Page images

time, and not thus artfully taken by surprise, I should have produced witnesses, to prove that the money was paid, and all accounts settled between my grandfather and the state; as it is, however, I can show by strong circumstantial evidence, that my grandfather was not indebted at the time of his decease, and that we incurred no risk in living openly on our property. In the first place, Demochares, whose wife is the sister of my mother and daughter of Gylon, has not concealed his property, but furnishes choristers, equips triremes, and performs other official services, without being in any alarm on that account. In the next place, my father himself disclosed his whole property, and more especially the four talents and a half, which the guardians, by their testi-, mony against each other, confess to have been mentioned in the will and to have been received by themselves. Further, Aphobus himself revealed to the state the amount of assets, when he and his colleagues made me chairman of a board of tax-payers, and caused me to be assessed at so high a valuation as a fifth of my capital. Surely, if there were any truth in his present charge, he would have been more cautious than to act so. It appears then, from the absence of all concealment on the part of Demochares and my father and of the guardians themselves, that they apprehended no such risk as he says.1

1 Eschines in the Oration against Ctesiphon (78) states of this Gylon, that be betrayed Nymphæum in the Tauric Chersonese to the enemy, that for this he was impeached, and, not daring to await his trial, fled from Athens, where sentence of death was passed on him. He then settled in the Tauric peninsula, and received an estate called the Gardens, as the reward of his treason, from the rulers of the country (meaning probably Satyrus, as to whom see Vol. iii. p. 13, note 3) he there married a woman of large property, a native of the Crimea (whom Eschines calls a Scythian, though perhaps she was of Greek origin); by her he had two daughters, whom many years afterwards he sent with good fortunes to settle at Athens, and one of them (whose name was Cleobula) married Demosthenes, father of the


Such is the statement of Eschines, which in its main facts may be taken as true, for they are not denied by Demosthenes. Only it is not improbable that the betrayal of Nymphæum may have been a more venial affair than Eschines represents it; having occurred at the close of the Peloponnesian war, when the place was no longer tenable by the Athenians, and, if not given up to Satyrus, would have fallen into the hands of the Spartans or of the Persian king.

It is most strange, saying as they do, that my father forbade them to let the property, they should never produce the will itself, which would have removed all doubt upon the subject, and, withholding so important a piece of evidence, they should expect you to believe them on their word. It was their duty, the moment after my father's death, to call in several witnesses and request them to seal the will, so that, in case of any dispute, the writing itself might have been referred to, and the whole truth ascertained. Instead of this, they thought proper to get certain other papers sealed, which were only memoranda and did not specify all the subjects of bequest; but the will itself, by virtue of which they became possessed of these same papers and all the rest of the effects, and were discharged from responsibility for not letting the estate, they neither sealed nor delivered up. Very likely you should believe anything they say about the matter!

I cannot indeed understand their account. My father (they say) did not allow them to grant a lease, or to disclose the assets-To me (do you mean) or to the state? It appears just the other way-you disclosed them to the state, and have made them invisible to me, not producing even the fund which was the basis of your return to the property tax. Tell me now, if you can, what was this fund? where did you deliver it to me, and in whose presence? Of the four talents and a half, you received the two talents and the eighty minas; so that they cannot be included in your

Of the debt here alluded to-whether it was connected or not with the political crime of Gylon; whether it was a fine for which the sentence of death was commuted; or in what other way it was incurredwe have no knowledge. It is next to certain however, that Gylon must have received a pardon from his countrymen (perhaps at the time of the general amnesty, after the expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants), and must also have discharged his debt to the state, before he ventured to send his daughters to reside at Athens. The arguments of Demosthenes are themselves of considerable weight, not to mention the silence of Eschines, who, though he would have been glad enough to reproach his rival with not being born a citizen, says not a word about this state debt, but only contends that he was by the mother's side a barbarian, and (as grandson of a person condemned for high treason) an hereditary enemy of Athens. It would have been impossible indeed for Demosthenes to have attained his political eminence, with such a liability hanging over him.

[blocks in formation]

return, for at that time they belonged to you. Again, the house and the fourteen slaves and the thirty minas, which you delivered to me, could not have been assessed at so high a rate as that which you agreed to. It is therefore beyond all dispute, that there was property to a much larger amount, which is all in your possession; and now that you are clearly convicted of embezzling it, you invent these impudent excuses. Sometimes you refer to one another; sometimes you testify to one another's receipts; and, while contending that you have received but little, you render accounts of large outlays. You all acted together in the trusts, but now each has his separate plot. The will, from which we might have learned the whole truth, you have conjured away; and the stories you tell of each other are never the same.

