at all of it from the beginning. It appears then now, this was not an act done by Polyeuctus under my influence to favour me; it was the act rather of you yourselves. Bear these facts clearly in your minds, men of the jury, and, if he should attempt to give a false colour to the affair, oppose them to his calumnies. First however, that you may be perfectly convinced of the accuracy of my statements, hear the witnesses. Read.

[The Witnesses.]

You see, men of the jury, with respect to the thousand drachms—that Polyeuctus mortgaged the house to me bonâ fide, and for an existing debt to that amount, I have the testimony, not only of the other witnesses whose depositions are put in, but of the defendant himself and his wife, by their acquiescing at the time, and making no objection either to Polyeuctus, who survived so many days, or to Aristogenes when they first heard of the will. If the house however was honestly mortgaged, it is impossible that, having regard to the law, you can acquit Spudias as to this part of the case. Now look at the question of the twenty minas, which he does not bring into the account. Here again the defendant himself will be my strongest witness, not by words indeed, as when he is making out a case for his defence1-(words are a poor criterion of the truth)—but by an unmistakeable act. By doing what, men of the jury? Pray give your attention to this, so that, if he should dare to utter any

now,

I am not satisfied with any of the interpretations hitherto given of this obscure passage, and I offer my own with diffidence. The orator seems to have sacrificed clearness to brevity. The full expression of his meaning (as I take it) should have been—ὥσπερ νῦν μάρτυς ἔσται avr, and the meaning is as follows - Spudias has given evidence for me by his acts, not by his words merely. There is not much in words; a man may say one thing at one time, and another at another: As Spudias may formerly have made statements in my favour, so now he may make statements to support his own case, and probably will do so, for want of other witnesses. But acts are evidence which he cannot alter or get rid of.

Such is the best sense that I can make of it. it thus:

Pabst translates

"Hier nämlich wird er mir selbst wieder den vollgültigsten Zeugen abgeben, zwar nicht durch förmliche Aussage, indem er ja mein Gegner bei diesem Rechtstreit ist, ihr Richter, (was aber hiergegen nicht als Einwurf gelten kann,) sondern durch die offenkundige That."

calumnies about the mother of our wives or about the documents, your acquaintance with the facts may prevent your being deceived by his representations. These papers were left by the wife of Polyeuctus, as I said just now. The seals being acknowledged by the defendant's wife as well as by mine, we, being both present, opened them and took copies, then sealed them again and deposited them with Aristogenes. Now mark this, men of the jury-mark this, I entreat you. There was mention in the papers of the two minas, the price of the servant; and it was not only Polyeuctus who had claimed it on his death-bed. There was mention also of the eighteen hundred drachms. When he read that entry, if it had nothing to do with him and was untrue, why, I ask, did he not immediately complain? Why did he join in sealing up again papers which were false and of no value? Surely no one would do this, who did not assent to all the statements. But surely, men of the jury, it is monstrous, if these persons are allowed to dispute now what they have themselves assented to, and you are not influenced by this consideration, that it is the custom with all of us, when demands are made which are unjust and untrue, not to be silent, but to dispute them on the instant, and those who fail to do so, if they contest them afterwards, are thought to be rogues and shufflers. Spudias knows this as well as I do; nay, he must know it a great deal better, because he comes much more frequently to your tribunal; and yet he is not ashamed to make assertions inconsistent with all his acts. It often happens that you, on discovering a single piece of fraud, treat it as evidence against the whole case but the defendant is convicted by himself of falsehood in every point.

Please to take the depositions, showing that the seals of the papers were acknowledged at the time by this man's wife, and that they are now deposited sealed by Spudias.

[The Depositions.]

As these facts have been so fully established, there is no necessity, I should think, to add another word: for, when I am able to produce both laws and witnesses in support of all my statements, and also an admission in my favour made by my adversary himself, what further need can there be for a long speech? However, if Spudias complains about the

marriage portion, and says that he should be losing his fair share if I got the thousand drachms, he will tell you an untruth for, while he disputes my right to that money, he has received more, and not less, than I have, as you will see in a minute. Supposing him even to be correct in his assertions, surely, if the laws are good for anything, I ought not to lose the marriage portion which was promised me ; nor can it be just, if Polyeuctus chose to give a larger fortune to one daughter and a smaller to the other, that his purpose should now be thwarted: for it was in your own power, Spudias, not to marry his daughter, unless he gave the thousand drachms to you as well as me. However, you received as much as I did with your wife, as I will show.

Please first to take the deposition, showing the terms of the marriage contract.

[The Deposition.]

