« EelmineJätka »
ment at any part of his conduct, but takes it all quietly. Is it not palpable what this means? Is it not avowedly a plot to screen Aphobus ?1 You must think so, if you fairly consider the facts. I will prove every point-the defendant's confession that Aphobus farmed the land before I commenced the action against him—his refusal to inquire by the torture into the fact of his sister's cohabitation-and the removal, after judgment, of all the agricultural stock except what was fixed to the soil. Take and read these depositions.
[The Depositions. ] I have all these proofs that the divorce was not a real one. But the best proof of all is the conduct of Onetor himself. He who should have been highly indignant, when, after paying (as he says) the portion, he got back instead of money) a farm with a disputed title; this very man—as though he had no quarrel; as though he had sustained no injury; as though he were on the most friendly terms with Aphobuspleaded his cause in the action which I brought against him. Me, who had done him no wrong whatever, he used every effort, in conjunction with Aphobus, to deprive of my inheritance ; Aphobus, whom (if any part of their present story is true) he should have looked upon as a stranger, he sought to secure in the possession of my property as well as his own. Nor did he confine his services to the trial; but, after judgment had been given against Aphobus, he went up to the jury and supplicated them on his behalf, begging and praying them, with tears in his eyes, to assess the damages at a talent only; and for this he offered to be bail himself. These facts will hardly be disputed; the jury who then sat on the bench and
many of the bystanders remember them; however I will produce witnesses. Here, take this deposition.
[The Deposition.] There is another strong circumstance, men of the jury, from which you must see that Aphobus really lived with his wife, and even to this day has not separated from her. The lady, before her union with him, did not remain a day single,
TT portacía, according to the grammarians, signifies an attempt to screen or protect a wrong-doer. Reiske interprets it,"collusio Beeinträchtigung.” Auger—"collusion." Pabst-"offenbare Vertretung des Aphobus."
but left a living husband (Timocrates) to come to him; and now, in a period of three years, she does not appear to have married any other man. Who can believe, that on the former occasion she went straight from one man to another, to avoid living single, and that now, (if she is really divorced,) she would have endured to remain single for so long time, when it was in her power to get a new husband, her brother possessing so large a fortune, and she herself being so young ? There is nothing probable about it, men of the jury. It is mere fable. The lady is living with her husband openly, and makes no secret of it. I will produce the evidence of Pasiphon, who attended her in her illness, and saw Aphobus sitting by her side, in this very year, after the commencement of this action against the defendant. Take the deposition of Pasiphon.
[The Deposition.] Knowing, men of the jury, that Onetor, immediately after the termination of the suit, had received the effects out of the house of Aphobus, and got possession of all his property as well as mine ; and being assured that Aphobus and his wife were living together; I demanded three female slaves, who knew of the husband and wife living together, and of the effects being in these men's hands, that we might have not words only upon the subject, but proof by the torture. Onetor, on my challenging him to this, which all who were present declared was a fair proposal, dared not have recourse to so sure a test; but--as if there were some better kind of proof in such matters than torture and testimony- he would neither produce witnesses to show that he had paid the marriage gift, nor surrender the domestics, who knew whether his sister lived with her husband, to be questioned upon the fact; and, because I requested him to do so, he most con
I temptuously and insultingly desired me not to talk to him. Was ever man so unfeeling, or so determined to affect ignorance of what is right? Take the challenge itself and read it.
[The Challenge.] You, men of the jury, hold it as a maxim, both in public and private, that of all methods of inquiry the torture is the most certain ; and when slaves and freemen are both at hand,
and a fact has to be discovered, you do not use the testimony of the freemen, but question the slaves, and thus endeavour to ascertain the real truth. And very properly. For there have been witnesses ere now, who were thought not to have spoken the truth ; but no slave was ever convicted of giving false evidence upon examination by torture. Yet the defendant, after declining so fair an offer, after rejecting so sure and decisive a test, calling Aphobus and Timocrates, one to say he paid the portion, the other that he received it, will ask you to believe him, when he pretends that his business with these men was transacted without a witness. Such simpletons does he take
for. That their tale will be neither true nor like the truth—by their confessing not to have paid the portion at first-by their pretending to have paid it back without witnesses—by the dates, which make it impossible to have paid that money after the title to the property was in dispute by these and all the other circumstances of the case, I think I have clearly proved.
THE ORATION AGAINST ONETOR-IN
THE ARGUMENT. DEMOSTHENES gives additional proof of his opponent's fraud, and replies
to some parts of his defence.