Take the depositions and read them one by one to the jury. They will thus bear the evidence in mind, and come to a more correct decision.

[The Depositions.]

Such was the assessment to which these men consented on my behalf, being the same proportion in which estates of fifteen talents are assessed; notwithstanding which, the whole property which the three together have made over to me amounts not to seventy minas. Read the next.

[The Depositions.]

This portion, which the defendant is proved to have received, by the testimony of his colleagues and other persons to whom he confessed it, he has never returned, nor paid the alimony. Take and read the others.

[The Depositions.]

Two years did he conduct the business of the factory, and he has paid Therippides for the hire of his slaves, but to me, though he received the profits of two years, amounting to thirty minas, he has paid neither principal nor interest. Now read another deposition.

[The Deposition.]

These slaves the defendant took to himself, as well as the other things which were pawned to us with them; yet, though he has debited me with so much expended on their

maintenance, he has not allowed me an atom of profit upon them; and the men themselves he has conjured away, who brought in twelve clear minas every year. Read another.

[The Deposition.]

After having sold all this ivory and iron, he says there was none left, and thus defrauds me of the value of these articles, about a talent. Read these.

[The Depositions.]

These three talents and ten minas the defendant has in his hands, besides the other monies; that is to say, there are five talents of principal which he has received, which, together with interest (reckoning at twelve per cent. only), makes him liable on the whole for ten talents. Read the next.

[The Depositions.]

That these effects were mentioned in the will, and were received by the guardians, is proved by their testimony against each other. The defendant, though he admits that he was sent for by my father and went into the house, declares that he never entered my father's chamber or consented to any of the arrangements, but only heard Demophon read a document, and Therippides say that the testator had made such dispositions; and this he declares, when (in fact) he was the first that went in, and promised my father to execute his will in every point. For my father, men of the jury, when he felt that his disease was mortal, called together these three men, and in the presence of Demon his brother, whom he had requested to attend, placed us his children in their hands, calling us a sacred deposit. He then gave my sister to Demophon, with a portion of two talents, the interest to be enjoyed by him immediately, and betrothed her to him in marriage; me, with my property, he left to the care of all the three, charging them to let the estate, and use their joint efforts to preserve it for me. At the same time he bequeathed to Therippides the seventy minas, gave my mother to the defendant with a portion of eighty minas, and placed me upon his knees. These trusts, the very conditions upon which he took possession of my property, this most wicked of men has utterly disregarded; and now, after


[ocr errors]

uniting with his colleagues to strip me of everything, he will solicit your compassion. I say everything, because what all three have returned to me does not amount to seventy minas; and even of this sum he has since laid a plot to deprive me. For, when I was just bringing on my cause against them, they procured an exchange of estates to be tendered me; by accepting which (they thought) I should lose my right of action, for it would be transferred to my assignee; or else I should serve the office with scanty means, and be totally ruined. Thrasylochus of Anagyrus was the person who performed this piece of service for them. I, without considering the consequences, accepted the exchange, but refused to give possession, hoping to obtain a legal decision; but failing in this, and time pressing, rather than abandon the suit, I mortgaged my house and property and paid the public demand, being anxious to bring this cause to a hearing before you.1

1 The difficulty of this passage arises chiefly from our imperfect knowledge of what took place upon a tender of the exchange under the Athenian law. It is certain, that upon a refusal to accept the state charge or its alternative, the exchange of properties, and probably upon an acceptance of the exchange, if there were any disagreement (which there was almost sure to be) as to the truth of the accounts rendered, or as to the properties which were to be transferred, the dissatisfied party might summon his opponent before the court, which in the case of the trierarchy was the court of the Generals. The court decided every dispute or question which arose. If the tender had been altogether refused, the jury considered whether it was a just tender, and, if they thought it was, the resisting party was compelled to choose between the two alternatives. The exchange being accepted, each of the parties was obliged to give to the other an inventory of his property, and, to prevent any concealment, power was given to each to enter and make search upon the house and land of his opponent, and to seal up every chamber, closet, barn, outhouse, or other place where his effects might be deposited. The court must have had authority to enforce its own orders, and to punish any act of oppression, violence, or fraud; though it is obvious that the whole scheme was fraught with inconvenience and opened a wide field for abuse.

What however we are more immediately concerned with is to inquire, how far, upon any dispute of this kind, the jury had power to look into the equities of the case between the parties, or into the general question of public advantage; or whether they were bound strictly by the balance sheets of assets exhibited on either side; and if so, whether only visible and realised property was to be taken into account, or whether debts, contracts, and uncertain contingencies were to be included. Thus, upon a question whether A or B ought to defray the

« EelmineJätka »