How has he received as much as I have, (it may be asked,) if in his case the valuation of the jewellery and apparel (taken at a thousand drachms) was included in the forty minas,1 while I get the ten minas as a distinct and additional payment? This I am now going to explain. Spudias, men of the jury, received his wife from Leocrates with the jewellery and apparel, which Polyeuctus valued to Leocrates at something more than a thousand drachms. What I have had sent to me by Polyeuctus independently of the marriage portion, if you will only set it down against the articles given to Spudias, you will find to be pretty nearly equal to them, independently of those valued at the thousand drachms.2 1 Pabst construes this sentence differently

"Wenn ihm das Goldgeschmeide zu vierzig Minen, und die Kleider zu tausend Drachmen angerechnet worden sind."

2 What the plaintiff means, as I understand it, is this:

"Spudias received with his wife thirty minas in money, and also jewellery and apparel which her former husband Leocrates had given to her, and for which Polyeuctus paid to Leocrates their estimated value, a little more than ten minas. In addition to this he received from his father in law certain marriage presents, (tà toútų dolévta,) equal in value to what I received independently of the dowry. The result is that, when I receive the ten minas, which were left unpaid, I shall have no more than Spudias, and indeed less, as the ornaments given up by Leocrates cost Polyeuctus somewhat more than the ten minas."

This is not expressed by the orator with his usual clearness, and VOL. IV.

It was but fair therefore that the valuation of these articles should be included in the forty minas, as he had paid Leocrates for them, and they exceeded what were given

to me.

Please to take this schedule first, and read to them what each of us has in his possession: after that, read the depositions of the arbitrators, that the jury may see, that Spudias has received property to a much more considerable amount, and that Leocrates made a complaint upon the subject, and the arbitrators decided it accordingly. Read.

[The Schedule. The Depositions.]

Is it not manifest, that the defendant has received forty minas for his wife's portion long ago, whilst I have received thirty minas, as he has, but, so far from having afterwards got the thousand drachms, I am now contesting the question whether I have not received them wrongfully? It was for this reason, men of the jury, that Spudias would not leave the settlement of our disputes to the decision of friends, because then the injustice of his case must have been detected; for, as they were present at all these transactions and knew everything about them, they would not have allowed him to assert what he pleased; whereas before you he imagines he can prevail over my truthful statements by falsehood. I have laid my whole case before you as clearly as I was able to do myself: the defendant dared not come before those acquainted with the facts, thinking that it would have been out of his power to give them a false account. Don't you

permit him any more than they would have done, to give utterance to lies and calumnies; but keep in mind what you have heard, men of the jury: for you know the whole history of the case, unless I have omitted something from being compelled to speak with a short allowance in the waterglass.

Wolf therefore not unnaturally suspects that there is some trick in the argument.

The schedule afterwards put in contained probably an enumeration of the articles of dress, &c. which each party's wife had received.

THE ORATION AGAINST PHÆNIPPUS.

THE ARGUMENT.

THIS was a proceeding arising out of that remarkable regulation of the Athenian law, called the Exchange of estates; whereby a person burthened with one of the public offices, as the trierarchy, or included in one of the higher classes of tax-payers, or in the select body of Three-hundred, was enabled to obtain relief, by requiring some richer person than himself either to take the public burden in his stead or to exchange properties with him. A summary of the law upon the subject has been given in the first Volume of this Translation, Appendices IV and V. The reader will find it more fully discussed in Böckh's Public Economy of Athens, and may compare what I have said upon one branch of the subject in the note to page 116 of this Volume.

The complainant in the present case, whose name does not appear, had for some time been included in the select body of Three-hundred, who were not only subject to the highest rate of assessment to the property-tax, but were called upon, in case of necessity, to pay the whole tax in advance. Having lost three talents by the forfeiture of a mine, and sustained other misfortunes in his business, it became necessary for him to seek the relief which the law afforded. Accordingly, at the court held by the Generals in the month of Metagitnion, he applied for relief, and named Phænippus as a person who ought to be substituted in his stead. Notice of the intended appeal had of course been given to Phænippus; and he attended at the court, and disputed his liability. To determine whether he was liable or not, (which question, if not amicably settled, must in due course be brought before a jury,) an account had to be taken of the estates of both parties, of what they respectively consisted, and their comparative values. Each was obliged to give to the other a schedule or inventory of all that he possessed; and each had a right to inspect and examine the lands, goods, and chattels of his opponent, so that no fraud, by way of removal or otherwise, might be practised in the interval before the final hearing of the case. The complainant availed himself of this right without delay, and proceeded to a farm which Phænippus possessed in the district of Cytherus. It was of considerable extent, being more than five miles in circumference. He went all round it with witnesses, and bade them take notice, that there were no tablets of mortgage put up on the land. At the mansion or farm-house he put his seals on the doors, got the necessary information about the farming stock; finding that there was a