ONE circumstance which I omitted in my former speech, and which is as strong as any that were urged, to prove the non-payment of the marriage portion by these men to Aphobus, I will lay before you ; and then I will proceed to expose the falsehoods which you have heard from the defendant. You must know, men of the jury, when he first thought of putting in a claim to the property of Aphobus, he said he had paid, not a talent, (which he now says was the amount of the portion,) but eighty minas; and he set up tablets,? on the house for twenty minas, on the land for a talent; wishing to preserve to Aphobus both the one and the other. Seeing however by the issue of the late trial, with what feelings an unscrupulous rogue is regarded by a jury, he begins to reflect, and thought how hard my case would appear, if, after being so grossly plundered, Aphobus having all my estate, I had nothing of his to levy upon, and could show that I was hindered from levying by Onetor. What is it he does ? He removes the tablets from the house, and says the portion is only a talent, and for that the land is mortgaged. Now it is evident that, if the tablets on the house were fairly set up and told a true story, those on the land were fair also. On the other hand, if the former were false and set up with a fraudulent intention, we may presume the latter were equally false. Upon this you should form your judgment, not from my statements, but from the defendant's own conduct. He took down the tablets of his own accord; no one compelled him; and thus by his own act he shows himself to be an impostor. I shall prove my words. Observe, he still maintains the land to be mortgaged for a talent; and that he claimed twenty minas also on the house by his tablets, and took them down again after the trial, I shall prove by witnesses who know the fact. Here, take the deposition.
1 My version of this clause is very similar to that of Pabst_“theils aus den Zeitverhältnissen, welche offenbar die Annahme nicht gestatten, dass er, nachdem schon über das Familiengut Streit erhoben worden, das Geld werde ausgezahlt haben.”
[The Deposition.] It is clear then, that having put up tablets on the house for twenty minas, and on the land for a talent, he intended to claim a charge upon them for eighty minas. have stronger proof of the falsity of all he says, than his varying in his own account of the same transaction ? To me it seems impossible to find a stronger proof.
Now mark his impudence. He dared to say in court, that he leaves me all the land is worth beyond a talent; when by his own valuation it is worth nothing more.
What did you mean, Onetor, by fixing your tablets to the house for the
? To denote that the property was mortgaged. Pabst calls them Verpfändungszeichen.” "Auger calls the putting up of the tablets saisir la maison," or “ faire saisie de la maison;" and to remove them “lever la saisie.” The French word is equivalent to our seizure or distraint; and is not very appropriate to this proceeding of Onetor. See Appendix IV, VOL. IV.
twenty extra minas (when eighty minas was your demand), if the land was really worth more? Why did you not charge the land with the twenty minas also ? or is this your plan ? when it pleases you to preserve the estate of Aphobus, the land shall be worth a talent only, and the house be mortgaged to you for two thousand drachms besides, and the portion shall be eighty minas, and you insist on having both house and land ; again, when that is not for your advantage, it shall be otherwise-the house shall be worth a talent, because I have it in my possession, and what remains of the farm shall be worth not less than two talents, that I may appear to be ill-using Aphobus, and not to be the injured party? Do you see that, while you pretend to have paid the portion, you are proved not to have paid it in any manner whatsoever? Proved, I say ; for conduct which is true and genuine is just as it was in the beginning: 1 yours is shown to have been the contrary; you have acted with design, to aid the plots of my enemies.
From this you may see, and it is worth considering, what sort of an oath he would have sworn, if tendered to him. For, wheu he said the portion was eighty minas, if one had offered to give him that sum, upon his swearing to the truth of his own statements, what would he have done? It is plain, he would have taken the oath. On what ground can be deny that he would have sworn it, when he makes such a claim now? Well then; he proves out of his own mouth, that he would have been perjured ; for now he tells you it was a talent, and not eighty minas, that he paid. What reason then have we to suppose, that he would be more forsworn in that case than in the present? And what opinion can one fairly entertain of a man, who convicts himself of perjury so easily?'
But perhaps all his conduct is not of a piece, not evident trickery from beginning to end. How can this be, when you
i Pabst—" Denn Diess ist einfach der wahre und unverfälschte Her gang der Sache, wie sie vom Anfang an geschehen ist."
The application of this maxim is, that Onetor's conduct was genuine, when he refused to pay his sister's portion to Aphobus; his subsequent conduct, with respect to the pretended mortgage, &c., was a fraud concerted with Aphobus.
? i.e. of being ready to commit perjury : as Pabst expresses it in his version—"der so leicht sich selbst überweiset, eines Meineides fähig zu seyn."
The point of this argument, such as it is, is derived from the Athenian