μναῖ γενήσονται, καὶ ἀξιώσεις ἔχειν ἀμφότερα: ὅταν δέ σοι μὴ συμφέρῃ, τἀναντία πάλιν ἡ μὲν οἰκία ταλάντου, διότι νῦν ἐγὼ ταύτην ἔχω, τοῦ δὲ χωρίου τὸ περιὸν οὐκ ἐλάττονος ἢ δυοῖν ἄξιον, ἵν᾽ ἐγὼ δοκῶ βλάπτειν τοῦτον, οὐκ ἀποστερεῖσθαι;

  [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] ὁρᾷς ὡς ὑποκρίνει μὲν δεδωκέναι τὴν προῖκα, φαίνει δὲ κατ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὁντινοῦν τρόπον δεδωκώς; τὰ γὰρ ἀληθῆ καὶ μὴ κακουργούμενα τῶν πραγμάτων ἁπλῶς, οἷ᾽ ἂν ἐξ ἀρχῆς πραχθῇ, τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐστίν: σὺ δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐξελέγχει πράξας εἰς τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὑπηρεσίαν.

  [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] ἄξιον τοίνυν καὶ τὸν ὅρκον, ὁποῖόν τιν᾽ ἂν ὤμοσεν, εἴ τις ἔδωκεν, ἐκ τούτων ἰδεῖν. ὃς γὰρ ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς ἔφη τὴν προῖκ᾽ εἶναι, εἰ τότ᾽ αὐτῷ τις ἔδωκεν, ὀμόσαντι ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγειν, κομίσασθαι, τί ἐποίησεν ἄν; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι ὤμοσεν; τί γὰρ καὶ λέγων οὐ φήσει τότ᾽ ἂν ὀμόσαι, νῦν γε τοῦτ᾽ ἀξιῶν; οὐκοῦν ὅτι γ᾽ ἐπιώρκησεν ἄν, ἑαυτὸν ἐξελέγχει: νῦν γὰρ οὐκ ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς, ἀλλὰ τάλαντον δεδωκέναι φησίν. τί μᾶλλον ἂν οὖν εἰκότως τις αὐτὸν ἐκεῖν᾽ ἐπιορκεῖν ἢ τάδ᾽ ἡγοῖτο; ἢ τίνα τις δικαίως ἂν ἔχοι περὶ τούτου διάνοιαν, τοῦ ῥᾳδίως οὕτως αὑτὸν ἐξελέγχοντος ὄντ᾽ ἐπίορκον;

  [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] ἀλλὰ νὴ Δί᾽ ἴσως οὐχὶ πάντ᾽ αὐτῷ τοιαῦτα πέπρακται, οὐδὲ πανταχόθεν δῆλός ἐστι τεχνάζων. ἀλλὰ καὶ τιμώμενος φανερὸς γέγονεν ὑπὲρ Ἀφόβου ταλάντου, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ἀποδώσειν ἐγγυώμενος. καίτοι σκέψασθ᾽ ὅτι τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τεκμήριον οὐ μόνον τοῦ τὴν γυναῖκα συνοικεῖν Ἀφόβῳ καὶ τοῦτον οἰκείως ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ μὴ δεδωκέναι τὴν προῖκα.

  [10] But 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] τίς γὰρ ἀνθρώπων ἠλίθιός ἐστιν οὕτως ὥστ᾽ ἀργύριον μὲν δοὺς τοσοῦτον, ἔπειθ᾽ ἓν λαβὼν χωρίον ἀμφισβητούμενον εἰς ἀποτίμησιν, σὺν οἷς πρότερον ἐζημίωτο, τὸν ἀδικήσανθ᾽ ὡς δίκαιόν τι ποιήσοντα καὶ τοῦ τῆς δίκης ὀφλήματος προσεγγυήσασθα
ι; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐδέν᾽ οἶμαι. καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ λόγον τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἔχον ἐστίν, τὸν αὐτὸν αὑτῷ μὴ δυνάμενον κομίσασθαι τάλαντον, τοῦτον ἄλλῳ τινὶ φάσκειν ἀποτείσειν καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐγγυᾶσθαι. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τούτων ἐστὶ δῆλον ὅτι τὴν μὲν προῖκ᾽ οὐκ ἔδωκεν, ἀντὶ δὲ πολλῶν χρημάτων τῶν ἐμῶν οἰκεῖος ὢν Ἀφόβῳ ταῦτ᾽ ἀπετιμᾶτο, κληρονόμον τὴν ἀδελφὴν τῶν ἐμῶν μετ᾽ ἐκείνου καταστῆσαι βουλόμενος.

  [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.